Has the recession ended in the U.S.? GDP estimate at +3.5%

[Jag_Warrior]

So, with estimated annual growth for this quarter at 3.5%, has the recession (technically) ended in the U.S.? What will the National Bureau of Economic Research say?

Has the corner been turned? What say you?



The U.S. economy grew more than expected in the third quarter, according to the government's initial report on gross domestic product.

The Commerce Department says GDP grew at an annual rate of 3.5 percent last quarter, the first positive quarterly growth in a year, and the largest quarterly advance since the third quarter of 2007.

GDP contracted by 0.7 percent in the second quarter.

Third quarter growth was led by double digit gains in durable goods and residential real estate, categories propped up by government stimulus programs like the first time home buyer credit and the cash for clunkers program. While that raises questions about the sustainability of growth as stimulus programs unwind, the Obama administration did not hesitate to take the credit.

"Today's numbers indicate that the tough decisions this administration made to rescue the economy from the abyss were correct," said Commerce Secretary Gary Locke in a statement. "We're headed in the right direction, and even though there are still too many Americans out of work and still much work to be done, without the action taken in the early days of this administration, the pain families are feeling today would be much worse."

The Labor Department reported Thursday that first time jobless claims totaled 530,000 last week, although the total number of Americans currently receiving unemployment benefits fell 148,000 to 5.8 million, the biggest one week decline since July.

The official declaration of the beginning and end of a recession has traditionally been given to the National Bureau of Economic Research, which has not raced to make any such declaration. Its Web site continues to mark the endpoint of the current recession with a question mark.

[anthonyvop]

Wait till inflation hits

[Rollo]

So, with estimated annual growth for this quarter at 3.5%, has the recession (technically) ended in the U.S.? What will the National Bureau of Economic Research say?

Has the corner been turned? What say you?

Has the recession ended (technically)? Well yes, obviously. Since a recession is by definition two quarters of negative growth, then any positive growth, even at 0.00001% would end the recession.

I don't think for a second that any corner has either been turned, nor has anyone learnt anything. The factors which caused it, which are namely fiduciary irresponsibility, coupled with a legal framework which means that mortgagees can simply walk away from a liability without penalty, still exist.

Wall St has pretty much carried on as normal. Why should it give a rat's bum about the rest of the economy, they can't actually see it.

[Valve Bounce]

Has the recession ended (technically)? Well yes, obviously. Since a recession is by definition two quarters of negative growth, then any positive growth, even at 0.00001% would end the recession.

I don't think for a second that any corner has either been turned, nor has anyone learnt anything. The factors which caused it, which are namely fiduciary irresponsibility, coupled with a legal framework which means that mortgagees can simply walk away from a liability without penalty, still exist.



...................and as a result of greatly increased unemployment.

[chuck34]

This increase is due to massive government spending specifically the "cash for clunkers". All of which will run out. So I'm thinking next quarter probably will pull back quite a bit, but possibly still be positive. I'm guessing that Q1 of 2010 will be down again.

So my question is, if we have 2 quarters of growth, Q3 and 4 of 2009, and then 2 quarters of decline, Q1 and 2 of 2010, will that technically be another recession, or just a continuation of this one?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If the UK economy was measured in the same way as they measure it in the USA then the UK would technically/probably be out of recession.

[Jag_Warrior]

We have to remember that this is an advance estimate. The final number will be released in November, and even it will be subject to revision. But if the number remains positive, the National Bureau of Economic Research will make the official call.

Here is part of the actual text from the Bureau of Economic Analysis release:

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: THIRD QUARTER 2009 (ADVANCE ESTIMATE)


Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the third quarter of 2009, (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP decreased 0.7 percent.

The Bureau emphasized that the third-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 5). The "second" estimate for the third quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on November 24, 2009.

The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, private inventory investment, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

The upturn in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected upturns in PCE, in private
inventory investment, in exports, and in residential fixed investment and a smaller decrease in nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by an upturn in imports, a downturn in state and local government spending, and a deceleration in federal government spending.

Motor vehicle output added 1.66 percentage points to the third-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.19 percentage point to the second-quarter change. Final sales of computers subtracted 0.11 percentage point from the third-quarter change in real GDP after subtracting 0.04 percentage point from the second-quarter change.
BEA Advance Estimate (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm)


This increase is due to massive government spending specifically the "cash for clunkers". All of which will run out. So I'm thinking next quarter probably will pull back quite a bit, but possibly still be positive. I'm guessing that Q1 of 2010 will be down again.

So my question is, if we have 2 quarters of growth, Q3 and 4 of 2009, and then 2 quarters of decline, Q1 and 2 of 2010, will that technically be another recession, or just a continuation of this one?

Yes, technically that would be another recession. In practical terms, most would see it as the "double dip" that's being spoken about by some. But in historical and economic terms, it would be a separate event - much like the dual recessions in '80 and '81.

[Jag_Warrior]

If the UK economy was measured in the same way as they measure it in the USA then the UK would technically/probably be out of recession.

How is economic activity measured in the UK?

[GridGirl]

To end a recession in the UK there needs to be three consequtive quarters of growth. We had two quarters with growth this year and there was speculation that we would be out of the recession but the last quarter announced about a month ago showed that the economy had contracted once again. Technically I suppose that means that we will not be out of the recession officially untill June 2010 at the earliest.

[Jag_Warrior]

Ah, I didn't realize that. So you can actually have economic growth but still be (technically) in a recession. Interesting.

[GridGirl]

If we do come out of the recession in June 2010 it will have been five positive quarters with growth out of six. I suppose it does go someway to preventing the double dip as previously mentioned.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Also , in the UK it is hard to spot the growth of new start-up businesses until we have seen their tax returns (Perhaps two years after GDP growth is published). This means that the GDP figure fails to count one area of the economy that is probably growing the fastest - new firms in new markets. In the past this has led frequently to initial under-reporting of economic growth in the UK.

In the US they guess this amount - and then tend to have to revise their estimates when real data is available, usually down.

In 2004 we thought UK growth was 2.2% compared with US growth of 3.2%. After later revision, UK growth turned out to be 2.7%, and US growth also 2.7%.

[Rollo]

So my question is, if we have 2 quarters of growth, Q3 and 4 of 2009, and then 2 quarters of decline, Q1 and 2 of 2010, will that technically be another recession, or just a continuation of this one?

It would be a new recession, starting Q1 2010.

[janvanvurpa]

It would be a new recession, starting Q1 2010.

Well that's progress!
It's NEW!
And new almost always means better!

We used to say that about the hospital i went to in Stockholm "Where they make old ulcer like new!"

Don't worry, be happy!

[harvick#1]

The recession will not end.

"Cash for Clunkers" showed a blip of spending, but no one is buying, Auto sales are in the tanks again, Obama seems to be only interested in getting jobs back for California instead of the 49 other states.

I'm almost giving up the job hunt and ready to join Army or Navy. all the government is telling us is lies like how they say they have created 650,000 jobs from the stimulus package? Where???? 3 million + (including me) were laid off after the bill was passed.

if the Government just gave the Stimulus money to the American Tax Payers to help boost the economy, I'm not postive but that could've givin' the outlook better than giving the money to the banks and all they did was put it in the vault and hid the money, then gave themselves bonus' and weekend getaways.

[Jag_Warrior]

Hey harvick#1, I didn't know that you'd been hit with a job loss. You're a sharp guy so keep your head up - things will definitely turn around for you. The recession will end... like they all end eventually. This has just been a long, painful downturn.

Stay as positive as you can. And best of luck.

[harvick#1]

thanks Jag :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Harvick...just keep trying, and take advantage of any retraining offered. You can always learn a new skill.

I think the US Economic recovery of sorts is a blip. All the money through the clunkers and road projects still isn't meaning much. In what I do, I am out in the economy so to speak, and any of my fellow drivers are still fighting for freight. If the economy was growing, we would see in the trucking industry since trends in the general economy are evident in trucking. Freight was slowing down in the summer before the bottom fell out. It hasn't picked up much and a lot of trucking companies have gone bust in the last year. Any pickup will show up with less units moving freight.

So no...the technical recession is over, but for guys like Harvick there, It aint over. Until the man on the street see's hope, this aint over.

Obama and his minions can spin this all they want, the reality is people looking for work yesterday will be still looking and not finding it tomorrow..

[Jag_Warrior]

I haven't listened to any of the politico shows this weekend. But what's this spin being spoken of? The last thing I heard was Tim Geithner saying that the economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research would make the call on the recession being over - which is correct. The closest thing to spin, or that which might be open to criticism, is the claim that X number of jobs have been created or saved. There is a data collection mechanism that's being used to determine that. As to how accurate it is, I agree that it is open to debate.

Especially for people that I know and like (whether here or in real life), I feel for them when they're facing a job loss or tough times. And it is true that the average person sees times as being good or bad based on their own situation. The old joke is, "When my neighbor loses his job, it's a recession. When I lose my job, it's a damn depression." But economic growth is measured by GDP, not the unemployment rate. It's that way now, under Obama. It was that way when Reagan was President. Unless we're going to start changing the definition of economic growth based on whether or not some like the President that holds office, it is what it is. And most realize that employment is a lagging, not a leading indicator. It would be bizarre to see employment rising in a time of true economic contraction (as we've seen this being the longest in generations). It would be unusual to see employment pick up prior to the start of another period of (at least slow) growth. But even with this additional sign that we are indeed turning the corner, there could still be another dip down, as there was in the 1980's. Why would companies hire additional workers (paying more in benefits, etc.), when they can increase productivity just by working the current workforce with additional hours?

Interesting how people (including myself at times) praise Reagan's Presidency, but many often forget (on purpose or by accident) how things were on the employment front for the first few years of his Presidency. Here's a breakdown that I found (*check for accuracy) of the monthly unemployment rates when Ronald Reagan was President.

1/1981 - unemployment rate 7.5% .... Reagan sworn in.[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
1/1981 - 7.4%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
3/1981 - 7.4%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
4/1981 - 7.2%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
5/1981 - 7.5%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
6/1981 - 7.5%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
7/1981 - 7.2%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
8/1981 - 7.4%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
9/1981 - 7.6%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
10/1981 - 7.9%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
11/1981 - 8.3%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
12/1981 - 8.5%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
1/1982 - 8.6%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
2/1982 - 8.9%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
3/1982 - 9.0%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
4/1982 - 9.3%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
5/1982 - 9.4%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
6/1982 - 9.6%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
7/1982 - 9.8%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
8/1982 - 9.8%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
9/1982 - 10.1%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
10/1982 - 10.4%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
11/1982 - 10.8%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
12/1982 - 10.8%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
1/1983 - 10.4%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
2/1983 - 10.4%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
3/1983 - 10.3%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
4/1983 - 10.3%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
5/1983 - 10.1%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
6/1983 - 10.1%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
7/1983 - 9.4%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
6/1983 - 9.5%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
7/1983 - 9.4%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
8/1983 - 9.5%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
9/1983 - 9.2%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
10/1983 - 8.8%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
11/1983 - 8.5%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
12/1983 - 8.3%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
1/1984 - 8.0%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]
2/1984 - 7.8%[/*:m:ye3tiwy4]

[Mark in Oshawa]

Interesting Jag....but while that was going on, what was inflation doing? I think that was the concern then, and the interest rates were sky high when Reagan took office.

As for the unemployment rate now, it isn't going down, so in the minds of many this aint over.

The growth will be more meaningful if it continues through the next year steady. The spin the admin is putting is jobs created. THAT is BS. Gov't only can create jobs directly if they are hiring. The economy growing creates the jobs and businesses hiring to expand and grow is what creates true job creation. That is the issue many I think quarrel with.

[chuck34]

I haven't listened to any of the politico shows this weekend. But what's this spin being spoken of? The last thing I heard was Tim Geithner saying that the economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research would make the call on the recession being over - which is correct. The closest thing to spin, or that which might be open to criticism, is the claim that X number of jobs have been created or saved. There is a data collection mechanism that's being used to determine that. As to how accurate it is, I agree that it is open to debate.

Especially for people that I know and like (whether here or in real life), I feel for them when they're facing a job loss or tough times. And it is true that the average person sees times as being good or bad based on their own situation. The old joke is, "when my neighbor loses his job, it's a recession. When I lose my job, it's a damn depression." But economic growth is measured by GDP, not the unemployment rate. It's that way now, under Obama. It was that way when Reagan was President. Unless we're going to start changing the definition of economic growth based on whether or not some like the President that holds office, it is what it is. And most realize that employment is a lagging, not a leading indicator. It would be bizarre to see employment rising in a time of economic contraction. It would be unusual to see employment pick up prior to the start of another growth period. But even with this additional sign that we are indeed turning the corner, there could still be another dip down, as there was in the 1980's.

Interesting how people (including myself at times) praise Reagan's Presidency, but many often forget (on purpose or by accident) how things were in the employment front for the first few years of his Presidency. Here's a breakdown that I found (*check for accuracy) of the monthly unemployment rates when Ronald Reagan was President.

1/1981 - unemployment rate 7.5% .... Reagan sworn in.[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
1/1981 - 7.4%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
3/1981 - 7.4%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
4/1981 - 7.2%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
5/1981 - 7.5%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
6/1981 - 7.5%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
7/1981 - 7.2%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
8/1981 - 7.4%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
9/1981 - 7.6%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
10/1981 - 7.9%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
11/1981 - 8.3%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
12/1981 - 8.5%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
1/1982 - 8.6%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
2/1982 - 8.9%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
3/1982 - 9.0%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
4/1982 - 9.3%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
5/1982 - 9.4%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
6/1982 - 9.6%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
7/1982 - 9.8%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
8/1982 - 9.8%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
9/1982 - 10.1%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
10/1982 - 10.4%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
11/1982 - 10.8%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
12/1982 - 10.8%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
1/1983 - 10.4%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
2/1983 - 10.4%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
3/1983 - 10.3%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
4/1983 - 10.3%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
5/1983 - 10.1%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
6/1983 - 10.1%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
7/1983 - 9.4%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
6/1983 - 9.5%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
7/1983 - 9.4%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
8/1983 - 9.5%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
9/1983 - 9.2%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
10/1983 - 8.8%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
11/1983 - 8.5%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
12/1983 - 8.3%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
1/1984 - 8.0%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]
2/1984 - 7.8%[/*:m:2uia9ptr]

Yes, but Reagan had a plan. And he knew it would be tough in the short term, but the short term pain would be followed by amazing long term gain. And I think history proved that out.

On the other hand, Obama promised that if the stimulus was passed that unemployment would not raise above 8%. And then after that I suppose it was all going to be roses? I never really have gotten a good explaination on his long term economic goals or projections. But as we all know, unemployment is WELL above 8%. So the logical question remains ... What now?

[Mark in Oshawa]

What now indeed. Some stimulus works, too much doesn't work, and improperly spent does no good. What we have seen so far in TARP is a lot of questions....

[Jag_Warrior]

Yes, but Reagan had a plan. And he knew it would be tough in the short term, but the short term pain would be followed by amazing long term gain. And I think history proved that out.

