Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

That’s debatable. And cynical.

But “read me lips” … a politician is not likely to get re-elected by lying.
But it may depend on what the meaning of “is” is.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 9, 2008 06:58 PM

Amen. Wish someone would break ranks and give us real reform and not more of the same. Do I care if a politician is re-elected? No! I care if they do what they can to cut spending and entitlements. Cynical, absolutely! And we have politicians to thank.

Posted by: Chris at March 9, 2008 07:14 PM

People never tell each other the whole truth, and even when they do tell each other the truth, they don’t always know everything or think of everything to say.

But that said, and human fallibility allowed for, falsity and deception carry their costs, and in it’s in our interests to strongly discourage them.

And people already do that, to be sure. A person who lies consistently, who creates massive deceptions is a person setting themselves up for a fall. There are people like that, especially high in government, but at the end of the day, the risk we take in every election is the same. We have to have the courage to risk putting people like that in power, yet also the courage to confront them when they try and screw us over. There is no passive solution to this problem.

All that said, look at your friend McCain. He’s an utter hypocrite. He sells himself as clean of Washington influence, yet he surrounds himself with it. He said one thing before he ran for president, and says another now to get elected.

And if that’s not bad enough, he’s basically going to continue the whole foolish mess Bush made. I could hardly think of a person less qualified to be president, no matter how long he’s remained in Washington.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 9, 2008 07:22 PM

But that explains why the politicians avoid discussing illegal immigration, or these other abuses.

And the media isn’t very helpful either at asking the tough questions, such as …

• What causes inflation?


• Why has the U.S. Dollar been falling drastically since 1999 (it’s actually been falling (one-simple-idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Inflation0) all along)?


• Why are incomes stagnant since 1967 while GDP has increased (despite more workers per household, a disappearing 40 hour work week)?


• Why is the tax system called progressive, when it is actually regressive?


• Why the occupation of Iraq? Oil?


• Why rampant illegal immigration? Who profits from pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes ?


• Why aren’t existing laws enforced (e.g. such as immigration laws; U.S. Constitutional violations)?


• Why so much debt ($48 Trillion nation-wide: mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm)?


• If economy is so great, why a $150 Billion economic stimulus package? What are they nervous about?


• Why the constant consumerism and encouragement to spend, borrow, spend, borrow, … ?


• Where will the money come from to pay the interest on $48 Trillion of debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $48 Trillion of debt? What is a pyramid-scheme?


• Why does a tiny 1% of the U.S. population own 40% of all wealth (up from 20% in year 1980; never worse since the Great Depression)?


• Why are some things not taught in public schools, or ever mentioned in the Main Stream Media (e.g. monetary theory, banking, finance, pyramid schemes, etc.)?


• How is it that 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters are VASTLY out-spent by a very tiny 0.15% of all voters that make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more). There are two classes in this country. One class derives concentrated power from its concentrated wealth. The other class has power only in numbers, and that power is largely ineffective due to their inability to mobilize through organization (such as merely not re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians).

There are many questions, and a person does not need to know all of the answers to know that these many abuses did not all come about by mere coincidence.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 9, 2008 07:26 PM

A politician has to satisfy two constituencies. First, he or she has to earn the votes of the majority of the people in a democratic election.

Once in office, a politician must satisfy a different constintuency, the powers capable of putting promises into action.

These are two different groups with two different and often conflicting agendas.

Most of the power and wealth in the US is concentrated in a very small portion of the population, less than 1%.

The rest of the power and wealth is spread over the rest of the population.

Therefore, the majority must somehow be convinced to vote for a program which is contrary to their interests, and favorable to the 1%.

This is the nature of corporatism and the exertion of control by the military industrial complex.

For example, most people have no interest whatsoever in Iraq. Most Americans have never been and will never go to Iraq, and most have never met an Iraqi.

Yet Iraq possesses a geographical position which is valuable to the military, and natural resources in the form of oil, which are valuable to corporations.

The trick is to convince Americans that Iraq somehow poses a threat to them.

Lately it hasn’t been working so well.

Good luck, Obama. Best wishes. You’re talking the talk of the majority, and that means some very unscrupulous people will be coming after you in the name of corporatism, as you already know.

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2008 07:32 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_costs_1

Posted by: Jane Doe at March 9, 2008 07:39 PM

Jack,
“An honest politician would tell the people that government’s effect on the economy is long term and cannot be personalized.”

What are you suggesting? How long is “long term”? The Federal Reserve changes the Federal Funds Rate based on six month time lines. For fiscal policy, Congress is offering a stimulus package with the same kind of time line.

The government personalizes the economy in the form of training programs, among many other ways.

Half of the net number of jobs created by Bush have been government jobs. That’s a pretty personalized effect which the government can have.

The government could do something really great which would have a huge effect on the economy, such as a major investment in rebuilding infrastructure-

Gee, what a concept-

-Or investing in R&D for alternative energies, to ameliorate Global Warming.

You write: “He/she would tell them that government programs are more likely to cause harm than good to the economy.”

No. An honest politician would admit most economic problems are caused by greed. That greed is criminal in nature. Most often, it hides behind words like “privatization” and “deregulation.”

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2008 08:01 PM

An honest politician would admit most economic problems are caused by greed. That greed is criminal in nature. Most often, it hides behind words like “privatization” and “deregulation.”

And so deprivatization and regulation is what helps the economy? That is what you think an honest politician would tell us? Politicians like Kim Jung-il and Fidel Castro might agree, but that’s not the kind of honesty we need.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 9, 2008 09:08 PM

Greed is a perfectly good motivator. I believe that worse decisions are based upon fear of loss. The one term congressman finding the halls of power to be addicting turns into a career man based upon the fear of loss of that power. Without some self interest in a project, it will mostly likely stagnate (unless of course it is a government program). All things in moderation including moderation.

Posted by: Scottp at March 9, 2008 10:34 PM

Only John McCain has the experience and proven character to keep our country safe.

If elected President, John McCain will be 72 years old when he takes office. Ronald Reagan was 69 years old when he took office. Reagan was very adept at deflecting questions of his age, when he ran. Ronald Reagan was also disputably already feeling the affects of Alzheimer when he left office. Does this mean McCain’s age would definitely affect his presidency, if elected?

No, of course not. But it does mean his experience would come with some form of baggage. The voters will have to look at whomever he chooses as a running mate, as having a higher than normal potential of having to relieve McCain as president, if McCain were to win.

Posted by: Cube at March 9, 2008 11:53 PM

“Only John McCain has the experience and proven character to keep our country safe.”

Safe from what? Am I supposed to be afraid again? Sheesh.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2008 12:03 AM

Stephen

In politics there is pattern of deception. People are willing to accept and vote for candidates who tell them that their problems are not there fault or more usually the fault of rich, foreigners, insiders or just “them”. Politicians who promise easy solutions do better than those who tell the truth. This is human nature.

The danger of politics is that it makes perfect sense to vote for the liars. That is why we need to limit the scope of government.

d.a.n.

What causes inflation – politicians influence that only tangentially. Inflation has not been a serious problem since the 1980s anyway.

Incomes have not stagnated since 1967. The median income adjusted for inflation is around 1/3 higher than it was back in 1967. If you just look at what people own now compared to back then, you see the difference. I was a working class kid in 1967. We lived in a house with a single bathroom; we did not own a car; most of my neighbors had never been on a airplane (except in the military). We had one black and white TV (no cable). The list goes on. Things have improved materially.

Phx8

The long term is generational.

I think that a good analogy is a human body. If I want to be healthy and strong, I need to spend years eating right and exercising. It is possible to take drugs or drink some whiskey that will make you FEEL good, but the in the long term these things will actually hurt you.

Your infrastructure example is good. Investments in infrastructure pay off YEARS after they are built. They also need to be maintained. Politicians don’t get much credit for infrastructure, especially the most important parts, which are often invisible to the public.

Re economic problems – NO - they are not caused by greed, except in the very broad sense that most people want to make money. The biggest problem in the economy is information. That is why it is a mistake for governments to try to control prices. It takes away too much information.

Private property is the best way to grow general prosperity. There is NO country in the world were you would want to live that does not protect private property. It is the single most important factor in prosperity.

Re jobs – presidents do not create jobs (I suppose unless the government hires somebody, but that is just a redistribution). Most of the jobs were “lost” in 2000-2002, anyway and there is no way Bush could have caused that – EVEN if you believe presidents create jobs.

Re alternative energy – in the last couple of years investment in alternative energy investments have skyrocketed. The government already has programs that help, but the biggest incentive is price of energy. The best thing the government could do is a carbon tax.

Re being afraid again – No, a prudent and brave person does not need to be afraid. But he does need to do the things necessary to protect himself. When I ride my bike a wear a helmet; when I drive my car I wear my seatbelt. The world has both opportunities and dangers. We cannot just ignore either.

The most important job of a president is to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic. That is what the oath of office says. Everything else is mere comentary.

Posted by: Jack at March 10, 2008 01:32 AM

Only John McCain has the experience and proven character to keep our country safe.

Actually McCain is a very old man with a very bad temper, and that unstable temperament of his really spooks some military leaders.

A quote from the link:

In interviews with Salon this week, several experienced military officers said McCain draws mixed reviews among military leaders, and they expressed serious doubts about whether McCain has the right temperament to be the next president and commander in chief. Some expressed more confidence in Obama, citing his temperament as an asset.

It is not difficult in Washington to find high-level military officials who have had close encounters with John McCain’s temper, and who find it worrisome. Politicians sometimes scream for effect, but the concern is that McCain has, at times, come across as out of control. It is difficult to find current or former officers willing to describe those encounters in detail on the record. That’s because, by and large, those officers admire McCain. But that doesn’t mean they want his finger on the proverbial button, and they are supporting Clinton or Obama instead.

