Comments on: Ain’t This Tent Big Enough For The Two Of Us?

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:53:40 +0000

balconesfault: One more point I should have made. A tax cut could have gone into effect immediately--all of it.

Whereas only about one-fourth of Obama's so-called "stimulus" package will be spent this fiscal year. The rest is spread forward over at least four years.

That doesn't sound to me like an emergency stimulus to avoid economic collapse ($200 billion is small compared to the size of the U.S. economy). It sounds to me like the usual list of liberal pie-in-the-sky projects, which will continue regardless of what the state of the economy is next year.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:39:21 +0000

balconesfault: You misunderstood my point.

My point was that doing stimulus by tax cuts makes it easier to turn off that stimulus when it's no longer needed. (Indeed, the original Bush tax cuts were programmed to sunset automatically.)

Whereas if the Government hands out money to specific groups and constituencies, it is creating a voting constituency that is going to demand that spending be continued indefinitely. If today's stimulus package starts construction on a new superhighway somewhere, for example, that superhighway's construction will need to be completed, even if the economy is booming by then.

I really don't see how all the spending Obama has initiated can ever be brought under control again. The prices of commodities like metals and energy, which had collapsed along with the financial collapse, are now rising sharply again. We're headed for stagflation, just like the 1970s, and Obama won't be able to stop it.

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:22:37 +0000

re: Commodity Futures Modernization Act and Glass-Steagall.

You are correct. Contrary to the "Klinton-Communist" silly rhetoric that many used, President Clinton was quite pro-business. This was the main reason why the Greens/Nader split off in 2000.

Many laud the Clinton-GOP Congress for its budget control during the 90's. But Clinton also signed some significant anti-regulatory legislation that came out of the Gingrich Congress.

But Bush's fault wasn't just ignoring warning signs - it was an ideological disposition (and some might say, an intellectual lack of curiostiy) that made him fundamentally incapable of hearing or seeing warning signs.

Add that under Democrats, there has been a committment to maintaining an aggressive, professional federal bureaucracy that looks for problems and brings them to the top. One of my major beefs with the Bush Administration was that it favored the appointment of Heritage Foundation approved ideologues over experienced professionals for too many key jobs - and these appointees saw their primary roles as justifying their ideology, and not as making the bureaucracy work.

Where we disagree fundamentally, I think, is over what responsibility government has when it is spending tons of taxpayer money (or worse, borrowed money) to stimulate the economy. At that stage, I believe that government has a responsibility to direct the money to those places where it concludes the money will best provide stimulus - that anything else is irresponsible. From your perspective, I think, government has a responsibility to increase the money supply via tax cuts with the belief that the private sector will direct the money where it will do the best good. I am more comfortable with government borrowing in my name to spend money in a way that they tell me about ahead of time - you are more comfortable with government borrowing in your name to give to people without really knowing a game plan for how it will be spent.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:16:06 +0000

Dr. Tesla sez: "The Truth: she and most moderates voted for Obama because he's black plus they are pro-abortion....it didn't have crap to do with Palin's experience and the Couric interivew."

I agree with you that the running mate is rarely a significant factor. In 1988, Dan Quayle was made into a laughingstock by the Dems (unfairly, in my view), but Bush 41 won a landslide electoral victory anyway.

But Ms. Wright said that she voted *against* McCain, because "In the final weeks of the election, stacked next to Obama, McCain looked old to me like he didnt have the stamina to lead."

McCain fell apart when the financial crisis hit. He suspended his campaign, raced back to Washington where he accomplished absolutely nothing on the financial crisis--and then he resumed campaigning again. And in his debates with Obama, McCain kept babbling on incessantly about earmarks, while the entire world financial system was threatening to crumble.

The GOP had nominated McCain on the assumption that the Iraq War would be the big issue of 2008. McCain's credentials on defense issues are terrific. But the big issue turned out to be the declining economy, a subject that McCain himself has admitted isn't his strong point.

That is why McCain lost the moderate voters. They didn't care about Reverend Wright or abortion. They wanted someone to keep the U.S. economy from going down.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:07:46 +0000

ottovbvs sez: "Obama has taken office during the worst financial and economic crisis since the depression which was largely the product of the Bush admin and he's having to spend a load of money to stop the economy from going over a cliff."

This is wrong on two counts.

The seeds of the economic collapse were sown in 2000, when Clinton was still in office. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, co-sponsored by Phil Gramm and signed into law by Clinton, gutted SEC oversight of Credit Default Swap (CDS) derivatives. Over-speculation in those derivatives (to the tune of $40 trilion) led to the collapse of AIG and other investment firms, and nearly brought down the entire financial system.