On the other hand, Obama promised that if the stimulus was passed that unemployment would not raise above 8%. And then after that I suppose it was all going to be roses? I never really have gotten a good explaination on his long term economic goals or projections. But as we all know, unemployment is WELL above 8%. So the logical question remains ... What now?

So if I understand you, Chuck, you're prepared to declare Obama's economic fiscal policies (basic Keynesian economics = deficit spending during times of recession) a failure after 9 months, but you would have been prepared to give Reagan pretty much his entire first 4 year term? Interesting. So I guess Obama could use that exact same logic and just tell people to wait 20 years and judge his policies then? ;)

And I keep hearing about this "promise" of 8% unemployment that Obama supposedly made. I didn't hear the speech myself, so I decided to look it up. Here's the blurb I found on my first search:


In the weeks just before President Obama took office, his economic advisers made a mistake. They got a little carried away with hope.
To make the case for a big stimulus package, they released their economic forecast for the next few years. Without the stimulus, they saw the unemployment rate -- then 7.2 percent -- rising above 8 percent in 2009 and peaking at 9 percent next year. With the stimulus, the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late this year.

I love information, so if something more was said on the topic by Obama or his advisors, I'd like to read some quotes by them. I figure the (actual) truth is good for all of us, myself included.

But just going on the above, unless you want to argue that doing nothing would have been the proper course of fiscal action, it seems to me that Obama and his advisors actually were wrong: they underestimated the weakness of the economy from the get go - with OR without the stimulus. That is, unless, like I said, you want to argue that doing nothing would have kept the unemplyment rate below 9%? And as I well recall, you debated with me several months ago that this recession wasn't even as bad as the one(s) in the 80's. If you don't remember that conversation we had, I can go back and find it. But I believe you referenced the 1980's, and took issue with some comment that I made about the length, depth and breath of this recession. So out of this deal, it looks like both you and the Obama camp had it wrong... and I had it right. :devil: :D

Chuck, my preference is actually for Supply Side economics vs (pure) Keynesian demand side theory. That's what I was schooled in for the most part when I took Macro Economics - and I still believe in its benefits. It's just a pity that the modern GOP has no one, within its upper ranks, who understands the concept well enough that they can properly convey those benefits. The modern day Democrats don't believe in it. And the Republicans don't understand it. So there we are: screwed! I miss Jack Kemp - I really do. But these days, the Club for Growthers, the Deathers, the Birthers, the Bible Thumpers and the Tea Baggers would probably call Kemp a lib or a RINO and chase him out of the (once) big tent of the GOP. Michelle Bachmann would probably demand that he be investigated for unRepublican activity or something.

IMO, when well applied, Supply Side economics does work. One of the reasons that it (eventually) worked during Reagan's time is because it partially relies on being able to cut marginal tax rates by some meaningful amount. Marginal rates were quite high back in the late 70's/early 80's (above 70%, as I recall), and Reagan had lots of room to maneuver. But we're now at a point that drastic cuts in the marginal tax rates are not possible - as Arthur Laffer, himself, has admitted on more than one occasion. Laffer has said that W. Bush's minor cut contributed to the deficit without being enough of a cut to spark economic growth on its own. W. Bush primarily used standard Keynesian fiscal policy. But remember, a side effect of Reagan's fiscal policies was soaring deficits. It was under Reagan that the U.S. went from being a net creditor nation (the largest in the world) to a net debtor nation (the largest in the world). As opposed to what some believe, Reagan was not a pure Supply Sider. And he certainly did not "invent" Supply Side economics. He was actually a late student to that class, as it was already being put forth by the time he was elected (another fact conveniently forgotten by many). But in addition to Reagan, more than a few Democrats in Congress at that time had ALREADY embraced (Lloyd Bentsen and Russell Long to name two prominent ones) certain tenants of S.S. economics. And within Reagan's policies, there were also elements of Keynesianism. Remember, Reagan increased the Defense budget to 43% over the total expenditure during the height of the Vietnam war. Defense spending is just another form of stimulus, needed or not. It is just a fact that Reagan never cut spending enough to pay for his tax cuts and the economy didn't grow fast enough to be able to pay for them either. And while there eventually was strong economic growth, it, like demand side policy, also relied on deficit spending.

[Jag_Warrior]

What we have seen so far in TARP is a lot of questions....

TARP? Why do you wanna pick on George W. Bush and Hank Paulson??? :D

[Jag_Warrior]

Interesting Jag....but while that was going on, what was inflation doing? I think that was the concern then, and the interest rates were sky high when Reagan took office.

Interest rates are more tied to monetary policy. And neither Reagan nor Obama could do much about that. The man who broke the back of inflation by jacking up interest rates was Paul Volker. Ronald Reagan didn't attend the first Fed meeting on setting the Discount Rate, nor should/could he have.



As for the unemployment rate now, it isn't going down, so in the minds of many this aint over.

I agree with you. And without more positive GDP numbers, I wouldn't expect to see unemployment fall. In this case, the chicken does come before the egg.




The growth will be more meaningful if it continues through the next year steady. The spin the admin is putting is jobs created. THAT is BS. Gov't only can create jobs directly if they are hiring. The economy growing creates the jobs and businesses hiring to expand and grow is what creates true job creation. That is the issue many I think quarrel with.

I very much agree with your first sentence. As for the job creation measurement, related to the stimulus (jobs created, jobs not lost, etc.), again, I haven't seen the mechanics of that data collection system. So I don't know how accurate it is. But from what I've read, people will be arguing about it for years to come. I do think a lot of the stimulus was misapplied and went to pork. The program that actually seemed to have an immediate shock effect on the economy was "cash for clunkers". Stimulus is just that, a stimulant. When they zap your heart after a heart attack, the paddles are not meant to keep your heart beating forever - just to get it restarted. As for how this stimulus will work going forward, whether one agrees or disagrees, one cannot judge fiscal policy based on 9 months of data. There is a lag effect with ALL fiscal programs, whether they be Keynesian or Supply Side.

Remember guys, a lot of how things go depends on consumer and investor confidence. Rational (or irrational) expectations and all that kinda stuff. Let's say unemployment was 10%. In theory, the remaining 90% have jobs - that's a LOT of people still working! But if that remaining 90% is worried as hell, they don't and won't spend money as freely - so things spiral down that much more. One (tiny) point that McCain's chief economic advisor, Phil Gramm, (half) made that I agree with: things are quite often only as bad as you think they are. Unfortunately for Phil, he had his head up his a$$ and we had been in a recession for months, prior to him calling the American people whiners. Good ol' Enron Phil. Gotta luv him! :dozey:

[chuck34]

So if I understand you, Chuck, you're prepared to declare Obama's economic fiscal policies (basic Keynesian economics = deficit spending during times of recession) a failure after 9 months, but you would have been prepared to give Reagan pretty much his entire first 4 year term? Interesting. So I guess Obama could use that exact same logic and just tell people to wait 20 years and judge his policies then? ;)

That's not what I said at all. I said Reagan had a plan that took into account the short term pain, but planned on long term recovery. So far I don't know what Obama's plan is beyond this stimulus. Apparently they are talking about another stimulus now? Sounds like a sound plan, especially in light of what Christina Romer said.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/steve_foley/2009/10/22/christina_romer_stimulus_has_run_it_s_course
"The US unemployment rate is likely to remain ‘severely elevated’ for some time even as the economy recovers from recession, a top White House economic aide said Thursday.”

I am not ready to call this plan a complete failure yet, everything takes time. But it isn't looking good. And when was the last time a pure Keynesian approach worked?


And I keep hearing about this "promise" of 8% unemployment that Obama supposedly made. I didn't hear the speech myself, so I decided to look it up. Here's the blurb I found on my first search:

Take a look at this, it wasn't a speach, it was in his report "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/eric-cantor/Cantor-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/
"Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009."



But just going on the above, unless you want to argue that doing nothing would have been the proper course of fiscal action, it seems to me that Obama and his advisors actually were wrong: they underestimated the weakness of the economy from the get go - with OR without the stimulus. That is, unless, like I said, you want to argue that doing nothing would have kept the unemplyment rate below 9%? And as I well recall, you debated with me several months ago that this recession wasn't even as bad as the one(s) in the 80's. If you don't remember that conversation we had, I can go back and find it. But I believe you referenced the 1980's, and took issue with some comment that I made about the length, depth and breath of this recession. So out of this deal, it looks like both you and the Obama camp had it wrong... and I had it right. :devil: :D

I never said that I would do nothing if faced with this issue. I may have said that nothing would be better than this. But if I was King for the day, I would have cut taxes. Putting money back in people's hands is always stimulitive (and don't give me this crap about how Obama "cut" taxes. What have you done with that extra $13?)


Chuck, my preference is actually for Supply Side economics vs (pure) Keynesian demand side theory. That's what I was schooled in for the most part when I took Macro Economics - and I still believe in its benefits. It's just a pity that the modern GOP has no one, within its upper ranks, who understands the concept well enough that they can properly convey those benefits. The modern day Democrats don't believe in it. And the Republicans don't understand it. So there we are: screwed! I miss Jack Kemp - I really do. But these days, the Club for Growthers, the Deathers, the Birthers, the Bible Thumpers and the Tea Baggers would probably call Kemp a lib or a RINO and chase him out of the (once) big tent of the GOP. Michelle Bachmann would probably demand that he be investigated for unRepublican activity or something.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said there. Pretty much the position I am taking. Not sure why you're arguing with me?


IMO, when well applied, Supply Side economics does work. One of the reasons that it (eventually) worked during Reagan's time is because it partially relies on being able to cut marginal tax rates by some meaningful amount. Marginal rates were quite high back in the late 70's/early 80's (above 70%, as I recall), and Reagan had lots of room to maneuver. But we're now at a point that drastic cuts in the marginal tax rates are not possible - as Arthur Laffer, himself, has admitted on more than one occasion. Laffer has said that W. Bush's minor cut contributed to the deficit without being enough of a cut to spark economic growth on its own. W. Bush primarily used standard Keynesian fiscal policy. But remember, a side effect of Reagan's fiscal policies was soaring deficits. It was under Reagan that the U.S. went from being a net creditor nation (the largest in the world) to a net debtor nation (the largest in the world). As opposed to what some believe, Reagan was not a pure Supply Sider. And he certainly did not "invent" Supply Side economics. He was actually a late student to that class, as it was already being put forth by the time he was elected (another fact conveniently forgotten by many). But in addition to Reagan, more than a few Democrats in Congress at that time had ALREADY embraced (Lloyd Bentsen and Russell Long to name two prominent ones) certain tenants of S.S. economics. And within Reagan's policies, there were also elements of Keynesianism. Remember, Reagan increased the Defense budget to 43% over the total expenditure during the height of the Vietnam war. Defense spending is just another form of stimulus, needed or not. It is just a fact that Reagan never cut spending enough to pay for his tax cuts and the economy didn't grow fast enough to be able to pay for them either. And while there eventually was strong economic growth, it, like demand side policy, also relied on deficit spending.

It is true that when Reagan cut taxes, deficits soared. But that was because he and the Democraticly heald Congress didn't follow through and cut spending. For good reason though, Reagan knew the way to bring down the "Evil Empire" was to out spend them.

As for W's tax cuts, it did bring more revenue into the government. Doesn't that sort of prove out Mr. Laffer's curve? I used to have a link to that, can't find it right now, need to go, I'll put it up later.

[Mark in Oshawa]

TARP? Why do you wanna pick on George W. Bush and Hank Paulson??? :D

TARP was done by Dubya, but Obama was all for it, and was talking to Bush after the election when they were talking TARP part 2. All the bailouts are right out of the DNC play book. Keyenesian economics and spending money by government directly in bailing out or semi-nationalizing the banking system isn't anything Obama would object to. What we are arguing is whether that is good or bad.

I cant say...other than what I read and hear. I wont pretend to be an economics wizard, but I can tell you this much: THe king Keynes in my country was Pierre Trudeau, and he created the modern Canadian Debt and deficit issues to the point that in the 80's one out of every 5 dollars was just being swallowed on servicing the debt and he was well on his way to making it worse when we finally got him out of office. He damn near bankrupted the country. Keynesian economics just hasn't worked, and what we are seeing now is Keynes.

[Jag_Warrior]

That's not what I said at all. I said Reagan had a plan that took into account the short term pain, but planned on long term recovery.

Well, it's just a given that tax cuts reduce government tax receipts in the short term. It was an *assumption* that the tax cuts would lead to higher growth in the longer term. And they did (IMO). But the debt and deficits weren't dealt with until the Clinton Administration (oddly enough).



I am not ready to call this plan a complete failure yet, everything takes time. But it isn't looking good.

Yes, but my point is, from where we sit now, you would have been forced to say the same thing about Reagan's fiscal plans. Over the course of 3-4 years, you would have seen rising unemployment and TWO recessions.


And when was the last time a pure Keynesian approach worked?

I'm not sure what you mean by a pure Keynesian approach, since Keynesianism can also employ tax cuts as a fiscal tool. But the last time? Bill Cinton. And the funny thing is, I couldn't stand the guy. But he was a pretty fiscally responsible President (esp. compared to Bush). He actully ran surpluses as opposed to relying on deficits.



Take a look at this, it wasn't a speach, it was in his report "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/eric-cantor/Cantor-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/
"Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009."

Yeah. Pretty much what I posted above, right?



I never said that I would do nothing if faced with this issue. I may have said that nothing would be better than this. But if I was King for the day, I would have cut taxes. Putting money back in people's hands is always stimulitive (and don't give me this crap about how Obama "cut" taxes. What have you done with that extra $13?)

And how much money did Bush's last tax cuts put back in peoples' hands AT THE MEDIAN? I'm not talking about the average, which would be skewed by people making more than $1 million/year. I mean what was the median amount? What was the last one, about the same in monthly terms as what Obama has given out, I believe?




I pretty much agree with everything you've said there. Pretty much the position I am taking. Not sure why you're arguing with me?

I don't see us as arguing. Just discussing. Some points we may agree on, others not. It's all good.




It is true that when Reagan cut taxes, deficits soared. But that was because he and the Democraticly heald Congress didn't follow through and cut spending.

But see, that's part of fiscal policy too. You can't just do it half way.



For good reason though, Reagan knew the way to bring down the "Evil Empire" was to out spend them.

I don't know that Reagan actually *knew* that. He might have hoped or even believed. But I've seen no evidence that he knew what amount of additional U.S. military spending would cause the Soviets to react in such a way that their economy would go off a cliff. We'd been going toe-to-toe with the Soviets since the end of WWII.



As for W's tax cuts, it did bring more revenue into the government. Doesn't that sort of prove out Mr. Laffer's curve? I used to have a link to that, can't find it right now, need to go, I'll put it up later.