“I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor,” said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004 and is now campaigning for Clinton. “I think it is a little scary. I think this guy’s first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse.”

“I studied leadership for a long time during 32 years in the military,” said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, a one-time Republican who is supporting Obama. “It is all about character. Who can motivate willing followers? Who has the vision? Who can inspire people?” Gration asked. “I have tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him.”

“One of the things the senior military would like to see when they go visit the president is a kind of consistency, a kind of reliability,” explained retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, a former Republican, former chief of staff of the Air Force and former fighter pilot who flew 285 combat missions. McPeak said his perception is that Obama is “not that up when he is up and not that down when he is down. He is kind of a steady Eddie. This is a very important feature,” McPeak said. On the other hand, he said, “McCain has got a reputation for being a little volatile.” McPeak is campaigning for Obama.

Stephen Wayne, a political science professor at Georgetown who is studying the personalities of the presidential candidates, agrees McCain’s temperament is of real concern. “The anger is there,” Wayne said. If McCain is the one to answer the phone at 3 a.m., he said, “you worry about an initial emotive, less rational response.”

Another quote from that link:

McCain’s supporters will no doubt continue to assert that his experience far outweighs any alleged issues with temperament. But if past wartime presidents are a guide, experience of the kind McCain has isn’t necessarily a prerequisite for performing well as commander in chief. Historians point out that presidents without any experience in the military have guided the country through some of its most dangerous conflicts.

The closest thing Woodrow Wilson had to commander-in-chief credentials was his term as governor of New Jersey. Wilson gave Franklin D. Roosevelt his only pre-Oval Office military-related experience — by appointing him as assistant secretary of the Navy. Both presidents faced down world wars, but neither had fought in one.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 10, 2008 03:11 AM

The most important job of a president is to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic. That is what the oath of office says. Everything else is mere comentary.

Really, I thought the oath office read as follows: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Foreign and domestic enemies? Defending our nation is only one component of protecting the Constitution, our President, the Republican party and you, evidently has forgotten the rest.

Posted by: Cube at March 10, 2008 03:18 AM

I saw McCain’s “display of temper” over and over on the news. He firmly told the NYT reporter that her question was silly. I didn’t see anything wrong with the way he did it. He did not lose control and his annoyance was perfectly appropriate.

Bill Clinton went into blue funks of temper for no good reason. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with getting angry when it is appropriate.

Sorry. I was indeed confusing that oath. The oath for military and civil servants is”

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;…” I took that oath 24 years ago and I took it seriously enough to remember it. I have never taken the presidential oath.

Nevertheless, making our nation safe is the president’s most important task. He is the only elected official tasked to do that. The Constitution explicitly gives him the powers to carry out this task. It mentions the Commander in Chief powers first. Then it goes on to talk about his other foreign affairs powers related to securing our nations. It doesn’t mention anything about making people happy or equalizing outcomes, BTW.

Re Wilson and FDR - secretary of the Navy was a big deal and Roosevelt was a lifelong student of military affairs. Wilson, BTW, did not do such a good job with WWI. In fact, maybe he could have kept us out of that war. He had about as much “justification” as Bush had in Iraq.

Posted by: Jack at March 10, 2008 09:03 AM

Jack

This entire article is nothing better than cynical ideological propaganda aimed at creating skepticism and doubt. Your desire is to place a clear line of definition between republican and democrat ability when it comes to security issues. Need I remind you that it was GW who held the watch during 911. It was the same crew who led us into the security quagmire that exists today. It is the same crew that has exacerbated the heightened state of terrorism in the world today. Their very actions have done more to perpetuate the hatreds of terrorism than ever existed pre 911. In other words their approach imo has been foolish and wasteful. We can even include shameful when one takes into consideration the greed induced oil interests in Iraq. Taken on first under the guise of removing Hussein and conveniently evolving into the guise of fighting terrorists there so we don’t have to fight them here. The result of the lies you advocate for are having a debilitating effect on this country.

It simply is time for a new direction. Bush policy is flawed and has for the most part failed. The republican party has supported him tooth and nail. The realization of that association directly reflects on their credibility not only in world affairs but also affairs here at home.

Politicians may lie. But there is not a reason in hell why we should lay down and accept that fact. The last congress and this executive is a great example of what happens when people become complacent, over trusting, and shrug off corruption and dishonesty in government as just another day of policy making.

Your ideologies in this thread are indirectly encouraging voter apathy in an attempt to retain the status quo. I personally will not allow myself to become complacent and accepting of a government that is allowed to operate outside the realm of decency and accountability.

Posted by: RickIL at March 10, 2008 09:46 AM

RickIL,

You mean Jack is a Republican hack? No!!! His posts are never disengenuous.

I’ve always wondered how being a Republican or Democrat can supercede being an American or even a Human Being.

I watched John Dailey on CNN’s crossfire recently from a linked article about the cancelation of Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show, and loved the way Tucker squirmed as John called him on the dishonest “debate” format. Granted this website is set up in a party line format, and most debates here are much more in depth than that show ever was. That said, i am frequently disappointed with the partisan tenor of many so- called debate subjects. I guess that’s what draws a crowd.

Posted by: googlumpugus at March 10, 2008 10:06 AM

I simply can’t watch those types of shows. All you hear are talking points shouted over the top of the other’s talking points. No one listens to the other and tries to break down points with logical factual evidence, it is mostly emotive rhetoric.

Jim Cafferty, Keith Oberman, Sean Hannity, O’Reiley, etc. They all just have me shouting at the TV so often as I hear nonsensical partisan rhetoric being spewed…

I’m down to watching some HLN and the occasional CNN analysis right up to the point it becomes overbearing. I’m back to print these days, which is saying a lot since that is becomming about the same. Everyone is either regurgitating the partisan hackneyed talking points or simply rerunning AP storylines. I go out of my way to read Reuters and international news stories these days just to get a SECOND view of the news, something we should be demanding from our own ‘news’ companies these days. There are no more news companies btw, they are all firmly in the ‘entertainment’ line. When they started worrying about ratings instead of integrity, well, that was the end…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 10:29 AM

Googlumpugus

;) I love the Daily Show. I rarely miss it. John Stewart is hilarious and some would claim partisan. But I don’t see it to any great degree. He tends to bust on whoever is deserving at the time. And to be honest the shows views are in general more credible and honest than is available on main stream media news outlets. You are right about drawing the crowd. Without some sensationalism and controversy no one would be interested in watching or listening depending on the media outlet.

Rhinehold

You carry the same thoughts as me when it comes to O’Rhiely, Hannity, etc. I can not stomach the overly opinionated extremist views and dramatic sensationalism created just to draw crowds. Like you I will watch CNN and once in a while HLN, but just to the point of getting the information I what. Everything after that is just repeated sensationalist opinion aimed at keeping the viewers tuned in.

Posted by: RickIL at March 10, 2008 11:09 AM

Googlumpugus

RE - I’ve always wondered how being a Republican or Democrat can supercede being an American or even a Human Being.

Same here. It seems to be a favorite ploy of the republicans to try and paint a picture of amoral, evil, uncaring, unamerican and careless human beings upon anyone who does not bend to their will or line of reasoning. I think it can be seen as a form of psychological intimidation. Unfortunately for them, in light of recent past practice, it is difficult for them to effectively use this ploy with any but the most gullible.

Posted by: RickIL at March 10, 2008 11:21 AM

RickIL,

Just as it is the favorite ploy of democrats to try to paint a picture of selfish, uncaring, bigoted, hate-filled and pompous human beings anyone who does not bend to their will or line of reasoning…

Thinking that Democrats are somehow absolved of the partisan chicanery they conspire to exhibit is the exact reason we have these problems…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 11:31 AM

Jack,

I cannot agree with you more about politicians lying simply to get elected. Although, if they did tell you the unvarnished truth, it might be really refreshing.

For example, would you vote for a candidate who said any of the following:

1.) Social Security is broken. I will send a bill to Congress to fix it, but it won’t be fixed because of partisan political bickering. It won’t be fixed because Congresspersons have to be re-elected and God forbid that they did anything that would cause the electorate to have to tighten their belts or stop buying big screen TVs and gas-guzzling over priced SUVs.

2.) We’ll never catch Osama Bin Laden. We’ll never stop baby killing Islamic fascists that strap bombs to their bodies completely no matter what we do.

3.) We’ll never fix the tax code. Sure, there’s huge support for a flat tax and the Fair Tax, but it’ll never happen. It might hurt very influential people financially and those persons might stop feeding cash into re-election campains. Forget about fixing the tax system.

4.) We’ll never stop the flow of illegal drugs into this country. We would have to napalm huge areas of South America and Southeast Asia and then sew that ground with salt…and that would have to happen just to slow down the influx of cocaine and heroin. To stop the flow of crystal meth and crack cocaine, we’d have to suspend the Constitution and kill dealers and users on sight. Ain’t gonna happen.

5.) Term limits would go a long way to slow the flow of corrupt money into re-election campains. Sure, the president has term limits (2 terms), but term limits for Congress would put more power into the hands of “We The People”, and that simply can’t be allowed to happen.

6.) “I’m going to promise that I will fix the problems facing the United States, but the truth is that all I can do is propose changes that will be poo-poo’d by Congress or the Supreme Court, so live with it. I can’t fix anything, but I’m going to tell you that I can.”

Of course, this is only a partial list, but once again…would you vote for someone who actually told the truth while campaigning?

I probably would.

What about you?

Posted by: Jim T at March 10, 2008 11:35 AM

Jack wrote: d.a.n. What causes inflation? – politicians influence that only tangentially.

Not true.