A lot of liberals also like to complain that the repeal of Glass-Steagall also contributed to the financial collapse. But again, this happened under Clinton and the GOP-led Congress.

Bush's fault was that he ignored the warning signs until it was too late. But he didn't create the mess in the first place.

The other point is that conservatives like me recognize that extreme measures need to be taken when a financial collapse looms. But the measures I wanted to be taken would sunset (go away) after the financial crisis ends. For example, a huge tax cut could have been passed for economic stimulus, with provisions it would sunset in three years.

But Obama launched a slew of social engineering projects under the guise of "stimulus." Those will be nearly impossible to stop even after the economic crisis has passed. For example, if groundbreaking has already commenced on an infrastructure project, will the project be shut down after the economy is humming? Of course not. I live in Boston, where the Big Dig highway project incurred a cost overrun of 400%. Once it started, with downtown Boston torn up, they couldn't just stop it and leave Boston in that condition.

Much of what Obama is doing as "stimulus," his liberal supporters wanted done anyway, long before the economic crisis hit. And they will want it continued, even after the financial crisis ends. Even if that causes double-digit inflation or steep tax increases to pay for it all

And when that becomes apparent to the American public, Obama's approval ratings won't be what they are now.

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:37:42 +0000

Contrary to what Tesla asserts, I’m pretty sure that Democratic strategists don’t believe that all moderates voted for Obama in 2008.But given the way the current chess match is going, with Obama consistently reaching out to listen to moderates, and much of the Republican Party sending out the message “you’re welcome to the table, as long as you shut up and learn something” they may well do so in 2012.

By: midcon

midcon — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:16:36 +0000

Tesla, You continue to prattle on about gays, anti-Christians, etc. My only conclusion is that are predisposed to react that way. Either your upbringing or genetics are the two most likely causes. Or, perhaps when in a difficult situation you respond with "Your gay!" Regardless of the reason, it is at best juvenile. At worst it confirms what I and many others think about the universe of social conservatives.

It is amusing to see you write about intolerance. In fact it is almost as amusing as calling the nominee for the Supreme Court "racist."

Again, as I remind you, I welcome your output because you are an ideal poster boy for the fringe right. Please don't let anything I say moderate your behavior. Honestly, it is the last thing I would want. Besides, who cares what moderates and liberals might say anyway, they are the ones descended from apes, not the 6Kers like you.

By: Dr. Tesla

Dr. Tesla — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:21:01 +0000

Midcon,

You are obsessed with social conservatives. You hate them, you never shut up about them.

I'm just curious why they are always on the brain. I just through out some reasons...I know some homosexuals that really hate Christians and/or social conservatives because of the gay marriage issue. I"m just trying to understand your intolerance of others. No big deal if you don't want to share.

By: Dr. Tesla

Dr. Tesla — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:18:31 +0000

WHy does this Crystal lady think she is above criticism? IF she comes out blasting conservatives and engages in pretentious lectures about what the Republican party needs to do even though she voted for Obama, she's going to get some blowback.

This victim card that she is playing and that Frum played for her in a previous post is amusing.

The message seems to be is that conservative base has to bow down to the moderates who apparently only reason for voting for Obama was because Palin did a poor interview. (The Truth: she and most moderates voted for Obama because he's black plus they are pro-abortion....it didn't have crap to do with Palin's experience and the Couric interivew.)

Did all moderates vote for Democrats? That seems to be the impression that Democrats want people to believe. I would argue it was the surge in new minority voters that lead to Obama's big victory. It certainly explains his win in a state like NC where Democrats usually lose but the state has a very large black population.

By: Dr. Tesla

Dr. Tesla — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:10:35 +0000

The problem Frum has is that the Party has not run as what he considers "far right" except Reagan and Bush, and Bush turned out to be pretty liberal on many issues. THe other "moderate candidates to include Bush Sr, Dole, and McCain lost. I think suggesting Palin is why "moderates" voted for Obama is just a liberal talking point because they of course want to cut the more conservative person on the ticket down to size. Since there is no doubt she gained McCain votes due to a depressed conservative base, it's amusing to hear liberals continue to assert she is why McCain lost and it was because these moderates just thought she was so stupid and religious they bolted to Obama. Nothing about Obama's thin resume to be president bothered these precious moderates though, or his associations with a racist hatemonger preacher (Wright) or a former terrorist who wished he had done more (BIll Ayers).

I personally don't see how a moderate votes for a man like Obama based on his associations alone. No white guy would have won with those kind of associations, and I daresay, no white Democrat with his unremarkable lack of experience, including zero executive experience and only 3 years in the senate, would have even been in contention for the nomination.