I passed the class, so I guess I found some way to make the Laffer curve work in that model I had to build. :D But as I said, Supply Side theory works (just as any theory works) and can more easily be proven to work when the policy shift has some room to maneuver. If you shift marginal rate from 39% to 36%, is that enough to see anything more than a decrease in tax receipts? I don't know. Arthur Laffer has said it's not. And then he's also said that *in theory*, it is. When the move is miniscule, it depends on who you ask and what day you ask them. But IMO, Supply Side economics does work, but only when properly applied, by people who know how to employ it, and don't b#stardize it for political reasons. And that's the problem we have right now. I question whether or not there are still enough people around in either party who know how to change the plugs and put the oil in. That applies to both parties, as there were Democrats who believed in S.S. econ too. John McCain was a good example. He admitted that he didn't understand Economics. But he had been taught(?) by Phil Gramm to just say the phrase "tax cuts" a lot, and that made him a Supply Sider. It's a lot more complicated than that. Almost as funny as Sarah Palin calling someone a "socialist", when she was heading one of the most pure socialist/wealth distribution schemes in America today. Maybe Romney understands S.S.? More likely it's people like Ron Paul though. But here again, the Club for Growthers don't like Ron. And because he's libertaran on drug policies, the Bible Thumpers don't like him either. So count him out.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jag only two points. The deficit's of Reagan were due to a Democrat Congress not cutting and increased military spending. However, since the economy started to really grow, the increases in revenue covered a lot of the damage.

Secondly, Clinton's balanced budgets didn't occur until Newt and his merry band took control of the House in 94. It was the reverse situation of Reagan's situation. The moral of the story is the US is better served with a conservative president and a democratic house or a democratic president and a conservative house. The two forces fight each other, and the Senate usually finds the middle ground....

[Jag_Warrior]

TARP was done by Dubya, but Obama was all for it, and was talking to Bush after the election when they were talking TARP part 2. All the bailouts are right out of the DNC play book. Keyenesian economics and spending money by government directly in bailing out or semi-nationalizing the banking system isn't anything Obama would object to. What we are arguing is whether that is good or bad.

Neither of us is old enough to remember the banking crisis in the 1930's and the Great Depression. And while I believe it's better for failing companies to just go ahead and fail, just the sliver of what we saw late last year tells me that government intervention of some type was absolutely necessary. Was it well applied? No, I would say not. Was it perfectly formed? No, I would say not. Do I have all the answers as to what they should or shouldn't have done? Nope. But since there was no regulatory mechanism in place to effectively deal with that potential melt down (remember, fewer regulations are better :) ), I'm willing to give Bush/Paulson, and Obama as well, a bit of slack on this one issue. Sure, we could have let Citi, Bank of America and every major money center bank and brokerage fail. And right now, I wouldn't have time to talk to you, because I'd be out shooting a deer so I'd have some dinner.

What many seem to be forgetting is that once Lehman went down, the fire accelerated. It's not like they could take months to develop a plan of action. And because we're the biggest, a complete melt down would have meant a complete global melt down. So, yes, I think it could have been done better and maybe some companies (Chrysler especially) should have been allowed to die. But yes, the initial TARP was developed by the Bush team and totally executed by Hank Paulson. Obama's approval wasn't necessary (whether he loved it or hated it is immaterial). And going back to my OP in this thread, I believe that we are heading back in a more positive direction - the negative trend line is being broken. All puppies and ice cream going forward? I don't know - probably not. I see many issues ahead... and that's always been the case. But better a +3.5% than a -3.5%. Cause as long as GDP (remembering what GDP actually is here) is negative or slumping, employment would NOT pick up. Why would it?



I cant say...other than what I read and hear. I wont pretend to be an economics wizard, but I can tell you this much: THe king Keynes in my country was Pierre Trudeau, and he created the modern Canadian Debt and deficit issues to the point that in the 80's one out of every 5 dollars was just being swallowed on servicing the debt and he was well on his way to making it worse when we finally got him out of office. He damn near bankrupted the country. Keynesian economics just hasn't worked, and what we are seeing now is Keynes.

Since the U.S. has operated under basic Keynesian policy for 70+ years, and we're still the biggest economy in the world, I think it would be a tough argument to make that Keynesianism is a failed economic philosophy. I would argue that ANY economic philosophy which is misapplied, or under which politicians half apply the theory and just continue to borrow & spend, borrow & spend, etc. is going to eventually fail. It's really no different than a person getting more credit cards to finance a lofty lifestyle. But anyway, no major country uses a pure economic philosophy these days. Not even China. And as I stated in another thread, people think that tax cuts are exclusive to Supply Side economics. Quite untrue. Tax policy is just another tool in the fiscal tool box of ALL economic philosophies. John F. Kennedy cut taxes in the early 60's to spur growth. His advisors were Keynesians, as were Eisenhower's and later, Nixon's.

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag only two points. The deficit's of Reagan were due to a Democrat Congress not cutting and increased military spending. However, since the economy started to really grow, the increases in revenue covered a lot of the damage.

The President proposes a budget. How many of Reagan's proposed budgets were balanced? He called for a balanced budget amendment. But, uh... ;)



Secondly, Clinton's balanced budgets didn't occur until Newt and his merry band took control of the House in 94. It was the reverse situation of Reagan's situation. The moral of the story is the US is better served with a conservative president and a democratic house or a democratic president and a conservative house. The two forces fight each other, and the Senate usually finds the middle ground....

To his credit, I believe that Clinton actually did propose balanced budgets. Whether the Congress passes them (just as in Reagan's situation) is a different matter. And yeah, I think the division of power does help - it keeps them honest. One thing that was true under Reagan and also Clinton, the two parties were not eaten up by the venom that they are now. Reagan and Tip O'Neill actually worked together. From what I know, they actually liked each other. Two Irishmen, as it were.

In those days, the politicans seemed more reasonable. Now you've got people running around screaming and shouting like 2 year olds, calling each other names, claiming that they're going to imitate the Taliban and other such foolishness. I figure at some point in 2010, there'll be a fist fight in Congress. When Newt begins to look like a moderate, ya know there's a problem.

I don't know how this will end up. But I haven't seen anything out of the GOP lately that gives me any hope whatsoever that they have a (logical, rational) plan. That's why I believe the only hope is for a third party, primarily made up of social libertarians and fiscally responsible people, that is not under the thumb of fundamentalists and idealogues from either extreme.

[chuck34]

Well, it's just a given that tax cuts reduce government tax receipts in the short term. It was an *assumption* that the tax cuts would lead to higher growth in the longer term. And they did (IMO). But the debt and deficits weren't dealt with until the Clinton Administration (oddly enough).

My point is that Reagan had a plan, even if it was just and assumption of what should happen. What is Obama's plan? The underlying economic model? I think it's probably something Keynsean like, but I'm not sure that fits. He ramped up gov. spending in short order with the hopes of that driving demand. But that demand seems to be lacking. Although this last quarter could be the start of that changing, I doubt it, but I don't really know either.


Yes, but my point is, from where we sit now, you would have been forced to say the same thing about Reagan's fiscal plans. Over the course of 3-4 years, you would have seen rising unemployment and TWO recessions.

Perhaps, but again I see a clearer plan with Reagan than Obama.


I'm not sure what you mean by a pure Keynesian approach, since Keynesianism can also employ tax cuts as a fiscal tool. But the last time? Bill Cinton. And the funny thing is, I couldn't stand the guy. But he was a pretty fiscally responsible President (esp. compared to Bush). He actully ran surpluses as opposed to relying on deficits.

How did Clinton use Keynsianism? I don't remember him using gov. spending to drive the economy. Maybe I'm missing something.


Yeah. Pretty much what I posted above, right?

If so I missed what you were saying before.


And how much money did Bush's last tax cuts put back in peoples' hands AT THE MEDIAN? I'm not talking about the average, which would be skewed by people making more than $1 million/year. I mean what was the median amount? What was the last one, about the same in monthly terms as what Obama has given out, I believe?

I honestly don't know the answer to this question.

This is what I was talking about before.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
The top earners keep paying more taxes as a percentage, and the lower earners are paying less and less as a percentage of the total tax burdon.


I don't see us as arguing. Just discussing. Some points we may agree on, others not. It's all good.

Yep, all good. Just seemed like you were disagreeing with me when we were in agreement.


But see, that's part of fiscal policy too. You can't just do it half way.

Yes, but Reagan's decisions weren't totally fiscally driven. The world is a complicated place.


I don't know that Reagan actually *knew* that. He might have hoped or even believed. But I've seen no evidence that he knew what amount of additional U.S. military spending would cause the Soviets to react in such a way that their economy would go off a cliff. We'd been going toe-to-toe with the Soviets since the end of WWII.

There were quite a few CIA estimates that said the Soviets were on very weak economic footing. And there were many people that had lobbied for an economic strategy to bring down the Soviets. Most things that I have read on the subject say that outspending the Soviets on military matters was a very well thought out strategy. Do you really think anyone thought, in the early 80's, that we could pull off "Star Wars"?


I passed the class, so I guess I found some way to make the Laffer curve work in that model I had to build. :D But as I said, Supply Side theory works (just as any theory works) and can more easily be proven to work when the policy shift has some room to maneuver. If you shift marginal rate from 39% to 36%, is that enough to see anything more than a decrease in tax receipts? I don't know. Arthur Laffer has said it's not. And then he's also said that *in theory*, it is. When the move is miniscule, it depends on who you ask and what day you ask them. But IMO, Supply Side economics does work, but only when properly applied, by people who know how to employ it, and don't b#stardize it for political reasons. And that's the problem we have right now. I question whether or not there are still enough people around in either party who know how to change the plugs and put the oil in. That applies to both parties, as there were Democrats who believed in S.S. econ too. John McCain was a good example. He admitted that he didn't understand Economics. But he had been taught(?) by Phil Gramm to just say the phrase "tax cuts" a lot, and that made him a Supply Sider. It's a lot more complicated than that. Almost as funny as Sarah Palin calling someone a "socialist", when she was heading one of the most pure socialist/wealth distribution schemes in America today. Maybe Romney understands S.S.? More likely it's people like Ron Paul though. But here again, the Club for Growthers don't like Ron. And because he's libertaran on drug policies, the Bible Thumpers don't like him either. So count him out.

Again, I agree with a lot of what you said here. A word on Laffer ... Could it be that we are either at, or close to, the peak, so that any further reduction in taxes will not have as great a bennifit?

[Jag_Warrior]

My point is that Reagan had a plan, even if it was just and assumption of what should happen. What is Obama's plan? The underlying economic model? I think it's probably something Keynsean like, but I'm not sure that fits. He ramped up gov. spending in short order with the hopes of that driving demand. But that demand seems to be lacking. Although this last quarter could be the start of that changing, I doubt it, but I don't really know either.

We'll see how sustained this period of growth is. But +3.5% GDP is what it is. It is and will be Keynesian. Just as every administration since the 1930's, besides Reagan and Bush I (though much less so), has employed large portions of standard Keynesian theory.



Perhaps, but again I see a clearer plan with Reagan than Obama.

I understand, but as they say, hindsight is always 20/20.




How did Clinton use Keynsianism? I don't remember him using gov. spending to drive the economy. Maybe I'm missing something.

If Clinton wasn't employing mostly Keynesian principles, what economic theory was he operating under? Clinton enjoyed a long period of growth. With growth and surpluses, what need would there have been for increased government spending in the private sector? Keynesianism doesn't work that way. Did Bill Clinton use tax policy to increase government revenues? Yes, he raised taxes at the margin... yet the economy kept growing, and produced a surplus to boot. But Clinton's economic team and his outside advisors were a virtual Who's Who of Keynesians: Robert Reich, Lester Thurow, John Kenneth Galbraith, Robert Solow, James Tobin, Alan Blinder, Alice Rivlin and Roger Altman... just to name a few.



I honestly don't know the answer to this question.

This is what I was talking about before.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
The top earners keep paying more taxes as a percentage, and the lower earners are paying less and less as a percentage of the total tax burdon.

While there have been changes to tax policy over time, which have influenced the share from various categories, it's also a fact that the Top 1%'s share of adjusted gross income has greatly increased since 1987. For instance, in 1987, the Top 1%'s share of AGI was 12.32% and the Bottom 50%'s share was 15.63%. In 2007, the Top 1%'s share of AGI was 22.83% and the Bottom 50%'s share was 12.26%. Quite a flip-flop, eh?

On the percentage share of income taxes paid, in 1987 the Top 1% paid 24.81% of total taxes and the Bottom 50% paid 6.07%. In 2007, the Top 1% paid 40.42% and the Bottom 50% paid 2.89% of the total.

Lining the AGI share figures up with the percentage share of taxes paid, the Top 1% ($410,096 minimum) saw an 85.31% increase in its share of AGI and a 62.92% increase in its share of taxes paid. The bottom 50% ($32,878 maximum) saw a 21.56% decrease in its share of AGI and a 52.39% decrease in its share of taxes paid.

So for the very top, its share of AGI increased more than its share of taxes paid. And the Bottom 50% saw its share of AGI decrease, but its share of taxes paid did decrease more.

What's fair? All of that^^^ to say, I dunno. But I'm not crying in my beer for the taxes that Oprah and Donald Trump will be paying this or any year. Somehow, I think they'll struggle on.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html




There were quite a few CIA estimates that said the Soviets were on very weak economic footing. And there were many people that had lobbied for an economic strategy to bring down the Soviets. Most things that I have read on the subject say that outspending the Soviets on military matters was a very well thought out strategy. Do you really think anyone thought, in the early 80's, that we could pull off "Star Wars"?

Yeah, but now we have to beg & scrape to the Chinese Commies in hopes that they'll lend us a billion or a hundred. And no, I don't think Obama's policies are going to help us in that area - or the Republican's either. I'd say we are pretty well screwed. I might take Mandarin Chinese next year. Might as well get ahead of the curve.



Again, I agree with a lot of what you said here. A word on Laffer ... Could it be that we are either at, or close to, the peak, so that any further reduction in taxes will not have as great a bennifit?

I doubt there's much more room on the tax reduction side of things. A % here or there I don't think is going to make much of a difference. But smaller is better, when it comes to taxes.

[chuck34]

If Clinton wasn't employing mostly Keynesian principles, what economic theory was he operating under? Clinton enjoyed a long period of growth. With growth and surpluses, what need would there have been for increased government spending in the private sector? Keynesianism doesn't work that way. Did Bill Clinton use tax policy to increase government revenues? Yes, he raised taxes at the margin... yet the economy kept growing, and produced a surplus to boot. But Clinton's economic team and his outside advisors were a virtual Who's Who of Keynesians: Robert Reich, Lester Thurow, John Kenneth Galbraith, Robert Solow, James Tobin, Alan Blinder, Alice Rivlin and Roger Altman... just to name a few.

Perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention durring the Clinton admin. Or maybe I don't fully understand Keynesian principles. I thought that Keynes says that government must stimulate the economy by artifically creating demand. They do this by directly buying stuff. I don't remember Clinton directly buying stuff (I know that's fairly in-precice definition). The growth durring the Clinton years mostly came from the internet and tech companies. That growth was spurred on by the private sector, not really government, government seemed to stay out of the way. But you seem to be more versed in true economic issues than I am.



*snip* Tax stuff


That's pretty much what my link said and my point. The "rich" keep paying more taxes, as a percentage of their income and as a percentage of the total burdon. While the "poor" keep going the other way.