• And who signed the Executive Order (President Woodrow Wilson in 1913) turning the banking system over to the Federal Reserve (a quasi-government controlled/privately owned bank)?
• Who dreamed up the $150 economic stimulus package? Aren’t they politicians?
• Who borrows, spends, and creates money out of thin air? Who appoints the board membbers of the Federal Reserve?
• Why do we have a $9.4 Trillion National Debt?
• Who borrowed and spent $12.8 Trillion from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with an approaching 77 million baby-boomer bubble approaching?
• Who shifts medical cost burdens via Medicare costs, massive Medicare fraud, and other government meddling?
• Who created Medicare and other entitlement systems?
• Who creates other inflationary burdens, wage suppression, job displacment, and other pressures on tax payers by pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes?
• Who is behind hundreds of billions of annual pork-barrel, corporate welfare, graft, and waste (one-simple-idea.com/Links1.htm)?

So, the question was: What causes inflation? While demand on resources (such as oil) can raise prices, creating too much money out of thin air can cause inflation too. M3 Money Supply increased from $135 Billion in year 1950 to $10.15 Trillion in year 2005 (a factor of 75.2 ; one-simple-idea.com/M3MoneySupply.htm). That’s a lot of new money creation. Especially when the U.S. population also doubled since year 1950 (one-simple-idea.com/PopulationUS.gif). We didn’t all become 75.2 times wealthier since 1950, did we?

Jack wrote: Inflation has not been a serious problem since the 1980s anyway.

Not true.

We have had incessant inflation (and no deflation) since year 1956:

• ____INFLATION RATEs____


• 16% +


• 14% + - - - - - X


• 12% + - - - - X- X


• 10% + - - - -X - X


• 08% + - - - X- - -X


• 06% + - - -X - - -X


• 04% + -X- X - - - - X - X X


• 02% + X -X- - - - - - X - -


• 00% +X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YEAR


• _____1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2


• _____9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0


• _____5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 0 0


• _____5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5

3% to 5% inflation may not sound so bad, except when it is year after year, which fools a lot of people.
It is bad, because it is then like reverse compound interest (i.e. exponential).
3% this year is more than 3% last year, which is more than 3% of the previous year, etc., etc., etc.
Never underestimate exponential growth.
Incessant inflation is why a 1950 U.S. Dollar is now worth less than 11 cents.
It is also partly the reason for the rising energy costs.
That’s why the Consumer Price Index looks like this:

• ____INFLATION - Consumer Price Index (CPI)_______
  
• CPI (CPI=100 for year 1967)


• 700 | - - - - - - - - - - - X (=665: JAN-2008)


• 650 | - - - - - - - - - - -X


• 600 | - - - - - - - - - - -X


• 550 | - - - - - - - - - - -X


• 500 | - - - - - - - - - - X


• 450 | - - - - - - - - - - X


• 400 | - - - - - - - - - - X


• 350 | - - - - - - - - - -X


• 300 | - - - - - - - - - X


• 250 | - - - - - - - - - X


• 200 | - - - - - - - - -X


• 150 | - - - - - - - - -X


• 100 | - - - - - - - -X


• 050 |XXXXXXXXXXX


• 000 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YEAR


• _____1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22


• _____8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 00


• _____0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 00


• _____0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07

Jack wrote: Incomes have not stagnated since 1967. The median income adjusted for inflation is around 1/3 higher than it was back in 1967.

Not true.

I meant year 1978, but it is still true for 1967 too, when the following are also included:

• (1) more workers per household;


• (2) more government debt;


• (3) more regressive taxation (i.e. Warren Buffet paid 17.7% income tax on $46 Million while his secretary paid 30% income tax on $60K);


• (4) more taxes;


• (5) more illegal immigration causing job displacement, depressing wages, and costing tax payers an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion in net losses;


• (6) more job displacement due to hundreds of thousands of H-1B Visas and H-2B Visas (abuses depressing wages further)


• (7) more wealth disparity; the wealthiest 1% of the U.S. population has 40% of all wealth in the U.S. (up from 20% in year 1980; never worse since the Great Depression); 80% of the U.S. population has a mere 17% of all wealth in the U.S.
  ;


• (8) more work hours, increased productivity, and the disappearing work week and less vacation; jobs leaving the country in droves and replacement jobs paying less than previous jobs;


• (9) more unaffordable healthcare; and more dangerous too; killing 195,000 per year; Since 1999, that is over 1.5 million people killed by preventable medical mistakes. That is more than all the U.S. troops killed in the American Revolution (4,435), the War of 1812 (2,260), the Indian Wars (1,000), the Mexican War (1,733), the Civil War (462,000), the Spanish American War (385), WWI (53,402), WWII (291,557), Vietnam War (58,209), Korean War (36,574), the Iraq Gulf War (529), the war in Afghanistan, and the current Iraq war Mar-2003-present (3,963), COMBINED!


• (10) higher energy costs; more energy vulnerabilities;

• Real Median Incomes (in 2004 Dollars): 1978 to 2006
• 46K | - - - - - - - - - - -
• 45K | - - - - - - - X - - -
• 44K | - - - - - - -X-X- - -
• 43K | - - - - - - X - -X- -
• 42K | - - - X - -X- - - - -
• 41K | - - -X-X- X - - - - -
• 40K | X - X - X - - - - - -
• 39K | -X-X- - - - - - - - -
• 38K | - X - - - - - - - - -
• 37K + - - - - - - - - - - - - - YEAR
• _____1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
• _____9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0
• _____7 8 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 0
• _____8 3 6 9 2 5 8 1 4 6
• Year 1967: $35K (in 2004 Dollars; one-simple-idea.com/RealMedianIncome1967to2004.jpg)
• Year 1978: $40K (in 2004 Dollars)
• Year 2006: $43K (in 2004 Dollars)

So, when all factors are included, real median incomes have actually been falling (especially when considering more workers per household and much more government debt which will fall on the tax payers);

Jack wrote: If you just look at what people own now compared to back then, you see the difference. I was a working class kid in 1967. We lived in a house with a single bathroom; we did not own a car; most of my neighbors had never been on a airplane (except in the military). We had one black and white TV (no cable). The list goes on. Things have improved materially.

Yeah, yeah, and you also walked to school barefooted, in the snow, and it was uphill both ways. : )

So, do more things (TVs, cell phones, cars) mean we are better off now? Wealthier?
After all:

• (a) people are now tethered to their jobs 24/7 by cell phones (whoopeee!).


• (b) More cars? And more commuting. Sprawl kills. People are sitting in their automobiles 65+ eight-hour days (520 hours per year); breathing carbon monoxide and benzine, not to mention more accidents; So, are more cars a good thing?


• (c) Color TV versus Black and White TV? But we don’t build those TVs. The U.S. builds less and less of anything each year. Trade deficits are huge and getting worse every year.


• (d) More bathrooms? Bigger houses? That also means much higher electricity bills. Also, Americans now own less than 50% of the equity in their homes (lowest level in 16 years)


• (e) Wealth disparity today has never been worse since the Great Depression. 80% of all Americans only own 17% of all wealth. The nation is swimming in debt; $48 Trillion nation-wide. Where will the money come from to pay the INTEREST on the $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt?


• (f) Income-to-Nation-Wide Debt as grown drastically since 1956:
  • __TOTAL U.S. Debt and National Income__(2006 Dollars)
    
  • T=Trillion
    
  • $50.0T | - - - - - - - - - - - - - D (Debt=$48T)
    
  • $47.5T | - - - - - - - - - - - - - D
    
  • $45.0T | - - - - - - - - - - - - -D-
    
  • $42.5T | - - - - - - - - - - - - -D-
    
  • $40.0T | - - - - - - - - - - - - -D-
    
  • $37.5T | - - - - - - - - - - - - D -
    
  • $35.0T | - - - - - - - - - - - -D- -
    
  • $32.5T | - - - - - - - - - - - D - -
    
  • $30.0T | - - - - - - - - - - -D- - -
    
  • $27.5T | - - - - - - - - - - D - - -
    
  • $25.0T | - - - - - - - - - -D- - - -
    
  • $22.5T | - - - - - - - - - D - - - -
    
  • $20.0T | - - - - - - - - -D- - - - -
    
  • $17.5T | - - - - - - - - D - - - - -
    
  • $15.0T | - - - - - - - -D- - - - - -
    
  • $12.5T | - - - - - - -D- - - - - - -
    
  • $10.0T | - - - - D - - - - - - - - I (Income=$10T)
  
  
  • $07.5T | - - D - - - - - -I
  
  
  • $05.0T |D- - - - I
  
  
  • $02.5T |I
  
  
  • $00.0T + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YEAR
  
  
  • _______1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 22
  
  
  • _______9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 00
  
  
  • _______5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 00
  
  
  • _______7 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 7 1 56
  
  
  • The Debt-to-Income ratio in year 1957 was 200% ($5T/$2.5T)
  
  
  • The Debt-to-Income ratio in year 2006 was 480% ($48T/$10T)
  
  
  • That is, in 1957, total debt was 2.0 times national income.

Jack wrote: The list goes on. Things have improved materially.

Well, that all depends.

That may be true if you are one of the 1 in 10 people that own 70% of all wealth in the U.S.
20% of all Americans have negative net worth (i.e. debt).
40% of all Americans (on average) have ZERO net worth.
80% of all Americans own only 17% of all wealth.
2% of Americans own most of the wealth in the U.S.
1% of the U.S. population (305 million) owns 40% of all wealth (a worsening trend since year 1976; never worse since the Great Depression).
Where will the money come from to pay the INTEREST on the $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt?

Most Americans are going backwards for 30+ years, due to these 10 abuses, which did not all come about by mere coincidence.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 10, 2008 11:42 AM

Jim T wrote: Of course, this is only a partial list, but once again…would you vote for someone who actually told the truth while campaigning?

Good list. Yet, most voters repeatedly reward those incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates, and it doesn’t seem to be working.

Jim T wrote: Jack, … I cannot agree with you more about politicians lying simply to get elected. Although, if they did tell you the unvarnished truth, it might be really refreshing.

Yes, it would.

Unfortunately, who ever the next president is, they will sabotage the next president by saddling the next presidente with the same irresponsible, do-nothing, dysfunctional Congress that can’t seem to solve any of the nation’s pressing problems, but can give themselves another raise every year (like their 9 raises between 1997 and 2007), and vote through pork-barrel, corporate welfare, and waste in a heart beat.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 10, 2008 11:51 AM

I think it is dishonest of republicans to use buzz pharases like “dealing with entitlements” instead of just saying it the way it is: Republicans want to cut social security.
Republicans want to cut payments by Medicare,
Republicans want to cut benefits provided to post-military programs (those programs are “entitlements” too)

Upon reading this I’m sure there will be a post or two saying essentially “oh no, we don’t want to cut any of that we just want to “deal” with entitlements.

Question: For years now, conservatives have been claiming that Social Security is such a bad deal for beneficiarys. If it is such a bad deal how could it be claimed by the same “conservatives” that the monies paid out are simply too much to pay?

Admit it, you are not talking about “dealing with entitlements” you are talking about cutting the very minimal financial and medical benefits provided to the elderly, the disabled and the very people who have sacrificed life and limb for this nation.

Posted by: charles ross at March 10, 2008 12:00 PM

Charles Ross said:

“I think it is dishonest of republicans to use buzz pharases like “dealing with entitlements” instead of just saying it the way it is: Republicans want to cut social security.”

Oh, you mean like the Democrats say, “We want to roll back the Bush tax cuts” instead of saying, “We want to hike taxes”?

Charles Ross said:

“…instead of just saying it the way it is: Republicans want to cut social security.”

You seem to forget the prescription medicine benefits that Bush got enacted (financially unsound and draining the Social Security fund, but there they are). Sounds to me like increasing Social Security benefits rather than cutting them.

Posted by: Jim T at March 10, 2008 12:36 PM

Well, I do agree that the prescription drug benefit plan (part d) enacted by bush was a terrible idea. It’s more of a financial subsidy program for drug companys. Stop thinking about health insurance as being something that preserves your health. It should preserve your ASSETS. Medicare part D is designed to break people, to EXTRACT as much money out of people as possible and pass it on to big pharma. Have you ever heard of Billy Tausend, he was the republican congressman who played a major roll in forming and fashioning the bill that would become medicare part D. He now works for the pharma industry as their spokesman. Do you know what he said when he moved from congress to big pharma? he said “now i’m going to make some REAL money”. That says it all.
Re: bush’s tax cuts, congress is not going to raise taxes, they are simply not going to renew tax cuts that are due to expire. If these tax cuts were so great why were they not made permanent in the first place? It was bush who signed the sunset bill on these taxes. The reason that the tax cut was made on a TEMPORARY basis was that the economy was in recession, there was a surplus, and there was great uncertainty about the effectiveness of these tax cuts (of course, there it no longer any uncertainty that these tax cuts were poorly targeted and did little to help the national economy) This is not even subject to debate. Limits on dividends and capital gains and the estate tax were supposed to flush the economy with money that would be used to form/expand new business and create jobs (how well did that work out?) How is it that at the end of the “pro-growth” administration of geo. bush that we HAVE NO GROWTH!!!

Posted by: charles ross at March 10, 2008 12:54 PM

RickIL,

Just as it is the favorite ploy of democrats to try to paint a picture of selfish, uncaring, bigoted, hate-filled and pompous human beings anyone who does not bend to their will or line of reasoning…

See, Charles Ross just comes along and proves my point for me!

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 12:59 PM

I find the various theories of economic activity outlined above very interesting. If one reads the ten planks found in the manifesto by Karl Marx and honestly asks themselves which planks would be supported by liberals and which planks would be supported by conservatives it should be an exercise in enlightenment.

http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/TenPlanks.html

Posted by: Jim M at March 10, 2008 01:24 PM

Rhinehold, I just want it all to make sense. The economic/social/foreign policies pursued by the republicans over the last eight years have made little sense to me. It is a republican world, admit it, they have been making the policy on all levels for many years now. There is a dem controlled congress for the last year, but it has been ineffective given the legislative roadblocks (vetoes by bush, inability to provide the 60 votes to close debate in the Senate) It is 2008. republican policies and philosophy have greatly shaped the world we live in: We are buried in debt, inflation is rising (the real inflation rate is soaring) and WE HAVE NO GROWTH. Have you heard that home equity is the lowest it has been since they started keeping records (post 1945), that we are facing the first reduction in life expectancy since THE CIVIL WAR!!? And you want more of that???
Yes, republicans are, by and large, sociopaths who think of the world in terms of WHAT IT CAN DO FOR THEM, they hate government EXCEPT WHEN IT IS PROVIDING A BENEFIT TO THEM, they hate the legal system, except when it is time FOR THEM TO LAWYER UP. They are anti-intellectual but the rich ones make sure THEIR KIDS GO TO THE BEST SCHOOLS.
In spite of all these truths, the problem I have with republicans is that their ideas, by and large, are really, really bad.
Haven’t the last eight years proved just that?

Posted by: charles ross at March 10, 2008 01:26 PM

All your rant has proved is that a) you have no sense of non-biased understanding of the issues involved and b) you keep proving my point.

But tell me, I’ve asked a question before that keeps getting ignored. Maybe you can answer it for me.

How do progressives believe that they will ‘create jobs’ if they were in complete control? No platitudes or talking points, give me the exact method that they intend to fulfill this promise that they make.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 01:34 PM

Jack wrote: Only John McCain has the experience and proven character to keep our country safe. Neither Obama (the faith healer) nor Hillary (the adult Lisa Simpson) has what it takes. BUT maybe if we just close our eyes and wish, maybe click together our ruby slippers …

Safe from what?

• Iraq?
• Terrorists?
• Americans being murdered and maimed?

Thousands of Americans being killed every year should be important, eh?
If anyone in Do-Nothing Congress and the federal government were truly serious about Homeland Security, shouldn’t they stop THIS.
But John McCain’s voting record on this is pathetic (grade = “D”).
Likewise with Hillary and Obama.
What ever the reasons (votes, profits, more compassion for illegal aliens than American citizens), they are wrong.
McCain says “I get it now”.
Is that believable?
Or are these politicians (like most of them) willing to say anything to get elected?
The last SHAMNESTY in year 1986 quadruped the problem (from 3 million to 12+ million).
Another SHAMNESTY could quadruple it again (from 12+ million to 48+ million).

Yet our laws and the U.S. Constitution are blatantly being ignored.
Politicians are ignoring existing laws to permit illegal employers to continue making profits; despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes (one-simple-idea.com/VoteDemocrat.gif).

Illegal Immigration, is costing U.S. tax payers an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion per year in net losses (one-simple-idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Burdens), not including the untold cost of crime, job displacement, disease, and depressed wages.

WageStagnation + CheapLabor = BigProfits

While our politicians are despicably pitting Americnas and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes, more Americans were murdered (estimated from 1310 to 4380 per year; www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103) in the past 3 years by illegal aliens than all U.S. troops killed (3980) in Iraq in the last 5 years (since March-2003).

NOTE: total of all homicides in year 2004 in the U.S. was 16,528 (45.28 per day);

Also, the perpetrators of the 11-SEP-2001 attacks were illegal aliens, 18 of the 19 terrorist hijackers on 11-SEP-2001 possessed state-issued and/or counterfeit driver’s licenses or ID cards and ALL 19 had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake). Those terrorists very simply tapped into an enormous market for fraudulent documents that exists because 12-to-20 million illegal aliens have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally, and anonymously. And that anonymity and the broken revolving-door legal system breeds more crime, when illegal aliens are repeatedly arrested, released, and deported, over and over. GAO-5646R Report indicated that a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens had an average arrest record of 13 arrests per illegal alien.

So, doesn’t it seem a bit hypocritical to continually fear monger about Iraq, terrorists, and Homeland Security, when our borders and ports are wide open, and more Americans (thousands per year) are being killed by illegal aliens than the wars in Iraq?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 10, 2008 01:47 PM

Rhinehold, great question. I think creating jobs should be only one of the goals of public policy, and government is not going to be the direct agent of job creation, private industry is. There is a strong role for govenment to play:
shut down illegal immigration. Put people who employ illegals OUT OF BUSINESS. Put people who engage in drug running, people smuggling, kidnapping ( a huge problem now in AMERICAN cities) in prison for life.
Have a tax structure that provides a balanced budget; maybe not every year. cutting spending is part of this but a small part. If there were substantial cuts that could be made they would be at least identified (taking Amtraks subsidy is not real money that would lead anywhere). Raise taxes. Having a lower rate on investment over payroll just doesn’t work ( i wish it did as a business owner and long time investor) but the last eight years have shown that it doesn’t work. Use the tax system, not only to provide revenues but to influence behavior (deduct for home interest, yes, tax ciggies heavy, yes, tax carbon emitters heavy yes, tax fuel use, yes (do you really think we are in Iraq (second largest proven oil reserves in the world) to give them “freedom”? Why shouldn’t we be paying a war tax at the pump?
Invest in renewables, wind in solar. government investment direct and through credits. Mandate fuel efficiency and provide aid to auto companies to improve efficiency.
Tax the hell out of companies that are flooding this country with cheap (meaning cheaply made) foreign goods.
Keep raising the minimum wage.
Redo trade agreements. The powers that promote free trade envision a horizontally integrated economy for the u.s. not a vertically integrated one (meaning u.s. workers would add value to a product, not make the product in its entirety) Do we really want to give away our ability to grow our own food, make our own military hardware, manufacture our own durable goods to other countrys?)
Well, theres a lot more but I’ve got to go. Regards

Posted by: charles ross at March 10, 2008 02:22 PM

Charles,

You realize that enacting just a few of those policies that you listed would destroy jobs, not create them, right?