What's fair? All of that^^^ to say, I dunno. But I'm not crying in my beer for the taxes that Oprah and Donald Trump will be paying this or any year. Somehow, I think they'll struggle on.

I don't really know what fair is either, but I think we're getting to the point where it's not fair anymore. When there are studies saying that if everyone who makes over $250,000 pay 100% in taxes, we still won't have enough to pay for all the spending, I think we have a problem.


Yeah, but now we have to beg & scrape to the Chinese Commies in hopes that they'll lend us a billion or a hundred. And no, I don't think Obama's policies are going to help us in that area - or the Republican's either. I'd say we are pretty well screwed. I might take Mandarin Chinese next year. Might as well get ahead of the curve.

Yep, bad situation. Let's pile on a trillion or so more for healthcare. And then ship more of our jobs over to the Chineese by signing cap-and-trade. That makes sence doesn't it?


I doubt there's much more room on the tax reduction side of things. A % here or there I don't think is going to make much of a difference. But smaller is better, when it comes to taxes.

Agreed. But we also need to start cutting government programs.

[Jag_Warrior]

Perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention durring the Clinton admin. Or maybe I don't fully understand Keynesian principles. I thought that Keynes says that government must stimulate the economy by artifically creating demand. They do this by directly buying stuff. I don't remember Clinton directly buying stuff (I know that's fairly in-precice definition). The growth durring the Clinton years mostly came from the internet and tech companies. That growth was spurred on by the private sector, not really government, government seemed to stay out of the way. But you seem to be more versed in true economic issues than I am.

During a contraction, Keynesian policy would do that. But during a period of growth, if you further stimulated the economy through fiscal (or monetary) policy, you'd create inflation.




That's pretty much what my link said and my point. The "rich" keep paying more taxes, as a percentage of their income and as a percentage of the total burdon. While the "poor" keep going the other way.

Yes, but the poor are going the other way in another sense too: their share of AGI is also falling, while the share of AGI for the upper 1% is outpacing their increase in share of taxes paid. I'm not a "soak the wealthy" type person by any means. But when I hear that the wealthy are being killed off by taxes, the data (consumption, as well as continued income growth) really doesn't support that. Real income and net worth of the middle class is what I would be most concerned about. And that's a (the?) problem that is seldom addressed by either of the major parties. The Dems will take care of the poor. And the Club for Growth types, that are taking over the Repubs, will take care of the wealthiest Americans. No one is really worried about or trying to do right by the middle class. They give the middle class lip service and then go back to talking to lobbyists. People can make fun of Perot all they want. But I agreed with him on globalization in 1992 and I agree with him now. He knew what it would mean to the middle class in America - and he was dead on the money. The Dems and the Repubs sold out the middle class with NAFTA and all these other one sided schemes... plain & simple.




I don't really know what fair is either, but I think we're getting to the point where it's not fair anymore. When there are studies saying that if everyone who makes over $250,000 pay 100% in taxes, we still won't have enough to pay for all the spending, I think we have a problem.

Exactly. So as I said above, maybe someone should worry more about supporting income growth in the middle class. More and better, higher paying jobs and a friendlier environment toward small(er) businesses would lead to higher government tax receipts. If not for people being able to get cheap money from Greesnpan's version of Bank of America, and use their houses like ATM machines to get it, GDP would have collapsed 10 years ago. All bubbles pop eventually. And both parties had a big, fat hand in creating this last one.



Yep, bad situation. Let's pile on a trillion or so more for healthcare. And then ship more of our jobs over to the Chineese by signing cap-and-trade. That makes sence doesn't it?

As far as I know, depending on what is passed, the health care bill should either be revenue neutral or possibly even produce a reduction in the deficit. But in any case, I haven't seen anything that says it will add a trillion to the deficit, over a year or even ten years. But however it plays out, I'd look at what the CBO has for the cost vs. the payback and then come up with a net figure, whether it be positive, neutral or negative. That's unlike the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was for Afghanistan. But the $700 billion or so that's been spent in Iraq is just money down a rat hole. I saw one estimate that had the total cost of Iraq being somewhere around $3 trillion before it's over and done with. F###in' eh!!! IMO, that money, if it was going to be spent anyway, should have been spent on the crumbling infrastructure in the United States. It makes me very angry that we're spending American taxpayer dollars to rebuild bridges in Iraq (OK.... yeah, that we blew up), and the Iraqis have $80-$100 billion in the bank (:rolleyes :) ... but we are supposed to feel guilty about spending money on crumbling bridges or on sh!##y school buildings here. :mad: Not one single dollar should leave this country until our problems are dealt with here! Not to Israel or any other beggar nation. I feel very strongly about that. As my father always said, "charity starts at home." And if you can't take care of your own, you have absolutely NO business giving to others before your own people. Sorry to get sidetracked, but it really does p!ss me off that we do that. We borrow from the Chinese so we can give the money to others?! :hot:



Agreed. But we also need to start cutting government programs.

Yes. The first place I would start is by attacking waste and inefficiencies within existing programs and agencies. And at the same time, do an assessment to see which programs are really necessary. I bet the average man on the street, with just some basic accounting knowledge, could identify about a billion $ worth of waste with a two week tour of D.C... maybe not even that long. It's like people now crying that Obama is going to cut so many billions from Medicare. I don't know if he will or won't. But I have dealt with Medicare. I don't know a lot about it, but a bit. And I've read and seen more than a few programs concerning Medicare. I bet I could fly to D.C. tomorrow, cut $5 billion right off the top from Medicare (without telling anyone), and come Monday morning, no one would even miss the money. Just in the fraud, waste and abuse, I bet I could come up with at least another $50 billion a year. As my gal Sarah says, you betcha! :D

[chuck34]

During a contraction, Keynesian policy would do that. But during a period of growth, if you further stimulated the economy through fiscal (or monetary) policy, you'd create inflation.

Not sure what you're saying there? Is inflation Keynesian? Is that what Clinton did? I'm missing something sorry.


Yes, but the poor are going the other way in another sense too: their share of AGI is also falling, while the share of AGI for the upper 1% is outpacing their increase in share of taxes paid. I'm not a "soak the wealthy" type person by any means. But when I hear that the wealthy are being killed off by taxes, the data (consumption, as well as continued income growth) really doesn't support that. Real income and net worth of the middle class is what I would be most concerned about. And that's a (the?) problem that is seldom addressed by either of the major parties. The Dems will take care of the poor. And the Club for Growth types, that are taking over the Repubs, will take care of the wealthiest Americans. No one is really worried about or trying to do right by the middle class. They give the middle class lip service and then go back to talking to lobbyists. People can make fun of Perot all they want. But I agreed with him on globalization in 1992 and I agree with him now. He knew what it would mean to the middle class in America - and he was dead on the money. The Dems and the Repubs sold out the middle class with NAFTA and all these other one sided schemes... plain & simple.

I mostly agree with that. My view is that tax policies that the Dems always label as "only helping the rich" really help everyone. Either through loosening up capital within the big employers so that they can either pay their employees more, or re-invest in the company, or by allowing more people to start their own companies, etc. But like you, I think Perrot was right about NAFTA, and I think we've all heard "that giant sucking sound" now haven't we? But don't get me wrong we do need a bit of open-ish trade. It just needs to be more fair. Especially when it comes to China. That whole policy is just FUBAR from start to finnish.


Exactly. So as I said above, maybe someone should worry more about supporting income growth in the middle class. More and better, higher paying jobs and a friendlier environment toward small(er) businesses would lead to higher government tax receipts. If not for people being able to get cheap money from Greesnpan's version of Bank of America, and use their houses like ATM machines to get it, GDP would have collapsed 10 years ago. All bubbles pop eventually. And both parties had a big, fat hand in creating this last one.

Yep, both parties have screwed this deal up. But I think that the GOP may be starting to realize this, and going back to actually acting on their own platform.


As far as I know, depending on what is passed, the health care bill should either be revenue neutral or possibly even produce a reduction in the deficit. But in any case, I haven't seen anything that says it will add a trillion to the deficit, over a year or even ten years. But however it plays out, I'd look at what the CBO has for the cost vs. the payback and then come up with a net figure, whether it be positive, neutral or negative.

The last CBO estimate I saw was that it would cost just over $1,000,000,000,000 over the next 10 years. First off, when was the last time that CBO didn't miss extreemely LOW on their estimates? Secondly, how is this being propose to be payed for. Well about $500Billion or so is going to come from Medicare/Medicaid cuts. Do you really think that is going to happen? I don't, political realities jump up and bite you every time. Another couple hundred Billion is comming from new taxes, so yeah we'll get that. Then the remainder is going to come from "cutting waste, fraud, and abuse". How long have they been saying that for now? Political realities again.


That's unlike the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was for Afghanistan. But the $700 billion or so that's been spent in Iraq is just money down a rat hole. I saw one estimate that had the total cost of Iraq being somewhere around $3 trillion before it's over and done with. F###in' eh!!! IMO, that money, if it was going to be spent anyway, should have been spent on the crumbling infrastructure in the United States. It makes me very angry that we're spending American taxpayer dollars to rebuild bridges in Iraq (OK.... yeah, that we blew up), and the Iraqis have $80-$100 billion in the bank (:rolleyes :) ... but we are supposed to feel guilty about spending money on crumbling bridges or on sh!##y school buildings here. :mad: Not one single dollar should leave this country until our problems are dealt with here! Not to Israel or any other beggar nation. I feel very strongly about that. As my father always said, "charity starts at home." And if you can't take care of your own, you have absolutely NO business giving to others before your own people. Sorry to get sidetracked, but it really does p!ss me off that we do that. We borrow from the Chinese so we can give the money to others?! :hot:

Whole 'nother can of worms there. Don't want to go down that road right now. We're having a good debate on this issue, let's not start another one right now, ok? :-)


Yes. The first place I would start is by attacking waste and inefficiencies within existing programs and agencies. And at the same time, do an assessment to see which programs are really necessary. I bet the average man on the street, with just some basic accounting knowledge, could identify about a billion $ worth of waste with a two week tour of D.C... maybe not even that long. It's like people now crying that Obama is going to cut so many billions from Medicare. I don't know if he will or won't. But I have dealt with Medicare. I don't know a lot about it, but a bit. And I've read and seen more than a few programs concerning Medicare. I bet I could fly to D.C. tomorrow, cut $5 billion right off the top from Medicare (without telling anyone), and come Monday morning, no one would even miss the money. Just in the fraud, waste and abuse, I bet I could come up with at least another $50 billion a year. As my gal Sarah says, you betcha! :D

Again, how long have politicians been talking about cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse"? We ALL know it's a there. We ALL know it could be cut out easily. But it never has been yet. Call me a cynic, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[Jag_Warrior]

Not sure what you're saying there? Is inflation Keynesian? Is that what Clinton did? I'm missing something sorry.

No, inflation is just the function of demand outstripping supply. I'm just saying that one wouldn't bring artifcial or additional stimulus to an already growing economy, because that would be inflationary. Keynesian theory focuses on the demand side. So, as long as that is working and balanced vs. the supply side of the equation... :up: Cinton's fiscal policy didn't have to rely on deficit spending because there was no need. So he ran surpluses and still had a rather liberal domestic policy.


I mostly agree with that. My view is that tax policies that the Dems always label as "only helping the rich" really help everyone. Either through loosening up capital within the big employers so that they can either pay their employees more, or re-invest in the company, or by allowing more people to start their own companies, etc.

Yep. Sort of the basics of Supply Side theory. But for the theory to work, the capital has to be put to work in the domestic economy. Otherwise, you're just improving the GDP of some other country.



But like you, I think Perrot was right about NAFTA, and I think we've all heard "that giant sucking sound" now haven't we? But don't get me wrong we do need a bit of open-ish trade. It just needs to be more fair. Especially when it comes to China. That whole policy is just FUBAR from start to finnish.

Perot had the b#lls to take on the Dem and GOP leaderships, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc. If free trade is not also fair trade, the wealthier, higher (production) cost country is just going to come out the loser. And what's happened? Our current account deficit has been expanding and we've been losing higher paying jobs in the manufacturing sector since NAFTA was signed. But if I was an executive or major shareholder in a manufacturing concern, I would absolutely move my labor to the lowest net cost area possible (Mexico or where ever). And I would thank the major parties for enabling me to do that - even making it easier for me. But if I was a laid off worker, I might be more than a bit p!ssed though. And so, here we are. Screwed, blued and tattooed!


Yep, both parties have screwed this deal up. But I think that the GOP may be starting to realize this, and going back to actually acting on their own platform.

I'll reserve comment until I see who comes out on top in the GOP Civil War. If it's the Club for Growth types and the Evangelicals, I'll pass on that bunch. But so far, I haven't heard very many constructive ideas out of the GOP overall. Individuals have some decent ideas though, like Ron Paul. If Romney doesn't become afraid to speak up, maybe he has some good ideas. But the Club for Growth will burn anyone (including Ron Paul) at the stake if they don't tow the line. So we'll just have to see.



The last CBO estimate I saw was that it would cost just over $1,000,000,000,000 over the next 10 years. First off, when was the last time that CBO didn't miss extreemely LOW on their estimates? Secondly, how is this being propose to be payed for. Well about $500Billion or so is going to come from Medicare/Medicaid cuts. Do you really think that is going to happen? I don't, political realities jump up and bite you every time. Another couple hundred Billion is comming from new taxes, so yeah we'll get that. Then the remainder is going to come from "cutting waste, fraud, and abuse". How long have they been saying that for now? Political realities again.

I thought the Baucus bill came in at $829 billion over ten years and was projected to actually reduce he deficit? As for how accurate the nonpartisan CBO is, well, they are a bunch of economists, so... :D

But as for attacking govt. waste, fraud and abuse, I agree with you there. There has to be some motivation to do that. But if someone doesn't take the ball and run with it sooner or later, we'll eventually be swallowed. It happened to the Romans, and it could happen to us too. But that's the same reason that just making government smaller doesn't work either. You just have a smaller machine that is still inefficient... and probably still costs just as much in net terms.

But here again, the last guy who seriously attacked the deficit was a charatcer who I didn't care for at the time: Bill Clinton. Oddly enough, he'll go down as one of the great fiscal conservatives of our time. Ain't that a kick in the pants?! :p :



Whole 'nother can of worms there. Don't want to go down that road right now. We're having a good debate on this issue, let's not start another one right now, ok? :-)
:)



Again, how long have politicians been talking about cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse"? We ALL know it's a there. We ALL know it could be cut out easily. But it never has been yet. Call me a cynic, but I'll believe it when I see it.