Raising minimum wage? cuts jobs
Raising taxes? cuts jobs
Raising Tarriffs? cuts jobs

How does ‘influencing behavior’ more than we already are affect jobs, exactly?

Do you remember what actually caused the Great Depression? Why are you suggesting those same policies again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

The Hawley-Smoot Tariff (or Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels, and, in the opinion of most economists, worsened the Great Depression. Economists have now generally regarded this Tariff Act (i.e., tax increase on imported goods) as the greatest policy blunder in American economic history, coming as it did after the 1929-30 recession and preventing the economy from a full, natural recovery which had already started by the Spring of 1930. Many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half.

Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market Crash of 1929, many economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act as a factor in causing the crash and/or the recession that began in late 1929, and its eventual passage as a factor in deepening the Great Depression. Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 02:56 PM

RickIl

I am distressed that all the candidates are promising things that are wildly out of the ability of any president to deliver. It is not surprising that I think my man is doing it less than others, but the fact that even my candidate must do those things shows the mendacity of the system. All the candidates are promising that as president they will restore the prosperity of the U.S. economy. Presumably this involves lowering the unemployment rate permanently below 4.5% and raising economic growth sustainably above 3.5%, which is what you would need to do to make the economy better than it has been for the last five years. Since this is not even possible to do in theory, I assume politicians are lying about that, some more than others. AND people ARE accepting their lies and even reveling in them.

I know you guys want to run against George Bush, but he is not running in this election. John McCain has been at odds with the President at many times over security policy. Only in 2006 did the President come around to something like what McCain had advocated in Iraq and since then the situation has completely turned around.

Of course, Obama and Hillary have stayed their course despite changing circumstances.

Googlumpugus

I always write what I believe is right. I have no contact with the Republican Party organization. I get most of my current news from the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, “the Economist” magazine, the “WSJ” and the “Washington Post”. You may think those things are bastions of Republicanism, but WP is considered by most people who know about these things are liberal. The News Hour is a PBS program and “the Economist” is not even an American publication. My experience about Iraq comes from … experience in Iraq. When I write about that it usually does not have a media source. You may disagree with what I write, but in order to be a hack you have to write to other people’s specifications. That I never do, since I don’t even know what those specifications are. I seriously doubt that the Republican Party apparatus would be happy with what I wrote in this post, nor do I think they would embrace my persistent calls for a carbon tax or my occasional praise for Bill Clinton.

I am never disingenuous. I am occasionally facetious and I often find reasons to laugh at things in society, which I find generally amusing. Liberals just cannot seem to take a joke and often don’t even know when they are being ridiculed. Sorry about that, but my style is very simple and straightforward to those who can understand it.

Jim T

There are simply lots of things government cannot do. I think we agree that it is not a matter of people wanting it or not. I don’t think most people would vote for the guy saying the things you write. Our only hope is that government is small enough that it does not have the power to pretend to solve our problems too much.

d.a.n.

The statistics tell us that real incomes have grown since 1978 and that the median income adjusted for inflation is higher. I know you dispute that statistic, so I go with experience. We have become richer and the things we want to buy (with a few exceptions) have become cheaper in terms of our salaries. Some of this is simple technological change. In 1978 only the very richest people could have movies on demand in their homes. Today almost anybody can. In 1978 only millionaires had personal access to computers. Today all of us writing here do. In 1973, my mother died of a form of cancer that could probably be cured today. In 1978 you couldn’t buy a car that could go 15000 miles w/o major maintenance. In 1978 most houses did not have central air. In 1978 less than 20% of households owned stocks. Today it is over half. The list goes on. These things have improved our standard of living AND have helped the poor more than the rich. Think of a simple thing like a DVC player. In 1978 only the richest guys could have movies at home. Today everybody can. The rich guy can still have movies at home, as he did before.

Re cellular phones, you are right. I carry a blackberry when I want to be in touch, but I leave it at home or turn it off most of the time when I am not at work. There is sometimes a little grumbling when people cannot find me when they want to bother me, but after I tell them to f*ck themselves a few time, people quiet down.

Charles

I wrote a lot about social security when it was a bigger issue. I would raise the retirement age and do some means testing, so yes, I would cut social security for some people. Of course, I would also encourage individual accounts, which would make up for most or all of the cuts. The alternative is to saddle our children with a fantastically high tax rate. I am unwilling to transfer that much wealth from the young to the old, even though I will be in that old group.

BTW – the economy grew very rapidly from 2003-a couple months ago. It is still growing as we speak, but slowly. It may stop growing soon, but it has not stopped yet. We had a slow down that started in March 2000 (you know, the year BEFORE Bush took office) and lasted until 2002. As you probably know, the Federal fiscal year goes from Oct-Oct, so the first Bush budget didn’t come online until OCTOBER 2001, so if you really want to blame Bush, you probably cannot start doing that until almost 2003, when the economy started to do well again.

Rhinehold

I feel your pain. How can we explain it. Many people seem to think that government can just run the economy and so it follows that if everybody is not happy somebody else must be to blame.

The funny thing is that these same guys who want to give government all sorts of powers also hate George Bush. They don’t seem to take the lesson that government will be controlled by people you do not like about half the time. If you dislike George Bush and you do not want him to have more power, you cannot give the government he runs more power.

Clever people figure out how to subvert any governmental/coercion based system. (I have figured out legal ways to benefit from affirmative action, price controls & local sourcing rules, for example. None of these things were meant to benfit me, but I can find ways and I am not even all that clever.)

The only intelligent course is to keep these sytems as simple and small as possible, which tend to miniumize the corruption.

If you make a law setting prices lower than the market price, you create shortages, black markets and criminals, but you don’t make people happy.

Posted by: Jack at March 10, 2008 03:13 PM

Government provides all sorts of standards/requirements that must be met in order to be a business. Paying a minimum wage is one of those standards. Is there a high enough minimum wage at which jobs would be lost? of course. Are we, at a $6.00 minimum, anywhere close to a wage requirement that is costing jobs? Of course not. Are you seriously suggesting allowing business’ to be free to set the wage as low as possible? Illegals won’t have to worry about leaving the familiarity of the third world when they come over here, it will be just like home!
Re: tariffs being the cause of the Great Depression, you say, Rhinehold, in different parts of your response, that tariffs caused the Great Depression and, in another part, that it worsened the Great Depression. Which is it? I recommend A. Schlessinger’s book about the depression. He suggests that the main driver of the downturn was that the money supply was sharply contracted over the five year period from 1930-1935, about 40% as I remember reading.
I would say that the average American has two things of value left to him: his power as a voter and his power as a consumer. Why in the world would we take American jobs, move them somewhere else, and then allow the products to come back into this country free of charge (no tariffs)? Why aren’t these companies who consign their manufacturing to, say, China, selling their products there? Because, people in third world countries have little disposable income, that’s why. So how is free trade occurring? What is actually “free”? For whom is it free?
Re: raising taxes. I assume you are middle class as far a income. (If you had a great deal of money you probably wouldn’t waste your time on blogs like this!) As a member of the middle class You have received little or no tax relief over the bush years. I operate a small business, I am a long time stock market investor and I can tell you for a fact that the benefits to me in both roles has been just about zero. Letting the stupid 15% tax on dividends and cap gains expire would have little to do with the level of job creation. We have those tax levels now and lost 63,000 net jobs last month. Be honest, how exactly has the big three of bush tax relief (dividend, cap gains, inheritance tax) benefited you, Rhinehold. Most likely, the honest answer would be “not a damn bit”. and if that is true why would you be in favor of borrowing money to provide tax relief to people at the very highest income levels. Probably the tax relief provided to Leona Helmsley’s dog ( a twelve million dollar beneficiary in her will) is more than the total amount you have made in your lifetime, Rhinehold, Is that what you are fighting for?

Posted by: charles ross at March 10, 2008 04:46 PM

Jack wrote: d.a.n. The statistics tell us that real incomes have grown since 1978 and that the median income adjusted for inflation is higher. I know you dispute that statistic, so I go with experience.

Not true when the higher number of workers per household, and other factors, are also included (factors often conveniently omitted by anti-anything-not-rosy optimists).

Real Median Household Incomes have fallen when the following factors are also included:

• (1) more workers per household;


• (2) more government debt;


• (3) more taxes and more regressive income taxation (i.e. Warren Buffet paid 17.7% income tax on $46 Million while his secretary paid 30% income tax on $60K);


• (4) more illegal immigration causing job displacement, depressing wages, and costing tax payers an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion in net losses;


• (5) more job displacement due to hundreds of thousands of H-1B Visas and H-2B Visas (abuses depressing wages further)


• (6) more wealth disparity; the wealthiest 1% of the U.S. population has 40% of all wealth in the U.S. (up from 20% in year 1980; never worse since the Great Depression); 80% of the U.S. population has a mere 17% of all wealth in the U.S.;


• (7) more work hours, increased productivity, and the disappearing 40 hour work week; less vacation; jobs leaving the country in droves and replacement jobs paying less than previous jobs;


• (8) more unaffordable healthcare; and more dangerous too; killing 195,000 per year; Since 1999, that is over 1.5 million people killed by preventable medical mistakes. That is more than all the U.S. troops killed in the American Revolution (4,435), the War of 1812 (2,260), the Indian Wars (1,000), the Mexican War (1,733), the Civil War (462,000), the Spanish American War (385), WWI (53,402), WWII (291,557), Vietnam War (58,209), Korean War (36,574), the Iraq Gulf War (529), the war in Afghanistan, and the current Iraq war Mar-2003-present (3,963), COMBINED!


• (9) higher energy costs; more energy vulnerabilities;

In addition, despite those other factors above, I would not be celebrating an income that only increased by a measley $3,066 from $40,000 in year 1978 to $43,066 by year 2006 (in 2004 dollars).
Again, when you also consider more workers per household, incomes have fallen since 1978 (source: www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incxrace.html)

Jack wrote: We have become richer …

Not everyone.

Maybe if you are one of the 1 in 10 people that own 70% of all wealth.
The wealth disparity has been growing worse since 1976.
Year 1976: 1% of the wealthiest owned 20% of all wealth in the U.S.
Year 2008: 1% of the wealthiest now owns 40% of all wealth in the U.S. (never worse since the Great Depresssion).

Jack wrote: Re: cellular phones, you are right. I carry a blackberry when I want to be in touch, but I leave it at home or turn it off most of the time when I am not at work.

That’s nice if you can do that. However, more and more employers are abusing it to increase productivity (and profits). More and more people are tethered to their jobs 24/7.

Jack wrote: There is sometimes a little grumbling when people cannot find me when they want to bother me, but after I tell them to f*ck themselves a few times, people quiet down.

That’s nice.

Do you recommend that people use that method with their employer?
I’m sure many would like to, but it might also lead to unemployment.
For most Americans, this is also part of the disappearing 40 hour work-week, diminishing vacation time, increasing corpocrisy, H-1B Visa abuses, and other manifestations of unchecked greed.

We have become richer and the things we want to buy (with a few exceptions) have become cheaper in terms of our salaries. Some of this is simple technological change. In 1978 only the very richest people could have movies on demand in their homes. Today almost anybody can. In 1978 only millionaires had personal access to computers. Today all of us writing here do. In 1973, my mother died of a form of cancer that could probably be cured today. In 1978 you couldn’t buy a car that could go 15000 miles w/o major maintenance. In 1978 most houses did not have central air. In 1978 less than 20% of households owned stocks. Today it is over half. The list goes on. These things have improved our standard of living AND have helped the poor more than the rich. Think of a simple thing like a DVC player. In 1978 only the richest guys could have movies at home. Today everybody can. The rich guy can still have movies at home, as he did before.
Sure, there have been technological advances.

But that does not explain away the seriousness of the current economic picture, and the consequences for the next decade.
That still does not explain away the astronomical cost of healthcare (dangerous too, killing 195,000 per year).
That still does not explain away the falling U.S. Dollar.
That still does not explain away the $9.4 National Debt (and growing fast).
That still does not explain away the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with an approaching 77 million baby boomer bubble.
That still does not explain away the $48 Trillion nation-wide debt (mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm)
That still does not explain away the huge trade deficits, jobs leaving the country, and incomes falling (when you also consider more workers per household).

After all, you previously wrote …
After all, a while back, you [Jack] wrote …

Jack wrote: It [the federal deficit] would be fine EXCEPT for the entitlements iceberg we are sailing toward.
…
The demographics are just going to smash us unless we do something.

That doesn’t exactly sound all that rosy.

Jack, Let me ask you ONE question …

• QUESTION: WHERE will the money come from to pay the interest on $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the principal debt?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 10, 2008 04:51 PM

I’d like it if politicians would try to answer that question.

QUESTION: WHERE will the money come from to pay the interest on $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the principal debt?

Borrow and create more money out of thin air?

Is it possible to create new money, tax, borrow, and spend your way out of $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt?

There is over $1 Billion per day of INTEREST alone on only the $9.4 Trillion National Debt.

The U.S. is borrowing $3 Billion per day.

And INTEREST on debt is often many times more than the PRINCIPAL.

Are all the clowns in Congress simply not very good in math, or do they have a plan?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 10, 2008 04:55 PM

Much of what I read on this blog concerns power and greed. Those who don’t have power or wealth want to rob those who do. Liberals attempt to gain power by promoting the “group” (any group will do) over the individual rights guaranteed in the constitution.

Neal Boortz in his book “The Terrible Truth About Liberals” puts it very well, “Barring extreme physical or mental disabilities…each and every one of us is where we are today, be it poor or wealthy, happy or sad, on the streets or in a condo, in a Mercedes or a rusted-out Pinto…because of the choices we have made during our lives. It’s the choices we have made that put us where we are, not the choices others have made for us.”

Posted by: Jim M at March 10, 2008 05:20 PM

d.a.n.

As I said, you dispute the statistics.

Here is a good article from today’s paper.

My observation is that we have had a great increase in wealth since I was growing up. I came from a working class neighborhood. I am better than average at what I do, so I did all right in life and will not take my own experience as the example. But I have friends and relatives, also all working class, which I can compare today to what they had in the past. I am amazed at how well my friends and relatives have done. Most are still working class (whatever that means), but when I go back to visit (which I do every year), I find nice homes, big televisions, new cars, trips to Las Vegas etc. I can accept that I have been usually lucky, but I cannot believe almost everybody I grew up with managed to beat the trends. In fact, their incomes have pretty much tracked the American statistics and life is good. Are they happy with what they have achieved? Some are; others not, but just about everybody has access to a lot more goods and services than our parents had.

I think many of your statistics are skewed by immigration. As new people come in, they start at the bottom. The rest of us are moving up, but the distribution looks the same year to year.

Re entitlements – I do worry about them. We have promised ourselves way too much in our old age. Our generation has promised that the younger generation will pay us a big retirement. We will have to deal with that sooner or later. But that does not change the fact that everybody but the very unlucky, lazy or dumb has enjoyed significant opportunity for the last 30 years.

Posted by: Jack at March 10, 2008 05:36 PM

DJIA: Jan 2001 10,587 Today: 11,740 +11%
Nasdaq: 2,770 2,169 -21%
S&P: 1,342 1,273 -05%

Since January 2001, the dollar has lost over half its value against the euro.

Oil closed today just under $108.

McCain needs a better platform than being a guy who will keep the country safe. This election will be about the domestic economy, which is in bad shape and rapidly getting worse. “Staying the course” won’t work. We’re spending $12,000,000,000 per month on the wars. A major investment bank may be about to fail.

McCain is the wrong candidate for the problems that will dominate the election in November.

Hope there’s a “plan B”.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2008 05:39 PM

Don’t Flush - President in the Toilet

The President’s approval ratings are in the toilet. Only 34% of Americans think he is doing a good job. It could be worse. The Republicans in Congress weigh in 7% lower than their president…Most people think the country is heading in the wrong direction. Only 27% are optimistic…How can this be? With few exceptions everything is better now than it used to be. Why all the angst?… None of the leaders we admire most would be qualified for public service today…All of the important advances that make our lives better would engender fear and be shunned as dangerous and dodgy propositions by our precautionary standards. …People’s perceptions are not going to improve until they wise up about the world.

Posted by Jack at November 27, 2005 10:16 PM

I’m a little disappointed in you Jack; you have at times admitted that your role here was as a Republican advocate. Yet in your response to Rick, there is no mention of that. I was perusing your previous posts, looking for that quotation when I ran across this old thread you started.

I must first commend you for initiating these discussions, trying to find new or original topics must be challenging. But I do find the correlation between your remarks in this present post and that old one humorous. The only difference seems to be that in the old thread you are defending Bush, while in this new thread you say we should ignore Bush and elect another Republican, John McCain. Hmmm, and we should believe you, why?

Posted by: Cube at March 10, 2008 06:00 PM

Jack wrote: d.a.n. As I said, you dispute the statistics (online.wsj.com/article/SB120511125873823431.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries).

False.

I do not dispute the data.
I’m saying the data presented is incomplete (cherry picked).
The article you provided also (again) fails to account for more workers per household (since 1967).
When you include that factor, real median household incomes have fallen.

Year 1967: $35K (in 2004 Dollars; one-simple-idea.com/RealMedianIncome1967to2004.jpg)

Year 1978: $40K (in 2004 Dollars)

Year 2006: $43K (in 2004 Dollars)

So, when all factors are included, real median household incomes have actually been falling)

Jack wrote: Some are; others not, but just about everybody has access to a lot more goods and services than our parents had.

Including affordable and safe healthcare?

Do you think those cars, TVs, cell phones, PDAs, bigger houses is really better?
Especially when home equities are at a 16 year low?
Especially when there is $48 Trillion nation-wide debt?

Jack wrote: I think many of your statistics are skewed by immigration. As new people come in, they start at the bottom. The rest of us are moving up, but the distribution looks the same year to year.

Skewed? I don’t think so, regardless of whether you are talking about legal or illegal immigration?

Illegal immigration is a major factor, but there are several other factors too (e.g. regressive taxation, more taxes of all kinds, more workers per household, lawlessness, energy vulnerabilities, incessant exponential inflation, etc., etc., etc.)

Jack wrote: Re entitlements – I do worry about them. We have promised ourselves way too much in our old age. Our generation has promised that the younger generation will pay us a big retirement. We will have to deal with that sooner or later. But that does not change the fact that everybody but the very unlucky, lazy or dumb has enjoyed significant opportunity for the last 30 years.

We agree on that.