What few of us actually bother to vote don't hold the scoundrels accountable. So they know what they can and can't get away with... well, most of the time. anyway. In other words, we can look in the mirror and know who to blame for the politicians lack of motivation. That's another reason I'll probably never join a party again. I don't want any of them to think that they can count on me. I told the various talking heads who've been calling the house, begging for my vote these past couple of weeks, the very same thing. I'm like a pretty woman with an attitude and a new hairdo: you have to earn my love, sucka! :laugh:

[chuck34]

No, inflation is just the function of demand outstripping supply. I'm just saying that one wouldn't bring artifcial or additional stimulus to an already growing economy, because that would be inflationary. Keynesian theory focuses on the demand side. So, as long as that is working and balanced vs. the supply side of the equation... :up: Cinton's fiscal policy didn't have to rely on deficit spending because there was no need. So he ran surpluses and still had a rather liberal domestic policy.

I guess I (not being an economist) would not call that Keynesian. I would call that doing nothing or staying out of the way, which I don't consider Keynesian or Supply Side, just sort of nothing. But you seem to "be in the know" on econ. stuff. So I'll defer to you.


Yep. Sort of the basics of Supply Side theory. But for the theory to work, the capital has to be put to work in the domestic economy. Otherwise, you're just improving the GDP of some other country.

Yep.


Perot had the b#lls to take on the Dem and GOP leaderships, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc. If free trade is not also fair trade, the wealthier, higher (production) cost country is just going to come out the loser. And what's happened? Our current account deficit has been expanding and we've been losing higher paying jobs in the manufacturing sector since NAFTA was signed. But if I was an executive or major shareholder in a manufacturing concern, I would absolutely move my labor to the lowest net cost area possible (Mexico or where ever). And I would thank the major parties for enabling me to do that - even making it easier for me. But if I was a laid off worker, I might be more than a bit p!ssed though. And so, here we are. Screwed, blued and tattooed!

Yep, again.


I'll reserve comment until I see who comes out on top in the GOP Civil War. If it's the Club for Growth types and the Evangelicals, I'll pass on that bunch. But so far, I haven't heard very many constructive ideas out of the GOP overall. Individuals have some decent ideas though, like Ron Paul. If Romney doesn't become afraid to speak up, maybe he has some good ideas. But the Club for Growth will burn anyone (including Ron Paul) at the stake if they don't tow the line. So we'll just have to see.

You seem to be quite caught up with the Club for Growth people. Honestly, I've never heard of them, except when you have brought them up before. I suppose they have some pull somewhere, but not in my area at least. Or maybe they're just really underground, black hand type of stuff?


I thought the Baucus bill came in at $829 billion over ten years and was projected to actually reduce he deficit? As for how accurate the nonpartisan CBO is, well, they are a bunch of economists, so... :D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
The estimates are all over the place. And they keep CLAIMING that it will reduce the deficit. But I'll believe it when I see it, for the reasons I outlined previously.


But as for attacking govt. waste, fraud and abuse, I agree with you there. There has to be some motivation to do that. But if someone doesn't take the ball and run with it sooner or later, we'll eventually be swallowed. It happened to the Romans, and it could happen to us too. But that's the same reason that just making government smaller doesn't work either. You just have a smaller machine that is still inefficient... and probably still costs just as much in net terms.

Total agreement there. Somebody needs to stand up. But something seems to happen to people once they hit the city limits of Washington DC.


But here again, the last guy who seriously attacked the deficit was a charatcer who I didn't care for at the time: Bill Clinton. Oddly enough, he'll go down as one of the great fiscal conservatives of our time. Ain't that a kick in the pants?! :p :

I don't know this for a fact, but I've heard a lot of talk about those surpluses. What I have heard was that it had a lot to do with promised cuts to medicare/medicaid ... waste, fraud, abuse ... things on paper that never actually happened ... sounding familiar? But I could be wrong, couldn't find anything solid on that with a quick google search. :-/


What few of us actually bother to vote don't hold the scoundrels accountable. So they know what they can and can't get away with... well, most of the time. anyway. In other words, we can look in the mirror and know who to blame for the politicians lack of motivation. That's another reason I'll probably never join a party again. I don't want any of them to think that they can count on me. I told the various talking heads who've been calling the house, begging for my vote these past couple of weeks, the very same thing. I'm like a pretty woman with an attitude and a new hairdo: you have to earn my love, sucka! :laugh:

Ok here's my deal. I agree with what you said in principal about the parties etc. However, I'm a bit of a realist. Third party candidates rarely have a prayer of winning. And the Republican platform says pretty much everything I believe in (with some exceptions). So I have made a choice that I want to work from within the party to force them to actually stick to their stated platform. That's just me though, YMMV.

[Jag_Warrior]

I guess I (not being an economist) would not call that Keynesian. I would call that doing nothing or staying out of the way, which I don't consider Keynesian or Supply Side, just sort of nothing. But you seem to "be in the know" on econ. stuff. So I'll defer to you.

Some call it General Theory orthodoxy or Liberal Neo-Classical Economics. :confused: Don't ask me about those, as they came after I escaped the classroom. But considering the general makeup of his cabinet, had there been a downturn similar to today, I'm of the opinion that Clinton's economic policy response would have been Keynesian based. But love him or hate him, I have to give the old dog his due: he did manage things rather well overall, from a fiscal standpoint. That's not to say that I agreed with ALL of his policies though, specifically NAFTA.



You seem to be quite caught up with the Club for Growth people. Honestly, I've never heard of them, except when you have brought them up before. I suppose they have some pull somewhere, but not in my area at least. Or maybe they're just really underground, black hand type of stuff?

Really? You've not heard of the Club for Growth before? They're the new popular kids. Everybody from Pat Buchanan to Newt Gingrich is talking about them... especially after Tuesday. They're sorta like big game hunters... specifically those they see as RINO's. "Interesting" bunch of people. Don't quote me, as I'm not positive, but I think they like Sarah Palin but they don't like Ron Paul. Uh... Wut?! :confused: But basically they'll run their hand picked candidates against Republicans who don't fit the bill for them. Even if a nasty primary fight weakens the party. NY23 as an example. They're involved in Florida and maybe Pennsylvania too, I think.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/03/club-for-growth-is-on-hunt-for-republicans-who-dont-fit-the-bill/





The estimates are all over the place. And they keep CLAIMING that it will reduce the deficit. But I'll believe it when I see it, for the reasons I outlined previously.


You may be right. But there's no doubt that the Health Care monster isn't looking to eat all that's before it. Somebody better come up with a good, workable plan or by 2019, many companies will either have to stop offering that as a benefit or they'll have to cut salaries to pay for the benefit.




Total agreement there. Somebody needs to stand up. But something seems to happen to people once they hit the city limits of Washington DC.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely? But even when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, quite often their constituents still return them to office. And we Americans cry about pork. But if a Congressman brings the pork home to his district, he's a hero. It's the pork that's going to somebody else that gets us upset. So, "we the people" are a big part of the problem too, IMO.




I don't know this for a fact, but I've heard a lot of talk about those surpluses. What I have heard was that it had a lot to do with promised cuts to medicare/medicaid ... waste, fraud, abuse ... things on paper that never actually happened ... sounding familiar? But I could be wrong, couldn't find anything solid on that with a quick google search. :-/

There are still debates about the validity of the surpluses during that time. Like most things, the nature of the argument seems to depend on whether you go to a conservative or a liberal source, and what data that source chooses to cherry pick. So, I chose neither and just pulled up a Bloomberg News story which referenced an economist at Bank of Tokyo.

"The surpluses in the late '90s weren't a mirage, and as the deficits of the last few years grow even larger with the erosion of budget discipline, they won't be a mirage either.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGqLx61MRY6w



Ok here's my deal. I agree with what you said in principal about the parties etc. However, I'm a bit of a realist. Third party candidates rarely have a prayer of winning. And the Republican platform says pretty much everything I believe in (with some exceptions). So I have made a choice that I want to work from within the party to force them to actually stick to their stated platform. That's just me though, YMMV.

Also being a realist myself, IMO, it's more likely that you'll have to conform to the larger group, if you don't already agree with them. And that's exactly what's being pushed by some (strong) factions within the GOP now: love it or leave it. I don't have to register by party. But like an increasing number of Americans, I consider myself an Independent/swing voter - I guess I have been since 1992. I figure there's a reason why that's the fastest growing category. I don't know where the party I.D. is for the Dems these days, but I think the Repubs are somewhere around 22% or so now?

[chuck34]

Some call it General Theory orthodoxy or Liberal Neo-Classical Economics. :confused: Don't ask me about those, as they came after I escaped the classroom. But considering the general makeup of his cabinet, had there been a downturn similar to today, I'm of the opinion that Clinton's economic policy response would have been Keynesian based. But love him or hate him, I have to give the old dog his due: he did manage things rather well overall, from a fiscal standpoint. That's not to say that I agreed with ALL of his policies though, specifically NAFTA.

I'm not quite as ready to give Clinton that much credit for any type of economic plan, but maybe he does deserve it. I will however, give him credit for staying out of the way. That's all I saw him do. And a lot of the time (most of the time?) that is the best plan anyway??


Really? You've not heard of the Club for Growth before? They're the new popular kids. Everybody from Pat Buchanan to Newt Gingrich is talking about them... especially after Tuesday. They're sorta like big game hunters... specifically those they see as RINO's. "Interesting" bunch of people. Don't quote me, as I'm not positive, but I think they like Sarah Palin but they don't like Ron Paul. Uh... Wut?! :confused: But basically they'll run their hand picked candidates against Republicans who don't fit the bill for them. Even if a nasty primary fight weakens the party. NY23 as an example. They're involved in Florida and maybe Pennsylvania too, I think.

I'll take a look into them, but basically no I haven't heard of them except for you. Why would they oppose Paul? Maybe it's in your link, haven't read that yet.


You may be right. But there's no doubt that the Health Care monster isn't looking to eat all that's before it. Somebody better come up with a good, workable plan or by 2019, many companies will either have to stop offering that as a benefit or they'll have to cut salaries to pay for the benefit.

I'm not saying that we should do nothing about healthcare. Quite the opposite, there is plenty we can do. And most of them don't cost anything, or much at least. That's been covered in the healthcare thread, see my thoughts there.


Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely? But even when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, quite often their constituents still return them to office. And we Americans cry about pork. But if a Congressman brings the pork home to his district, he's a hero. It's the pork that's going to somebody else that gets us upset. So, "we the people" are a big part of the problem too, IMO.

It's not pork if it's money being spent in MY district. That's "good government". It's only pork when it's spent in your district. So lay off my bacon, ok? :-)


There are still debates about the validity of the surpluses during that time. Like most things, the nature of the argument seems to depend on whether you go to a conservative or a liberal source, and what data that source chooses to cherry pick. So, I chose neither and just pulled up a Bloomberg News story which referenced an economist at Bank of Tokyo.

The fact that there is even a debate about the surpluses pretty much proves the point I'm making. Even if I agree with you that they were real, they were always only on paper. It was up to future Presidents and Congresses to follow through on that taxing/spending level. Well since we never had any "real" extra cash laying around, proves that you can't trust the Congresscritters with idle money.


Also being a realist myself, IMO, it's more likely that you'll have to conform to the larger group, if you don't already agree with them. And that's exactly what's being pushed by some (strong) factions within the GOP now: love it or leave it. I don't have to register by party. But like an increasing number of Americans, I consider myself an Independent/swing voter - I guess I have been since 1992. I figure there's a reason why that's the fastest growing category. I don't know where the party I.D. is for the Dems these days, but I think the Repubs are somewhere around 22% or so now?

I don't think that the GOP is forcing anyone to conform. The case of NY-23, and the most recent Presidential elections are perfect examples. The lady that was appointed by the Republican "bosses" in NY was no Republican. I don't care what the media says, she was no moderate. On pretty much every issue she took the stance of the Democrats/Liberals. That is not a moderate Republican position, that's a Democratic possition. On the other hand John McCain was/is a true moderate Republican. He's for lower taxes, less government, etc. But on a few issues (immigration, environment, etc.) he's not.

From a pure political philosophy stand-point, a party can stand a member that disagrees on a few issues. However, if a member disagrees with the party platform on a majority of issues, then what's the use? If there are no differences between that candidates (as was the case in NY), there is no point. The party looses it's ID, and the whole thing collapses.

The party deal is always fluid. Self identified Republicans are slightly up, while Dems are down (but still more that Republicans).
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/09/30/dem-party-id-margin-dropping/

But if you drop the Pary ID, and just ask about philosophy things are a bit different.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conservatives-maintain-edge-top-ideological-group.aspx
"Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal"

That goes to my earlier point. Since most people are conservative, and the Republican party is supposed to be the "Conservative" party, I think it's worthwhile to point that out to the party leadership and win that way.

[chuck34]

OK, just looked at the link you provided about the Club for Growth. Aparently I'm not too observant or something. Chris Chocola, their President used to be the Congressman from my district. *facepalm* Too many other things going on to pay much attention to one group, I guess.

But beyond that, I think that you are placing quite a lot of importance on one PAC. There are many other PAC's out there doing the same thing for their candidates. The left has their own "purity people"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/02/27/liberal_pac_plans_new_campaign.html

I'm sure there are other examples. Bottom line is they are standing up for what they believe and voicing their opinions on where they think their parties/the country need to go. And I don't see too much wrong with that.

[Jag_Warrior]

It's not pork if it's money being spent in MY district. That's "good government". It's only pork when it's spent in your district. So lay off my bacon, ok? :-)

Yep, that's how most of us see it.



The fact that there is even a debate about the surpluses pretty much proves the point I'm making. Even if I agree with you that they were real, they were always only on paper. It was up to future Presidents and Congresses to follow through on that taxing/spending level.

Yes, just as people continue to debate the validity and value of Supply Side economics. It's extremely difficult to prove economic theories to the point that there can be no doubt. There's always the econometric models, and then there's reality. But I don't think there's any doubt that the annual deficits under Clinton were not what they eventually became under Bush II. When W. Bush took office, government was about 18% of GDP. When he left, it was about 20% of GDP. Once the bailouts run their course, I've read that we'll be at about 22% of GDP. We are not on a good path. But the bad path doesn't seem to depend on whether it's a Republican using faux Supply Side theory or a Democrat using Keynesian theory. Whether it's blowout domestic spending for entitlements or blowout spending for military projects and foreign aid, government spending is government spending.



Well since we never had any "real" extra cash laying around, proves that you can't trust the Congresscritters with idle money.

Whether it's a Republican or a Democrat, I don't think it's wise to just turn the members of Congress loose. They all talk a good game, but seldom deliver all the results. But there again, how well do we hold them accountable?



I don't think that the GOP is forcing anyone to conform. The case of NY-23, and the most recent Presidential elections are perfect examples. The lady that was appointed by the Republican "bosses" in NY was no Republican. I don't care what the media says, she was no moderate. On pretty much every issue she took the stance of the Democrats/Liberals. That is not a moderate Republican position, that's a Democratic possition. On the other hand John McCain was/is a true moderate Republican. He's for lower taxes, less government, etc. But on a few issues (immigration, environment, etc.) he's not.

Yet, Pat Buchanan and others continue to express concern about the infighting. I'd say it's going to come down to what types of people are able to run on the GOP ticket without being called RINO's. The NY23 example may not be the best example. Since it appears that the Republican wasn't a good choice for most Republicans and the Conservative Party candidate held views that were too far to the right for many voters up there.