But the problem is actually a combination of pressing problems all culminating simultaneously:

• massive debt ($48 Trillion nation-wide debt; mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm);


• exponential inflation; erosion of the U.S. Dollar since year 1956; falling against all major international currencies since 1999;


• falling real median household incomes (especially when including more workers per household);


• credit crunch, exacerbated by much debt and inflation already;


• wealth disparity (never worse since the Great Depression);


• record low home equities (below 50%); lowest level in 16 years;


• record level foreclosures; millions per year;


• increasing education costs and declining quality (at a time when we need more education to compete globally);


• illegal immigration costing tax payers $70 Billion to $339 Billion annually in net losses; FallingOrStagnantWages + CheapLabor = BigProfits


• astronomical health care costs bankrupting families;


• regressive taxation, as evidenced by Warren Buffet, the 2nd wealthiest person in the U.S., who paid a lower tax rate (e.g. 17.7% on $46 Million in year 2006), than his secretary (who made $60,000 and paid a 30.0% income tax rate)


• rampant corruption and irresponsible borrowing and spending by Congress;


• many pressing problems are getting ignored, growing in number and severity; lawlessness is increasing; crime rates are increasing;


• stock market volatility and huge losses;


• gold prices spiked to $980 per ounce;


• oil reached $107.90 per barrel today;


• two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing hundreds of billions per year;


• $12.8 Trillion was borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching;


• hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilites for Medicare; and now, possibly a government health care system too?


• the monetary system is a pyramid scheme that is doomed to collapse when there is no more capacity for more debt; it’s like playing the game of Monopoly, and one player (the bank) can print all the money they want; Before long, the bank owns all the money and property, and everyone else is broke or deep in debt.


• plutocracy; our government is FOR-SALE, as evidenced by 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters that are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more)


• increasing global competition;

Jack, you still avoided the …

• QUESTION: Where will the money come from to pay the INTEREST on the $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 10, 2008 07:00 PM

Jack wrote: Re entitlements – I do worry about them. We have promised ourselves way too much in our old age. Our generation has promised that the younger generation will pay us a big retirement. We will have to deal with that sooner or later. But that does not change the fact that everybody but the very unlucky, lazy or dumb has enjoyed significant opportunity for the last 30 years.

We agree on that (something must be done about entitlements).

And the U.S. is still one of the best 26 (of 195) nations in the world to live, and the U.S. still scores higher than most nations on Transparency International Corruption Score (although the U.S. has fallen from position 11 (year 2004), to 17 (year 2005), and to 20 (year 2006).

But we can and should do better.
A good place to start is to stop rewarding incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates, and then put a stop to these 10 abuses.

Then, perhaps healthcare would become affordable, and a number of other solutions to other problems would start to fall in place.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 10, 2008 07:11 PM

Rhinehold

Re-Thinking that Democrats are somehow absolved of the partisan chicanery they conspire to exhibit is the exact reason we have these problems…

I think no such thing. As a matter of fact I recognize it as a major obstacle to productive governance. Both parties use the ploy of implanting notions to sway support one way or the other. Unfortunately over time these notions tend to evolve into actual belief for many of the masses. I feel that most common people, be them conservative, liberal, green, independent or whatever are basically good decent people who mostly share the same goals, with different ideas about how to approach them. However there are some in support of or working for each party for whom these labels accurately apply.

If a person is sincere in their beliefs that all liberals are amoral or all conservatives are greedy warmongers then they have some serious reality issues. If one is disingenuous in using these labels then they are lacking in moral value and have some serious community issues. One of the reasons I support Obama is that he is asking people to recognize the divisiveness of these foolish hatreds and biases and rise above them.

Posted by: RickIL at March 10, 2008 08:13 PM

The Title of this article presupposes there is such a thing as a truly honest candidate for president. Obviously a false supposition, since American political parties would never permit a truly honest person to rise to such a level of candidacy, unless the candidate had no political experience at all, in which case, they would not be a nominee of either of the duopoly parties in the first place.

To find a truly honest candidate for president one has to turn one’s hopes to Ralph Nader or Ross Perot, but, as we have seen, such honesty is not well tolerated by our political system, and is immediately labeled radical or crackpot.

Even if an honest person somehow made it to high office, they could not possibly remain honest and reelectable. So, the whole premise of this article is rather absurd on its face. Can you imagine Comptroller David Walker’s stark honesty running for president? The derision of his honesty as Comptroller has already taken on ‘kill the messenger’ proportions inside political circles of both the left and right.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2008 09:38 PM

Are we, at a $6.00 minimum, anywhere close to a wage requirement that is costing jobs? Of course not.

That depends. In New York City or LA? Nope. In rural Iowa? Oh yea, that is too much.

It’s the big hammer problem.

But, beyond that, when you raise the minimum wage, those making $1.00 than minimum are now making minimum. They won’t like that so they will demand a raise. Then those above them will demand a raise, etc… In the end, when it is all said and done, the economy shuffles and people are right back to where they were.

In fact, I keep hearing that raising the minimum wage will not cause a recession, but didn’t we just raise it? And aren’t we about to enter a recession just afterwards, when we WERE starting a recovery?

The minimum wage is good, if it is very low, and it is dependant upon the living wages in the area. A high national minimum wage will cut jobs out of the economy. If you want to cut jobs out of the ecomony, by all means raise the federal minimum wage. If you want to create jobs, you make incentives for businesses to hire more people. That means prosperity first, then the jobs will come. Focus on fixing the problem, not the symptom, or you will end up making it worse.

Re: tariffs being the cause of the Great Depression, you say, Rhinehold, in different parts of your response, that tariffs caused the Great Depression and, in another part, that it worsened the Great Depression. Which is it?

That is not what I said at all… Perhaps you should read what I write, not you want me to have written. And I didn’t write it, it was a quote, but it still didn’t say that.

It said quite clearly that the crash occurred before the Tarriff. But it clearly says that we were in a RECESSION, not a depression, and were coming out of it when the Tarriff hit. It also says that many feel that the crash occurred because the tarriff was being discussed.

I recommend A. Schlessinger’s book about the depression. He suggests that the main driver of the downturn was that the money supply was sharply contracted over the five year period from 1930-1935, about 40% as I remember reading.

Yup, and did he explain WHY? Perhaps it was those who had money to invest no longer had incentive to invest it?

I would say that the average American has two things of value left to him: his power as a voter and his power as a consumer. Why in the world would we take American jobs, move them somewhere else, and then allow the products to come back into this country free of charge (no tariffs)?

We shouldn’t, but we should find out why they are going to begin with and FIX THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SYMPTOM. And you wonder why people don’t trust progressives with anything, they never want to make the hard look at the real reasons why things are, they just blame ‘the man’ and set out policies to fix it all, without fixing a thing.

Re: raising taxes. I assume you are middle class as far a income. (If you had a great deal of money you probably wouldn’t waste your time on blogs like this!) As a member of the middle class You have received little or no tax relief over the bush years.

Nor did I during the Clinton years, or the Bush years before, etc… All new policies require spending, that spending comes from the middle class. It is the way the world works. If you want tax relief you have to cut spending. Good luck getting a Democrat (and a Neo-con as well it appears) to agree to that.

why would you be in favor of borrowing money to provide tax relief to people at the very highest income levels.

I am not in favor of borrowing money to provide tax relief, I am in favor of cutting spending so that we can provide honest tax relief.

Is that what you are fighting for?

You have no clue what I am fighting for, apparently. I want our government to stop grinding the middle class to take care of everyone else’s needs by force. Are you for that? Are you for cutting back on the size of government so that people can make the decision to help someone who needs it on their own when they can, not by force and then figure out how to take care of themselves second? OR, are you, as I suspect because you’ve said so before, for EXPANDING the size of government, to be paid for by, you guessed it, the middle class. Because, unless you are entirely nieve, and I don’t think you are, the middle class pays for the society we have today. The rich pass on their costs to the consumer and the poor ask for assistance to exist. Guess who that leaves?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 10:10 PM

“Staying the course” won’t work.

Neither is spending MORE money, as the Democrats are promising to do. Unfortunately, neither major party gets it and continue to spend spend spend… It will get worse before it gets better, no matter which of the two major parties wins the election this year. :/

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2008 10:14 PM

Jack

You are making accusations of promise from candidates that simply are not true. I have yet to hear Obama promise that he will deliver new jobs. He promises that he will work towards that end. Mostly what he proposes is nothing more than reform, a reevaluation of priorities and new approaches to what is not working in this country.

You continually make comparisons of today with when you were a child and how hard life was. That is not a fair comparison. I agree that people have it good today by yesterdays standards. For the last two decades they have been encouraged to spend and charge as if credit were a limitless resource. The result is the evolution of a perceived new standard of living. Because of massive debt, energy costs and the resultant inflation people are no longer spending as if there may be no tomorrow. They are uncertain of their futures and are becoming cautious spenders striving to pay down that debt. As a result they are not able to enjoy the same type of carefree spending lifestyle that they have grown accustomed to. It may not be difficult by the standards of our childhoods or our parents. But it is never the less a change for them. What we would have considered a great lifestyle in our younger days equates to a less than adequate lifestyle by todays standards. I know it all seems a little shallow but this reality is showing the long term effects of careless spending encouraged by greedy profiteers. My guess is that all but the most wealthy will have to suffer with less at some point before things get better, by todays standards. Lets call it as you say, just a correction and a good thing that needs to happen.

Seriously Jack, no one with half a brain actually expects any president to precipitate instant and complete change, be it the economy or security issues. We just hope that person has the good sense and judgment to take a responsible intelligent and firm approach to the matters at hand. Your man has all but insured us that he will continue in the format of Bush. To be honest I can not imagine anything more unacceptable.

Posted by: RickIL at March 10, 2008 11:04 PM

Rhinehold,
I agree, at some point federal spending must be checked. But it is only half of the equation. If you believe in fiscal policy, increased federal spending boosts the economy, and lowering taxes does the same. For the past four or five years we have been in the recovery phase of the economic cycle. During that time, Bush & the GOP increased spending, and lowered taxes. At the same time, the Federal Reserve kept its rate very low. Because of outsourcing, among other things, job creation never took off. With spending, taxation, and interest rates so far out of whack, debts and deficits went through the roof, and the dollar tanked. It was a grossly irresponsible application of fiscal and monetary policy. Taxes should have been increased, and spending cut.

Now we are at the point of the economic cycle where it actally would be appropriate to cut taxes and increase spending, but that really isn’t an option anymore because of the debts and deficits.

The Federal Reserve is making a very scary move by dropping its short term interest rates. That makes the dollar drop even faster, and inflation is taking off, big time.

Congress is close to a standstill. The GOP has used filibusters (and obscure procedural moves) to stop the Senate and the House. In the Senate, the previous record for filibusters was 62 in two years. The GOP has already filibustered 62 times in one year in the Senate. The House is just as bad.

Democrats are promising to re-instate pay-go. They have a lot of other good ideas, but without the cooperation of the GOP minority & Bush miraculously discovering the need to veto appropriation bills, Congress is stopped- until the GOP and Bush can be removed as obstacles.

Will the Democrats do better? Maybe. Maybe not. But it couldn’t be much worse than what the GOP & Bush is doing to the country.

A great place to start would be cutting military spending. We’re spending more on “defense” now than we spent during the Cold War. It’s completely out of hand.

McCain is totally out of synch with what the country needs. The election needs to address the economy. The election will have to be about the economy. And McCain has absolutely no freaking idea what to do, other than “stay the course.”

What worries me is that his pose, as someone who will make us safe by keeping us afraid, will be supported by Bush when the Neocons start another war.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2008 11:38 PM

PHX* “A great place to start would be cutting military spending. We’re spending more on “defense” now than we spent during the Cold War. It’s completely out of hand.”
How true, a wise use of our tax dollars is exctly what is needed now. The cons may have a problem with it but after the mess they have got us into the past 8 years who cares. They just need to sit back and shut up. Its obvious they cant handle governing and fiscal responsibility.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 11, 2008 01:31 AM

Phx8

There you go again with the economy. Presidents have not much power to fine tune the economy. The U.S. economy has been mostly good for the last 25 years. That is amazing. It is still good compared to most other countries. In places like Germany & France, unemployment hovers around 7-8%.

So what SHOULD a president do? Probably the best thing the Federal government can do is to cut spending. I don’t hear that very loud from any candidates, at least nothing very specific. We also would need to address entitlements, which we are approaching like the Titanic sailing toward the iceberg.

The other problem is high energy prices. Although oil production is near record levels, demand worldwide has gone up faster. We need to get a handle on demand. The high prices are already beginning to do that. Gas consumption is DOWN this year and mass transit rider ship is at its highest level in 50 years. I carbon tax would help institutionalize this. Is there any candidate advocating this?

Complaining about the economy is a lot like complaining about the weather, especially if you do not intend seriously to address entitlements, cut the budget or push up the prices of gas. If you have a candidate who is willing not to stay the course, tell me about it.

Cube

I am a Republican advocate. That is why I write on this side of the blog. I don’t need to repeat that all the time. I am not a Republican “hack” since I write from my own point of view and make up my own mind on everything.

Re earlier posts – I am consistent in my understanding that what politicians can REALLY do is very limited and what people can demand is almost limitless. This post is very much along those lines. In fact, the reason I am a conservative is that I don’t trust government to run my life and am not interesting in letting it micromanage the economy.

Re Bush – we have a new election. McCain is not the same candidate. He differs significantly from Bush. McCain has been my favorite candidate since 2000. If you look at my bio, that part has not changed since I began to write at Watchblog since I began to write here before the 2004 election. I thought Bush was a better candidate than Kerry, and I still believe that. I think McCain is better than Bush. No candidate is my perfect choice. It is silly to talk about Bush or Kerry, however, in the context of the 2008 election. Neither of these guys is running. I feel no responsibility to defend the past except as it effects the future. Another consistent part of my character – and my writing here - is that I love history, but I face the future, not the past.

d.a.n.

The debt as % of gdp is what counts so I am less worried re the interest than you are. That said, I believe we SHOULD cut Federal spending. Do you hear any candidate promising that with any specifics?

RickIL

The point is that I did NOT have a hard life. Life was good in the 1960s for most Americans. It is even better now in terms of what people can afford to buy. Today the poor have access to goods that only the upper middle class could afford in 1960.

The problem is that desires and – yes – greed have overtaken people. Life has become so easy compared to previous generations and most places in the world that we gripe and cry about little things. Government really cannot help with these things. It is not possible to give people enough goods and services to satisfy most people, at least not for very long.

Personally, I dislike ostentatious displays of wealth and I despise anybody too caught up in the pursuit of material satisfaction. Hedonism, to me, is an insult. The irony of leftist politics is that it is actually about these things. It is, at bottom, about taking away from some and giving to others. This made some sense in pre-modern societies where wealth was close to being zero sum. It makes less or no sense in our modern economy where wealth grows exponentially.

Upwards of 90% of current U.S. workers have enough material resources to live happily. The fact that they do not do so says less about the state of the economy and a lot more about them and the evidently nearly limitless desire for more coupled with the even more pernicious feeling of entitlement.

I am sorry if I am drifting off politics, but I do believe this is the source of many problems. I started working at “career” positions in 1984. At that time I could afford a certain lifestyle. In the intervening years, my income went up a lot in real terms, but my lifestyle did not change that much. My first car was a Toyota Corolla. Today I drive a Honda Civic. It is a hybrid, so it cost more, but in terms of status, it is a downsize. I still wear the overcoat I bought in 1984 for my job interviews. I do not consider myself “cheap” but there are things I just do not need. I had enough then and now I have enough and can afford to do things like my forestry hobby. That is a good place to spend money. Many of my colleagues spent a lot more as they made more. Today they are still on the treadmill. There is nothing we can do to help them, but they can help themselves. I am unenthusiastic about sharing with them because they cannot handle it.

Actually, the problems of individual Americans is a lot like the problems of the Federal government. They spend too much but instead of geting that under control, they want to get more (in taxes or salary) and like the shift the blame for their lack of discipline.

Posted by: Jack at March 11, 2008 01:36 AM

Jack’s opening line:
“A Truly Honest Candidate Cannot Win.”

One of Jack’s closing lines:
“Only John McCain has the experience and proven character to keep our country safe.”

An honest candidate cannot win. Thus, the least honest will win, and Jack supports McCain, so McCain must be the least honest candidate!! Wow, that makes it crystal clear, thanks!’

L

Posted by: leatherankh at March 11, 2008 09:47 AM

I find it sad that there is not a single conservative on this board who is honest enought to take ownership of the last eight years. People are “looking forward”, “loving history, but facing the future”, the economy is like “the weather” (that’s a good one, I didn’t know crappy weather could last so long!!), “President’s can’t do much” (given w’s efforts, a true statement), How about “neither party gets it”, that’s a good one, lumping the dems together with the complete failure of the repubs over the last eight years.
Conservatives, Republicans, w-Fan’s!! Take ownership of the republican years. It was your time. It was a tremendous opportunity to shape, fine tune, determine the relationship between government, the individual, the corporation, small business and that is what you did. It is a republican world. You ran the government (into the ground) you ran the military (into the ground) you ran the economy (into … well, you get the idea.)
It is dishonest to present yourselves on this board as being somehow distanced, disinterested observers to the trainwreck that is the republican party. Through your vote, you guys were the ones driving the train.

Posted by: charles ross at March 11, 2008 09:58 AM

Jack wrote: d.a.n. The debt as % of GDP is what counts so I am less worried re: the interest than you are.

There ya go again … cherry pickin’ the data.

The $9.4 Trillion National Debt is 68% of the $13.86 Trillion GDP.
However, that does not include:

• the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching.
  
• the PBGC pensions are $450 Billion in the hole.


• the hundreds of billions per year of unfunded liabilities for Medicare.


• the hundreds of billions per year of unfunded liabilities for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


• the nation-wide debt of $48 Trillion (mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm”) is almost quadruple the $13.86 Trillion GDP!

Jack wrote: That said, I believe we SHOULD cut Federal spending.

Absolutely. The federal government is so severely bloated, wasteful, irresponsible, corrupt, and incompetent, you have to wonder if they are of any net beneift to society?

Jack wrote: That said, I believe we SHOULD cut Federal spending. Do you hear any candidate promising that with any specifics?

Sure, “read my lips”, they all make empty promises.

John McCain talks a good game about cutting spending, but many incumbent politicians do that, while simultaneously promising and pandering to provide more things to voters.
John McCain also says he “now gets it” (regarding illegal immigration), but his dismal voting record on illegal immigration doesn’t make him look too credible.
And John McCain can’t cut spending all by himself, and he hasn’t done much to stop these 10 abuses during his many years in Congress. In fact, he made some of them worse (e.g. illegal immigration, campaign finance reform, Constitutional violations such as Article V, Iraq, regressive taxation, voted for matching funds for seniors citizens’ prescription drugs (Dec 1999), voted for $1 Million for the brown tree snake in Guam, and by his own admisison of regret in 2005 on NPR for “looking the other way”, etc., etc., etc.).
Fiscal responsibility will not come about as long as the voters repeatedly reward incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates, and/or until the economy has been so screwed up that pain and misery becomes the major motivation.

Jack, you still avoided the …

• QUESTION: Where will the money come from to pay the INTEREST on the $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt?

Care to take a stab at it?
Especially when you wrote …

Jack wrote:

• The debt as % of GDP is what counts so I am less worried re: the interest than you are.

and previously …

• It [the federal deficit] would be fine EXCEPT for the entitlements iceberg we are sailing toward.


• The demographics are just going to smash us unless we do something.

Those don’t exactly sound like rosy predictions.

So, which is it?
How do you separate them (National Debt, entitlements, war debt, monetary policy, illegal immigration) as if the omitted (or cherry picked) factors will have no effect on the economy as a whole in the future?
There’s something inconsistent about that.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 11, 2008 11:16 AM

Jack,
A US president has a great de