From a pure political philosophy stand-point, a party can stand a member that disagrees on a few issues. However, if a member disagrees with the party platform on a majority of issues, then what's the use? If there are no differences between that candidates (as was the case in NY), there is no point. The party looses it's ID, and the whole thing collapses.

Certainly in a statewide election, the candidate that best meets the ideals of the most people is going to probably win. Nationwide, it comes down to which states a candidate can carry.



The party deal is always fluid. Self identified Republicans are slightly up, while Dems are down (but still more that Republicans).
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/09/30/dem-party-id-margin-dropping/

But if you drop the Pary ID, and just ask about philosophy things are a bit different.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conservatives-maintain-edge-top-ideological-group.aspx
"Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal"

That goes to my earlier point. Since most people are conservative, and the Republican party is supposed to be the "Conservative" party, I think it's worthwhile to point that out to the party leadership and win that way.

I agree that party I.D. is fluid. And different studies seem to show different findings... probably because the questions are asked in slightly different ways?

National Party I.D. - All Adults (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php?xml=/flashcharts/content/xml/USPartyID.xml&choices=independent,Democrat,Republican&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=&trends=&lines=)

Pretty complete rundown of most of the major polls.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php

But in the end, I think a big part of it comes down to personalities, and the views of a particular candidate when people pull the lever. So just because Americans might identify with this party vs. that party, or this philosophy vs. that philosophy, parties have to make sure that they're offering candidates who can convey some sense of confidence that they support what the majority want. In other words, let's say the number of people who identify with the "conservative" philosophy rises to 60% and the number who I.D. themselves as "Republican" rises to 51%. If the GOP takes that and runs Sarah Palin in 2012, short of unemployment being at 20%, I would expect a rout like hasn't been seen since the Romans invaded Gaul.

[Jag_Warrior]

OK, just looked at the link you provided about the Club for Growth. Aparently I'm not too observant or something. Chris Chocola, their President used to be the Congressman from my district. *facepalm* Too many other things going on to pay much attention to one group, I guess.

But beyond that, I think that you are placing quite a lot of importance on one PAC. There are many other PAC's out there doing the same thing for their candidates. The left has their own "purity people"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/02/27/liberal_pac_plans_new_campaign.html

I'm sure there are other examples. Bottom line is they are standing up for what they believe and voicing their opinions on where they think their parties/the country need to go. And I don't see too much wrong with that.

Yes, they are standing up for what *they* believe in. The question is, how much influence might they exert on the GOP and how many people in the general (voting) population hold the views that they hold? No one is saying that they have no right to do what they're doing. But many of the "big tent" people trying to rebuild the GOP seem to be concerned with the litmus tests that the Club for Growth and Evangelicals seem to want to apply.

Now, my own feelings about abortion aside, is the GOP prepared to exclude any and all women who are not strictly anti-abortion? See, there are different degrees of being "conservative". A poll I put up last year showed quite clearly that only a small minority had the same views on abortion as Sarah Palin, for instance. Even those who believed in restrictions didn't take it as far as her. So whether it's the Club for Growth, and their rather interesting take on further deregulation, or the views of some of the social conservatives in the religious right, not every bit of bad news from the Obama camp seems to translate into good news for the GOP. Ya know, once burned, twice shy. But we'll see where things stand about this time next year.

[Rollo]

So just because Americans might identify with this party vs. that party, or this philosophy vs. that philosophy, parties have to make sure that they're offering candidates who can convey some sense of confidence that they support what the majority want.

What is the rationale behind needing to be registered for a particular party in the first place. In Australia, this simply does not exist and further to that all ballots are secret, which means in practice there is a rather largish swinging section of the voters. Of course this has the effect that candidates and parties will concentrate in attracting that 20% of the population who could go either way.

[Jag_Warrior]

What is the rationale behind needing to be registered for a particular party in the first place. In Australia, this simply does not exist and further to that all ballots are secret, which means in practice there is a rather largish swinging section of the voters. Of course this has the effect that candidates and parties will concentrate in attracting that 20% of the population who could go either way.

In my opinion, it's an attempt to force voters into predefined boxes and limit our ability to make choices as we see fit.

It's very seldom that the two major parties work together in the U.S. But after Ross Perot took both parties to task in 1992, both parties colluded to exclude Perot from major debates in 1996. And every year since then, third party and independent candidates have had a harder time of it. I'm proud to say that in local elections in my area, independent candidates ousted incumbent Democrats and Republicans. As one gentleman said after beating a longtime incumbent Republican, "At least on the local level, I see no reason to be linked to national parties. They do not address our local concerns. They don't know about our local concerns. They don't care about our local concerns." As best I recall, he won 70% to 30%. It was a good day for those of us who don't believe that an individual wearing a blue t-shirt (Dems) or a red t-shirt (Repubs) means anything. And as time passes, I become increasingly opposed to legislation and the concept that I should be forced to choose between (only) two major parties. What am I choosing between, bad and worse? As for which is bad and which is worse, they seem to swap places every couple of years. I refuse to register. I will not do it. They can't prevent me from voting. They can't put me in jail. Screw them... and I mean that with love & sincerity. :)

In my state of VA, we do not register by party. But last year, a couple of Republicans endorsed legislation which would bring party registration to my state. They were not successful. :s mokin:


Bolling Endorses Party Registration
Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) has endorsed a bill by Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Prince William) that would allow Virginia voters to register with a political party.

Bolling sent a letter to lawmakers today that says party registration would "maintain the integrity of the party nomination process in Virginia" and allow candidates "to more effectively identify voters and efficiently communicate with them."


There have been growing calls among Republicans to implement party registration. Virginia voters currently do not register by party, meaning they can decide on the day of the primary whether they want to vote in the Republican or Democratic nomination contest. Some conservatives argue Democratic-leaning voters should not be allowed decide who the GOP nominates for state, local and federal offices.

But Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) said recently he prefers the current system because he thinks most Virginians like being labeled as independent.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2008/01/bolling_endorses_party_registr.html

[chuck34]

Yes, they are standing up for what *they* believe in. The question is, how much influence might they exert on the GOP and how many people in the general (voting) population hold the views that they hold? No one is saying that they have no right to do what they're doing. But many of the "big tent" people trying to rebuild the GOP seem to be concerned with the litmus tests that the Club for Growth and Evangelicals seem to want to apply.

I'm a big tent type of guy too. But in order to be a big tent, you first have to know what sort of foundations is under that big pole in the center that holds everything up. That's what the struggle is right now withing the GOP, is the foundation of the party, it's core beliefs. Are those beliefs going to be more "Reagan-esque", what the media would probably call far right-wing? Or will it be more along the lines of Olympia Snowe, and the GOP chick from NY-23 (sorry I can't spell her name, and don't really feal like looking it up), what I, and others, might call RINO, or Liberal Light? That's what I see going on right now.


Now, my own feelings about abortion aside, is the GOP prepared to exclude any and all women who are not strictly anti-abortion? See, there are different degrees of being "conservative". A poll I put up last year showed quite clearly that only a small minority had the same views on abortion as Sarah Palin, for instance. Even those who believed in restrictions didn't take it as far as her. So whether it's the Club for Growth, and their rather interesting take on further deregulation, or the views of some of the social conservatives in the religious right, not every bit of bad news from the Obama camp seems to translate into good news for the GOP. Ya know, once burned, twice shy. But we'll see where things stand about this time next year.

That's what I'm saying. If a person running for office on the GOP ticket would happen to be pro-choice, but on every other issue they have Conservative views, then I would have no problem. I realize that others will have problems with that, but you can find that on any issue. And in the Republican and Democratic parties it is the same story. There are a bunch of comentators out there that are very disapointed in Obama for not being Liberal/Progressive enough. Those people are always going to be out there.

[chuck34]

What is the rationale behind needing to be registered for a particular party in the first place. In Australia, this simply does not exist and further to that all ballots are secret, which means in practice there is a rather largish swinging section of the voters. Of course this has the effect that candidates and parties will concentrate in attracting that 20% of the population who could go either way.

There is no basis for the Political Party in our Constitution. What I mean is that there is no Constitutional mechanism that sets them up. Many Founders, George Washington chief among them, warned against them. However, human nature being what it is, people quickly started caucusing with like minded individuals. Then sort of out of convienience more than anything else, the press or the individuals themselves sort of named their groups. From there, these groups started making rules that solidified the party as a "legal" entity.

As in Australia, we have a secret ballot, and we also have a large group of swing voters. JAG would fall squarely in that group, and that is fine. He's exercising his right to chose. Nothing wrong with that, what-so-ever. I have chosen to be a member of the Republican Party. This DOES NOT mean that I must vote for the Republican candidate at all times. In fact, I don't believe that I have ever voted a straight ticket in my life.

The only time that this is slightly different is in the Primary. The Primary election is a party device, set up for the sole purpose of narrowing down the choices within a party. As such, the voter must declare a certain party that he or she is voting for in that election. The rules for this are set up on a State by State basis (I think, but there may be local rules for this as well?). Some States require that you physically register with a party to vote in the Primary (this does not effect your General Election voting in any way). Other States, like Indiana, allow you to show up on the day of the Primary and simply ask for whatever ballot you would like, Republican, Democrat, Green, etc.

Clear as mud now?

[Jag_Warrior]

I found this interesting, since we were discussing this group just the other day.


The Club for Growth's Political Action Committee made it official this morning, endorsing former state lawmaker Marco Rubio in next year's Florida Senate race. That's a diss to the state's governor, Charlie Crist. Crist has the backing of top national Republican party leaders as well as the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee in his bid for the seat.

In a statement released this morning, Club for Growth President Chris Chocola said he believes that either Crist or Rubio can beat Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Democratic congressman who's running for the Senate seat.

“The only question now is what kind of Republican will Florida send to Washington next year: a pro-growth Republican with a record of fiscal conservatism or a big-government Republican with a record of tax increases?” Chocola said.

As we told you earlier, Republican conservatives plan to make the Florida Senate primary a major battleground in their effort to purge the party of the kind of candidates Club for Growthers call "RINOS" -- Republicans In Name Only.



Conservative Republican group shuns party-backed Senate candidate in Florida (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/11/conservative-republican-group-shuns-partybacked-senate-candidate-in-florida.html)

[chuck34]

I found this interesting, since we were discussing this group just the other day.




Conservative Republican group shuns party-backed Senate candidate in Florida (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/11/conservative-republican-group-shuns-partybacked-senate-candidate-in-florida.html)

I'm still not sure why you are so hung up on these guys? There are simmilar groups on the Left that are mad at Democrats for not being "Liberal" enough. Sort of in the same vane as the Club for Growth. Just one example:

http://www.billpressshow.com/2009/11/08/dirty-democrats/

So I guess I'm missing your point. We all know that there are factions within each party. The thing to do is to sit down, look at what the candidate stands for, and see if wish to vote for them. You don't have to be in a party to do this, and you can even vote for both parties (or more) in the same election.

[Jag_Warrior]

I'm still not sure why you are so hung up on these guys? There are simmilar groups on the Left that are mad at Democrats for not being "Liberal" enough. Sort of in the same vane as the Club for Growth. Just one example:

http://www.billpressshow.com/2009/11/08/dirty-democrats/

So I guess I'm missing your point. We all know that there are factions within each party. The thing to do is to sit down, look at what the candidate stands for, and see if wish to vote for them. You don't have to be in a party to do this, and you can even vote for both parties (or more) in the same election.

It's not me that's hung up on this group, Chuck. If not for hearing Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Christopher Buckley, Colin Powell and a good many other (current or one time) Republicans speak and complain about their tactics, I probably wouldn't know a thing about them. They're the ones who seem worried. I don't have a dog in that fight, so it doesn't bother me at all. I'm just munching popcorn and enjoying the show. And yes, there probably are similar groups on the left. But the thing is, they don't seem to be engaged in a real or effective effort to purge the Democrat party of DINO's... at least not yet. But, I'll enjoy that show too, in case they start.

Do I mind that the CfG and the Evangelicals are taking names and applying litmus tests? No, actually I don't. As they do that, the tent with the big I on top just gets bigger & bigger. I'd be happy to see the Dems do the same thing to anyone they consider a DINO. Again, the Independent category would just get bigger. The less the two major parties can rely on virtually guaranteed votes, the harder they'll have to work to meet our real, overall needs (IMO). And the politicians who rely on crazy, illogical, nonfactual rhetoric might find themselves preaching to an ever smaller choir. But if the extremes in the Dems want Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank as their leader and the extremes in the Repubs want Sarah Palin or Rick Perry as their leader, I wish them both the best of luck - I figure they'll really need it.

I'd be elated to see this country be 20% Dems, 20% Repubs and 60% Independents. :s mokin:

[chuck34]

It's not me that's hung up on this group, Chuck. If not for hearing Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Christopher Buckley, Colin Powell and a good many other (current or one time) Republicans speak and complain about their tactics, I probably wouldn't know a thing about them. They're the ones who seem worried. I don't have a dog in that fight, so it doesn't bother me at all. I'm just munching popcorn and enjoying the show.

Ok, I get it now. Just seems like you bring them up more than anyone I've heard of. Anyway, if you (or anyone) doesn't agree with them, just ignore them. People/groups only have as much power as we allow them to have.


And yes, there probably are similar groups on the left. But the thing is, they don't seem to be engaged in a real or effective effort to purge the Democrat party of DINO's... at least not yet. But, I'll enjoy that show too, in case they start.

It's already started. I have XM and like to listen to the Right and Left channels they have. The boys over on the Left are HOWLING about the 39 Dems who voted against the Healthcare bill. The same as they are doing and have been doing with Deeds in Virginia. I think I've heard about how he isn't a "real Democrat/Progressive/Libral" more than I've heard about the NY-23 lady from the Right guys. The link I gave in my last post is just the tip of the iceberg.


Do I mind that the CfG and the Evangelicals are taking names and applying litmus tests? No, actually I don't. As they do that, the tent with the big I on top just gets bigger & bigger. I'd be happy to see the Dems do the same thing to anyone they consider a DINO. Again, the Independent category would just get bigger. The less the two major parties can rely on virtually guaranteed votes, the harder they'll have to work to meet our real, overall needs (IMO). And the politicians who rely on crazy, illogical, nonfactual rhetoric might find themselves preaching to an ever smaller choir. But if the extremes in the Dems want Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank as their leader and the extremes in the Repubs want Sarah Palin or Rick Perry as their leader, I wish them both the best of luck - I figure they'll really need it.

You have a point. Both parties can only "run to their base" so much before they turn off the moerates. But it's been that way for at least 100 years. Probably more. Teddy Roosevelt is the first name that jumps to my mind. And I don't see this sort of thing stopping anytime soon. Political parties are just too fluid by nature to ever be calm.


I'd be elated to see this country be 20% Dems, 20% Repubs and 60% Independents. :s mokin:

You're pretty close now. Here's what I posted earlier. It may be more conservative that what you like. But I don't really see this changing much in the near future. Party ID may be down for the Republicans, but this country is (and probably will be for a while still) a fundamentally Conservative nation.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/co...cal-group.aspx
"Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal"

[Jag_Warrior]

Ok, I get it now. Just seems like you bring them up more than anyone I've heard of. Anyway, if you (or anyone) doesn't agree with them, just ignore them. People/groups only have as much power as we allow them to have.

I suspect you'll hear more people speak of them during the primary season next year. But I don't think discussing them (or ignoring them) makes them any more or less powerful. Just as you might discuss a left leaning group or policy that you don't agree with, I don't think the CfG or the Evangelical movement should be immune from discussion. If they came into my district and used their big bucks to bounce out a Republican that I was prepared to support (but who doesn't pass their litmus test), I'd certainly like to know who they were and what they were all about.



It's already started. I have XM and like to listen to the Right and Left channels they have. The boys over on the Left are HOWLING about the 39 Dems who voted against the Healthcare bill. The same as they are doing and have been doing with Deeds in Virginia. I think I've heard about how he isn't a "real Democrat/Progressive/Libral" more than I've heard about the NY-23 lady from the Right guys. The link I gave in my last post is just the tip of the iceberg.

We tend to have fiscally conservative Democrats in VA for our statewide offices. Even Doug Wilder was fiscally pretty conservative. We just don't have that many raging liberals in statewide offices here (Governor, Senators, etc.). What I've heard about Deeds is that he ran an unfocused, negative campaign - and he did. But no one on the left ran a Liberal candidate to take away from what few votes he did get. But no matter what he did, it is simply the case that we've been voting the alternate party into office for Governor, after a Presidential election, for thirty some years.

But in any case, "howling" and complaining are one thing. We'll see if the DNC or some national faction seeks to exclude any of these Democrats from the party going forward.



You have a point. Both parties can only "run to their base" so much before they turn off the moerates. But it's been that way for at least 100 years. Probably more. Teddy Roosevelt is the first name that jumps to my mind. And I don't see this sort of thing stopping anytime soon. Political parties are just too fluid by nature to ever be calm.

Nothing wrong with being fluid. It's just a question of how well parties can meet the needs and desires of the people as demographics change.



You're pretty close now. Here's what I posted earlier. It may be more conservative that what you like. But I don't really see this changing much in the near future. Party ID may be down for the Republicans, but this country is (and probably will be for a while still) a fundamentally Conservative nation.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/co...cal-group.aspx
"Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal"

Well, let's not confusee party I.D. with philosophy. Whether using the party leaning study or the one on hard party identification, one could be an Independent and still describe himself as conservative. In fact, one could be a Democrat and still describe himself as conservative. I would say that within the Independent group, what you'd find is many more people who would describe themelves as fiscal conservatives and social moderates, possibly social liberals... but most likely social libertarians. This is why I often ask what someone means when they describe themselves as a "conservative". Do they mean fiscally, socially, both or is it just a buzzword that they feel is appropriate? And if they mean socially, how conservative are they? For instance, are they 100% against abortions, even in cases of rape or incest (the Palin position)? But like I said, you'll find Democrats who are not in favor of abortion on demand - so they might refer to themselves as conservatives or Blue Dogs. It's all a question of degree. And IMO, if the Evangelicals want to use a litmus test to decide who is a true Republican, based on their own societal beliefs, that's totally fine with me. Just makes the I tent that much bigger.

[chuck34]

Jag, I think you and I are just saying the same thing over and over. The only thing that I can really add is that I was wrong before to say that we should ignore the CfG. Not really wrong, just worded badly.

What I've been trying to say (and doing a bad job at it) is that I think what party you associate with actually is important, at least to a degree. If you tend to agree with one party or the other, that you should try and get the best possible candidates out of that party. I know you have a different opinion on that, but hear me out.

What you seem to be concerned about is that the Club for Growth is taking over the Republican Party and making it more "radical" than you would like. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but let's assume that I'm right for the sake of conversation.

If you agree with the moderate Republicans (or Democrats for that matter), but don't like the "radicals" taking over, or vice-versa. Then I believe that you (I use "you" in a general sence) should do something to tell the party about it. Leaving doesn't really do anything. Let's say that you are fiscally Conservative and socially Liberal, sounds like you are from your posts? Well if you just leave the party system then your voice will not be heard. So the Republicans will keep on nominating hard-core right wingers. And the same can be said for the Democrats, they'll nominate hard-core left wingers. So when it comes down to the General Election, you won't have a candidate that you agree with on a lot of issues. You may end up with a third party guy here or there. But let's face reality, third party candidates don't stand much of a chance in most elections. The two parties have seen to that, for better or worse, I'm not judging that right now, just laying out reality.

So if you are ok with having a choice between bad and worse every General election, then that's fine. But if you really want to do something to get the best candidate that you can then, I believe, you must work within the sytem we have. And as bad as you or I may find that to be, it IS the system we have. It has been for about 150 years, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Roamy]

with 10.5 unemployment you don't have to speculate. It is still here

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag, I think you and I are just saying the same thing over and over. The only thing that I can really add is that I was wrong before to say that we should ignore the CfG. Not really wrong, just worded badly.

No problem.



What I've been trying to say (and doing a bad job at it) is that I think what party you associate with actually is important, at least to a degree. If you tend to agree with one party or the other, that you should try and get the best possible candidates out of that party. I know you have a different opinion on that, but hear me out.

What you seem to be concerned about is that the Club for Growth is taking over the Republican Party and making it more "radical" than you would like. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but let's assume that I'm right for the sake of conversation.

If you agree with the moderate Republicans (or Democrats for that matter), but don't like the "radicals" taking over, or vice-versa. Then I believe that you (I use "you" in a general sence) should do something to tell the party about it. Leaving doesn't really do anything.

If forced to join a party, I'd probably choose the Libertarian Party. Neither of the other parties really reflects my views as well as the Libertarian Party does these days. I would rather work to build and help an organization that often reflects my views, rather than to work within organizations that I really don't believe in. The factions that are making their voices heard within the GOP (and within the Dem party too) are backed by BIG money and influential people and organizations. Whether it's the CfG or the fundamentalist Evangelicals, they aren't just some hayseeds with picket signs. And they have a right to speak. So I wish them good luck in selling their message. Maybe people will agree and vote them in. Who knows? I just know that I don't support their way of thinking or the direction that I believe they would take the country in. Fundies and the CfG vs. Obama? Sorry, but thus far, I'd have to choose Obama.



Let's say that you are fiscally Conservative and socially Liberal, sounds like you are from your posts?

No, on most/many domestic social and foreign policy issues, I am more libertarian (small "l"). I generally don't agree with the activism of the far left liberals or the far right (social) conservatives. Both groups have a tendency to stick their noses into issues which are none of their/our business.



Well if you just leave the party system then your voice will not be heard.

Because of Perot, I think our voices were heard loud & clear (especially) in 1992, and to some degree in 1996. And because of Ralph Nader (in Florida), I think a third party was influential on the overall result in 2000. One doesn't have to win to be influential. With great enough numbers, one party or the other (maybe both) has to pay attention... just as they do with their various inner factions. Play ball or die... ya know?



So the Republicans will keep on nominating hard-core right wingers. And the same can be said for the Democrats, they'll nominate hard-core left wingers.

And that's fine. Let's see where it gets them.



So when it comes down to the General Election, you won't have a candidate that you agree with on a lot of issues. You may end up with a third party guy here or there. But let's face reality, third party candidates don't stand much of a chance in most elections. The two parties have seen to that, for better or worse, I'm not judging that right now, just laying out reality.

By nominating extremists, they may just be laying down a red carpet for the other party. For instance, I was all set to vote for Bob Barr this election. But when Sarah Palin came on the scene and I found out more about here and her views (combined with McCain's age and health issues), I swung hard for Obama. So let the GOP run her at the top of the ticket in 2012 and I'll probably (actively) work for the Obama campaign. It's not that I'd be in love with him, but I (and a great many others) would work pretty hard to make sure that total flake wouldn't become POTUS. If the Dems ran Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank, I'd probably do the same for the GOP candidate. In a race of say, Pelosi vs. Palin, I'd probably just start hitting the bottle and begin looking for a new place to live: the end is near.



So if you are ok with having a choice between bad and worse every General election, then that's fine. But if you really want to do something to get the best candidate that you can then, I believe, you must work within the sytem we have. And as bad as you or I may find that to be, it IS the system we have. It has been for about 150 years, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

I understand what you're saying about working for change. And I agree with what you said about beng realistic. And on that note, I just don't see it as realistic that my views would influence a party which holds views basically counter to my own. It's more likely that I would have to conform to the majority or the plurality in order to not be shouted down. But looking back at the history of this country, the Democrats and Republicans have basically switched philosophies over the past 70 or 80 years. And parties have come and gone over the past 150 years. While it may not happen in my lifetime, I do not see it as a given that the two major parties now will even exist or be that influential in the next 100 years. Again, the demographics of this country are rapidly changing. By 2060, the two major parties may be the Democrats and the Libertarians (who hold more conservative fiscal views, but more open social views) and the GOP might be a minority party. Or it could be the Dems who fall out of favor over time. Who knoews? But this I feel certain of, whichever one that doesn't change with the times will find itself on the outside looking in. At the very least, they will have to work with some other faction (swing voting Independents, Libertarians or whatever) to gain national office on a consistent basis.

[chuck34]

If forced to join a party, I'd probably choose the Libertarian Party. Neither of the other parties really reflects my views as well as the Libertarian Party does these days. I would rather work to build and help an organization that often reflects my views, rather than to work within organizations that I really don't believe in. The factions that are making their voices heard within the GOP (and within the Dem party too) are backed by BIG money and influential people and organizations. Whether it's the CfG or the fundamentalist Evangelicals, they aren't just some hayseeds with picket signs. And they have a right to speak. So I wish them good luck in selling their message. Maybe people will agree and vote them in. Who knows? I just know that I don't support their way of thinking or the direction that I believe they would take the country in. Fundies and the CfG vs. Obama? Sorry, but thus far, I'd have to choose Obama.

I understand what you are saying. But unfortunately money makes the world go 'round. That's why I don't see either of the 2 parties going away. Changing, yes, going away, no. But I would actually consider myself more Libertarian as well. If I ever saw a Libertarian on my ballot, I may vote for them. That being said though, that party as it stands, pulls in quite a few "out there" types. :-/


No, on most/many domestic social and foreign policy issues, I am more libertarian (small "l"). I generally don't agree with the activism of the far left liberals or the far right (social) conservatives. Both groups have a tendency to stick their noses into issues which are none of their/our business.

That's what I was trying to say, and how I would read you from your posts. I'm not trying to presume anything about you, just furthering the conversation more than anything.


Because of Perot, I think our voices were heard loud & clear (especially) in 1992, and to some degree in 1996. And because of Ralph Nader (in Florida), I think a third party was influential on the overall result in 2000. One doesn't have to win to be influential. With great enough numbers, one party or the other (maybe both) has to pay attention... just as they do with their various inner factions. Play ball or die... ya know?

They do pay attention, and adjust their platforms to suite. That's another reason that I don't see a major 3rd Party any time soon. And you sort of prove my point as well. Out of the 3 elections you put up, Perot in '92 got the most votes (I think the most for any Pres. 3rd Party ever). Then it was a steady decline in vote totals since. 3rd Parties aren't making any in-roads, as much as you (and I) would like to see that.


And that's fine. Let's see where it gets them.

It'll get them exaclty where they are today. And you as well. They'll have people picking between bad and worse, and the country will suffer for it. I think that you think there is going to be some sort of exodus from the 2 main Parties to some sort of 3rd Party. I don't see that at all. Sure people are fleeing the 2 main Parties. However, there isn't any other Party out there picking them up. What I see happening is that people are frustrated with their current party for being either too radical or too moderate, so they "leave", but keep voting for them. Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't see a 3rd Party movement picking up any steam.


By nominating extremists, they may just be laying down a red carpet for the other party. For instance, I was all set to vote for Bob Barr this election. But when Sarah Palin came on the scene and I found out more about here and her views (combined with McCain's age and health issues), I swung hard for Obama. So let the GOP run her at the top of the ticket in 2012 and I'll probably (actively) work for the Obama campaign. It's not that I'd be in love with him, but I (and a great many others) would work pretty hard to make sure that total flake wouldn't become POTUS. If the Dems ran Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank, I'd probably do the same for the GOP candidate. In a race of say, Pelosi vs. Palin, I'd probably just start hitting the bottle and begin looking for a new place to live: the end is near.

What you just described is why I think you would actually be happier in the Republican Party, working to get people you like NOMINATED. Sure you don't like McCain or Palin, many don't/didn't, but if you don't try to do anything about them from the inside then who's fault is it? From your posts, I just don't really think you can like Obama all that much either (big gov., lots of spending, etc.)

I'm not trying to swing you to one party or the other, I'm really not, even if it may sound like it. I just think you are in the same boat I'm in, disapointed with both Parties and looking for a home. So I suggest looking at both Parties platforms, not the individuals running in them.



I understand what you're saying about working for change. And I agree with what you said about beng realistic. And on that note, I just don't see it as realistic that my views would influence a party which holds views basically counter to my own. It's more likely that I would have to conform to the majority or the plurality in order to not be shouted down.

You will find that especially on a local level this is NOT the case at all. And all politics are local, right? And at any rate, at least for me, I'm not trying to change their minds, just trying to make them stick to their actual platform.


But looking back at the history of this country, the Democrats and Republicans have basically switched philosophies over the past 70 or 80 years. And parties have come and gone over the past 150 years. While it may not happen in my lifetime, I do not see it as a given that the two major parties now will even exist or be that influential in the next 100 years. Again, the demographics of this country are rapidly changing. By 2060, the two major parties may be the Democrats and the Libertarians (who hold more conservative fiscal views, but more open social views) and the GOP might be a minority party. Or it could be the Dems who fall out of favor over time. Who knoews? But this I feel certain of, whichever one that doesn't change with the times will find itself on the outside looking in. At the very least, they will have to work with some other faction (swing voting Independents, Libertarians or whatever) to gain national office on a consistent basis.

In this you contridict yourself. First you say that the two parties have switched philosophies. Then you say other parties have come and gone. After that you basically say that the main parties have to "adapt or die". Well, by your own admission, they have been adapting for some time now. Why do you think that will suddenly change and that either one would go away?

Anyway, I think I'm comming off as trying to sell you on the Republican Party. I'm really not. I think that everyone has a right to choose their own beliefs, etc. But from your posts I really think that you and I think alike on many issues. So I'm trying to point out to you that the Republican Party PLATFORM may fit your belief system better than you think.

I don't know, I'm talking in circles, and this is the wrong thread for this anyway. I'll move along now. :-)

[Jag_Warrior]

I understand what you are saying. But unfortunately money makes the world go 'round. That's why I don't see either of the 2 parties going away. Changing, yes, going away, no. But I would actually consider myself more Libertarian as well. If I ever saw a Libertarian on my ballot, I may vote for them. That being said though, that party as it stands, pulls in quite a few "out there" types. :-/

Yes, always good to keep an open mind. As for the "out there" types in the Libertrian Party, it has its share. But I don't know that any are any loopier than say, Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin, and several in the Fundamentalist Evangelical faction of the GOP. I can't prove it on my own, but I'm pretty sure that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old... and no Greek ever saw the first dinosaur. :D




That's what I was trying to say, and how I would read you from your posts. I'm not trying to presume anything about you, just furthering the conversation more than anything.

All's well.




They do pay attention, and adjust their platforms to suite. That's another reason that I don't see a major 3rd Party any time soon. And you sort of prove my point as well. Out of the 3 elections you put up, Perot in '92 got the most votes (I think the most for any Pres. 3rd Party ever). Then it was a steady decline in vote totals since. 3rd Parties aren't making any in-roads, as much as you (and I) would like to see that.

And it was Perot's inclusion that likely cost Bush the election. So, as I've said, it's not that the 3rd party has to win, only that it can garner enough votes to influence the election one way or the other.




It'll get them exaclty where they are today. And you as well. They'll have people picking between bad and worse, and the country will suffer for it. I think that you think there is going to be some sort of exodus from the 2 main Parties to some sort of 3rd Party. I don't see that at all. Sure people are fleeing the 2 main Parties. However, there isn't any other Party out there picking them up. What I see happening is that people are frustrated with their current party for being either too radical or too moderate, so they "leave", but keep voting for them. Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't see a 3rd Party movement picking up any steam.

Yes, people leave the major parties and then vote for somebody. But by being an independent, there's no way to know who that somebody might be. But I have no more interest in helping the GOP pick its candidates than I do the Democrats. Although because of where I live, I actually can help either or both select or elect national candidates. I'm happy with my state's system JUST the way it is. And if the future of this country truly depends on these two party machines ever doing right by the people (not just their well funded special interests), we're screwed anyway.




What you just described is why I think you would actually be happier in the Republican Party, working to get people you like NOMINATED. Sure you don't like McCain or Palin, many don't/didn't, but if you don't try to do anything about them from the inside then who's fault is it? From your posts, I just don't really think you can like Obama all that much either (big gov., lots of spending, etc.)

Big governement and massive spending on domestic programs from the Dems. Big government and massive spending on foreign expeditions from the Repubs. Favoring unions and big labor from the Dems. Favoring multinationals and big business from the Repubs.



I'm not trying to swing you to one party or the other, I'm really not, even if it may sound like it. I just think you are in the same boat I'm in, disapointed with both Parties and looking for a home. So I suggest looking at both Parties platforms, not the individuals running in them.

But I don't vote for a party when I pull the lever. I vote for the individual. In this past election, I voted for Democrats and Republicans. A platform is just a bunch of words. George W. Bush told me (the nation) that he didn't believe in nation building. I believed him. He lied. We've plowed roughly $700 BILLION into Iraq, while they sit there with over $80 BILLION in their own accounts. Words and platforms mean little. I look at them, but then look (closely) at the background and associations of the candidate. I have an opinion on the abortion issue. But unlike the fundamentalists, it is not the key issue that occupies my thoughts.





You will find that especially on a local level this is NOT the case at all. And all politics are local, right? And at any rate, at least for me, I'm not trying to change their minds, just trying to make them stick to their actual platform.

Nothing wrong with that.




In this you contridict yourself. First you say that the two parties have switched philosophies. Then you say other parties have come and gone. After that you basically say that the main parties have to "adapt or die". Well, by your own admission, they have been adapting for some time now. Why do you think that will suddenly change and that either one would go away?

I don't see a contradiction. The Whigs, Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists no longer exist, while the Republicans and Democrats have pretty well switched philosophies. Parties have indeed come and gone. Parties have indeed adapted or changed. I didn't say that one or the other would go away. I said that I didn't see it as a given that the two major parties now will even exist or be that influential in the next 100 years. To quote Tom Petty, "Baby, nothing's guaranteed." The demographics of this country are changing. That is simply a fact. How or if the major parties change to account for that is an open question.


Anyway, I think I'm comming off as trying to sell you on the Republican Party. I'm really not. I think that everyone has a right to choose their own beliefs, etc. But from your posts I really think that you and I think alike on many issues. So I'm trying to point out to you that the Republican Party PLATFORM may fit your belief system better than you think.

I believe we do see certain things in a similar way. But as I've said, depending on the issue, I have as many objections to the GOP as the Dems. I feel no need to join any political party. But again, if I did, I'd probably join the Libertarians. I fully agree with George Washington when it comes to political parties:


Excerpts from George Washington's farewell speech:

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

Wise words from a very wise man, IMO.

Just as early leaders of the Roman Republic warned against allowing power be concentrated in too few hands for long periods of time, George Washington, who studied the Roman and Greek classics, also warned of the same for us. We have not heeded his warnings... and so, here we are. :dozey:



I don't know, I'm talking in circles, and this is the wrong thread for this anyway. I'll move along now. :-)

I've enjoyed the discussion as well.

[chuck34]

Jag, your points are all very valid. I agree with most of them. The problem that I have is that the Democrats are NEVER going to nominate someone that I agree with, at least not on most issues, unless something MAJOR happens. And the Republicans can nominate someone that I like because I agree with their platform. Now that being said, they don't always nominate someone I like, and in fact they haven't in the last 3-4 election cycles (nationally at least, Indiana has done better state-wide).

Where you and I differ, I think, is that you see a 3rd party emerging. Or at least the 2 main parties listening to the "independents". The problem with that is 2-fold.

First, both parties are sort of running to their bases. That is what always happens, especially during the primary part of the process. So if there are no moderating voices within either party, we'll end up with a "Sociallist/Communist" from the Dems, and a "Bible Thumping/Nazi" from the Repubs. So your response to that is that you'll vote for some magical third party guy, which leads me to the second problem ...

The two main parties have rigged things so that they stay in power. I totally agree with you and George Washington, this is a bad thing. However, it is reallity, and not likely to change anytime soon. McCain/Feingold was aimed at trying to stop some of this nonsence, and I believe it's only made things worse. More power in less hands, etc. Perot has been the only guy in the last 100 years or so to make a dent as a third party guy. How much of his own money did he spend? How far did he get? How many obsticles did he beat his head against? Do you think it's any easier now, especially on a Presidential level?

That's why I take the approach of trying to have my voice heard from the inside. I believe that will be more effective. Obviously, you have a different opinion, and that's fine. Honestly, I hope you're right, and a third party does gain some "status". I think this country needs it. I'm just not willing to work for it, I think my efforts will be better served from within. But if a Libertarian (or better yet a Constitutionalist) candidate is ever on my ballot, I'd probably vote for them.

[Jag_Warrior]

Chuck, depending on your views, you could try to be a "moderate voice from within". But more than likely, you'd just be swept up by the tide or they'd force you out... or at least shout over you by calling you a RINO or whatever.

Washington's farewell speech is much longer than what I posted. But if you read it line by line, what he said 200+ years ago is exactly what is happening now. What he warned us about is what we are facing. And any party which plays to the extremists will probably just push away those in the center... which is where most people are and how elections (national) are generally won. Just because someone says that they are a "conservative", that doesn't mean that they agree with Sarah Palin. Just because someone says that they are a "liberal", that doesn't mean that they agree with Robert Reich. It's that great mass in the middle who decide elections.

But I have voted, and will continue to vote for the best choice in my mind, no matter (or despite) the party. I don't need to belong to a party to be able to continue doing that. I don't need to sign up as a D or an R in order to vote in my state's primaries.

Here's where I think there's an additional reality. Why is it any more likely that my membership would change or moderate a party playing to extremes, but my vote for a 3rd party candidate makes no difference? In both cases, if more people were in line with my vote, our side would come out on top, right? But one little voice among a mob or a herd wouldn't affect one situation anymore (or any less) than it would the other. I just vote my head and my conscience, whether that vote goes to the eventual winner or not. And no, I have no desire to be part of bodies which I believe have damaged, not strengthened, our Republic. Helping to fatten one or both, so that they can continue playing to the special interests and keep the country divided by employing B.S. rhetoric and scare tactics? Nopey. Not for me.

So I drink alone. With nobody else. You know when I drink alone, I prefer to be by myself. :s mokin:

[Jag_Warrior]

And back on the original topic, Bill Gross recently gave a speech where he detailed the disconnect between GDP and the rate of employment. I'm still trying to find it on Bloomberg. But he has apparently done a study or built an economic model where he shows the relationship (or lack thereof) between GDP and employment.

For those that don't know the name, Gross is a director of PIMCO (the largest bond fund in the world) and one of the greatest minds in the investment world.

[chuck34]

Chuck, depending on your views, you could try to be a "moderate voice from within". But more than likely, you'd just be swept up by the tide or they'd force you out... or at least shout over you by calling you a RINO or whatever.

To use your philosophy ... If there are enough voices of moderation from within, they can't ignore us all.


Washington's farewell speech is much longer than what I posted. But if you read it line by line, what he said 200+ years ago is exactly what is happening now. What he warned us about is what we are facing.

I have read Washington's farewell speech many times, it's a great document. Also, I've ready many things from the Founders. They were pretty much to a man some of the smartest people to walk the earth. I'm sure I'll catch heck for saying that, but it's what I believe.


And any party which plays to the extremists will probably just push away those in the center... which is where most people are and how elections (national) are generally won. Just because someone says that they are a "conservative", that doesn't mean that they agree with Sarah Palin. Just because someone says that they are a "liberal", that doesn't mean that they agree with Robert Reich. It's that great mass in the middle who decide elections.

Again the reality of the way things are set up currently is that each party must play to the extreists during the primary process. It's a fact of life. It's not perfect, far from it. But it is what it is.


But I have voted, and will continue to vote for the best choice in my mind, no matter (or despite) the party. I don't need to belong to a party to be able to continue doing that. I don't need to sign up as a D or an R in order to vote in my state's primaries.

Ok, if you are actually voting in the primaries then that changes things. Your voice IS being heard. I also live in a state where you can vote in either primary, no registration needed.


Here's where I think there's an additional reality. Why is it any more likely that my membership would change or moderate a party playing to extremes, but my vote for a 3rd party candidate makes no difference?

Belonging to a party (and I include voting in the primaries in that) gives you a voice. Historically voting for a 3rd party candidate is a "wasted" vote. Or worse. Like with Perot, most people who voted for him would have more than likely voted for Bush in '92 in a 2 man race. Therefore, their vote for Perot actually helped elect their third (least desirable) choice. I know that most would consider their vote to have been wasted, but really what did they prove by voting for Perot?


In both cases, if more people were in line with my vote, our side would come out on top, right? But one little voice among a mob or a herd wouldn't affect one situation anymore (or any less) than it would the other. I just vote my head and my conscience, whether that vote goes to the eventual winner or not. And no, I have no desire to be part of bodies which I believe have damaged, not strengthened, our Republic. Helping to fatten one or both, so that they can continue playing to the special interests and keep the country divided by employing B.S. rhetoric and scare tactics? Nopey. Not for me.

That's fine, you can believe that. My point has been that if you get a poor D and a poor R, you really have a poor choice in the general election. Again, I would love it if a 3rd party would be viable, but I don't see it happening. The 2 parties have stacked the deck pretty heavily against that.


So I drink alone. With nobody else. You know when I drink alone, I prefer to be by myself. :s mokin:

I'll drink with you man.

[Jag_Warrior]

To use your philosophy ... If there are enough voices of moderation from within, they can't ignore us all.

OK. :confused: But then you say this:

Again the reality of the way things are set up currently is that each party must play to the extreists during the primary process. It's a fact of life. It's not perfect, far from it. But it is what it is.

If they're f'ed up before I get to the meeting, they're probably too f'ed up for me to help them. Rather than associate with those who don't believe as I do, and try to get them to change, I'd simply associate with those who believe more as I do.



I have read Washington's farewell speech many times, it's a great document. Also, I've ready many things from the Founders. They were pretty much to a man some of the smartest people to walk the earth. I'm sure I'll catch heck for saying that, but it's what I believe.

Yes, they were well read and learned from history. What worked. What didn't work. And how to perfect that which worked, but not always so well. My mother read the Latin classics when she was in school. I didn't - I had to pick some of them up much later in life and read them on my own. I am better for it. But I would have been even better off had I read them when I was in my mid teens. But anyway, it's not just what they believed, but how they got there. Logic and reason provide a very important basis for our (rational) decisions and thoughts. Emotion, not so much so - but that is the nature of man. That is part of what Washington was getting at. And yes, the founders were wise, though not infallible.



Again the reality of the way things are set up currently is that each party must play to the extreists during the primary process. It's a fact of life. It's not perfect, far from it. But it is what it is.

That's how I see it: it is what it is.



Ok, if you are actually voting in the primaries then that changes things. Your voice IS being heard. I also live in a state where you can vote in either primary, no registration needed.

Sure, I vote, write letters, call people, etc. I've even met with my Congressman before.



Belonging to a party (and I include voting in the primaries in that) gives you a voice. Historically voting for a 3rd party candidate is a "wasted" vote. Or worse. Like with Perot, most people who voted for him would have more than likely voted for Bush in '92 in a 2 man race. Therefore, their vote for Perot actually helped elect their third (least desirable) choice. I know that most would consider their vote to have been wasted, but really what did they prove by voting for Perot?

I worked for and supported a candidate that I really believed in. I can't describe how much passion was evident during each rally. I didn't go to any Obama rallies. But I'd say that what we experienced during the early days of the Perot campaign was similar. Whether he won or lost, we tried. And to be honest, his chances of winning were pretty good up until the campaign began to self-destruct. But I held Bush I and Clinton in equal disdain. Like many other Perot voters, I may have voted for Bush. But more likely, I would have done what I did in 2004: support some other 3rd party candidate. But IMO, no vote is wasted. To go back to Washington's point, it's only when people look first at party, instead of the candidate, that we fail. And if the best candidate cannot win simply because of the party that he belongs to, the system and the people have failed. Exactly as Washington warned. To be devoted to a party, rather than what is in the best interests of the nation, dooms us all.



That's fine, you can believe that. My point has been that if you get a poor D and a poor R, you really have a poor choice in the general election. Again, I would love it if a 3rd party would be viable, but I don't see it happening. The 2 parties have stacked the deck pretty heavily against that.

3rd/4th/5th parties are only not viable because people are so tied to their party affiliations. If the D's & R's run whack jobs, voters should be willing to choose the 3rd or 4th candidate, assuming one of them is better. But they've been socialized not to do that. So they pick a D or an R. It amazes me that Baskin Robbins has been as successful as it's been... offering 31 flavors, instead of just 2. :D As a person I used to work with said, "I've voted Republican my whole life. My dad voted Republican and so do I." He saw politics like some people see religion or church denomination. My dad was a Methodist, so I'm one too. That ain't me.




I'll drink with you man.

A member of a state police agency (not my state, BTW) left me with a jar of mysterious liquid after the Halloween party at the lake. Swing on by and we'll see what it is. It might be the same stuff that he had at the Memorial Day party that caused a girl to take her top off and caused a married woman to give me a smooch on the cheek. Firewater!!! :D