REPUBLICANS take it all...how bad would it really be?

It won't be bad. If it happens, and that's a huge if, it'd still be so close in both chambers that cooperation and bipartisanship would still be required to get anything passed.

 

rocketman95, the Senate Republicans completely ignored the Democrats when they were in power.

IMO, it will be horrible.

*More unsound tax cuts that noone cares for.
*The deficit to hell (Ross Perot anyone)..
*Privatization of Social Security (notice that they shut the **** up about this when the economy started to tank... hmmm)
*Shoving unsound domestic energy policy through, from closed door meetings mind you, that violate environmental laws.

Hell, much of that stuff is going on right now! I don't want anything facilitated by an all "short-term gains" sweep of the 3 buildings. We need at least one building to think with a long term perspective.

 

It would be similar to 1992 in my opinion. All the focus would shift to the more exterme Republican agenda because they'd finally be able to pass things. That will create a backlash in 2004 as it did with Democrats in 1994.

It seems like it would be a GREAT opportunity for the party in power to pass all the moderate common-sense stuff that parties more-or-less agree on, but do it with a Republican flavor. They would get credit for getting work done that the American people really like. For whatever reason, though, that never seems to happen.

 

You can't see that these 2 items are directly contradictory of each other? You say you want a long-term perspective, yet want to debunk SS privatization based on one year of market performance? You can't have it both ways. The whole idea of placing a portion of SS in the market is thinking with a long-term perspective.

 

The thing is, they can't afford to be too extremist...at least in the Senate. All projections point to a 50-49-1 split, one way or another. Even if it's not that close, there won't be more than a 3 vote majority, IMO. That's certainly enough to force some compromises. If not, then it'll probably just help the Democrats in 2004, just like Major said.

Republicans are scared of Lincoln Chafee, senator from Rhode Island. He hasn't ruled out defecting the party ala Jeffords.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak17.html

 

Economic amateurism at work -- get a clue Achebe, throwing around accusations and using demagoguery doesn't persuade people.

First off, who is "noone"? Is this someone's name? Please advise. Secondly, please tell me why tax cuts are unwise? When consumer spending comprises 66% of GDP, do you think it is smart to take money away from the consumers in order to aid the economy? What is your stance on appropriate fiscal policy with regard to the deficit? Do you recommend creating a budget surplus by ending all unemployment benefits? How about jacking up taxes or cutting anti-terrorism spending? Lastly, with regard to privatization of Social Security: What has been proposed to date is creating an individual account, at the individuals *choice*, whereby they can allocate money how they choose. I think this is a great idea. The government should not be making my retirement savings decisions -- I should. The returns from social security savings over time have been atrocious. Somewhere in the 2-3% range. I can achieve superior investment results easily on my own, without assuming undue risk. This debate is about who saves your money, the government, or you. It is your *choice*, no one is forcing anything on the savers.

Unsound domestic energy policy? How is encouraging domestic production of oil & gas unsound? The less reliance we have on middle east oil, the better. I refer you back to this classic piece of work, with regard to tax policy and deficits:

 

since we're all racist and we hate poor people it could get pretty bad!

 

TJ,

You make some sound points, as you can do when in lower caps mode. However, your vehemence about tax cuts does lead one to wonder about your bracket.

Well, the point is that we the public do not have access to what the domestic energy policy really is. From what I can tell, it is dominated by a continued and perhaps *increased* reliance on fossil fuels. I know (through my work as a research physicist) that research funding for alternative energy sources has definitely been cut. I think that's incredibly short-sighted and disturbingly linked to the industrial connections of the current administration.

Finally, if you could refrain from referring to your own posts as "classic," many of us would be much obliged.

edit: MadMax, LOL!

 

Don't sell yourself or your party short, Max. You're sexist & homophobic too.

 

One good thing would be that more loud-mouth dumbass hollywood-types might leave the country.

 

Great Points TJ,

The word budget "defecit" conjours up some horrible visions to most Americans when a deficit can be used for good. Keynesian economics believes the government should create a deficit during a recession to jump-start the economy in the form of government spending, but more importantly lowering taxes to push capital back into the economy. The defense spending and lowering of taxes are the appropriate steps to aiding ailing corporate earnings. When these earnings figures turn around, as they already have begun to, then stock prices will rebound.

 

that's right...i forgot...we don't just hate Will...we hate Grace, too!

 

You can't see that these 2 items are directly contradictory of each other? You say you want a long-term perspective, yet want to debunk SS privatization based on one year of market performance? You can't have it both ways. The whole idea of placing a portion of SS in the market is thinking with a long-term perspective.


Privatization is debunked not based on the economy sucking but the whole idea of Social Security. The economy sucking is just used to show how dangerous the idea can be. Privatization is messed up because:

(1) Right now, money is spent as it comes in; it's not a "savings" account like they describe it. If you privatize SS, then your money now goes to a personal account. Who pays for all the current seniors who were being paid with your money? New taxes. Hundreds of billions of dollars of new taxes, potentially. Or, use the Republican strategy and just build up debt and let someone else deal with it.

(2) Social Security is designed as a redistribution program. The idea is not to give you a savings account that you can invest in. It's to help ensure EVERY senior has a basic income to survive on. You already have your own retirement accounts that you can invest in. What do you do with seniors who end up with bad investments (even "sound" bad investments like Enron)? What about seniors who retire during a serious downturn?

(3) Who invests the money? Different proposals have different ideas. If it's you, how is that different than a retirement account? How do you deal with the issues in #2? Some proposals have the government investing it. This is plain ludicrous - the government should NEVER be involved in buying and selling in the stock market. How do you ensure neutral bias? What's to stop fraud with the government investing in companies that contribute/lobby? There's no way to fairly implement this.

There are plenty of reasons to kill privatization. The economy just showed that the stock market is not this great concept that will ALWAYS outperform the way the government does it, which many people fell into believing in the 80's and 90's.

 

The government should not be making my retirement savings decisions -- I should. The returns from social security savings over time have been atrocious. Somewhere in the 2-3% range. I can achieve superior investment results easily on my own, without assuming undue risk.

The government does not invest your social security money. For one, it's not YOUR social security money. It's a general redistribution pool. Second, your social security money is used immediately. Any excess amounts are used to purchase government bonds so the gov't is borrowing from itself instead of public investors. Any deficits are paid from the general tax pool.

 

Wait one second here Mister! Are you saying that Al Gore was lying when he said that social security funds would be put into a lockbox???

 

fact or not, be careful how loud you say this, major...revolutions have been started for less. perception is more important than reality, many times.

 

Maybe the fact that it was written in secret by energy industry officials like Ken Lay and that the GAO had to take dick cheney to court to figure out who wrote it lends to suspicion of his energy policy as unsound? What if EPA regulations were written in secret by the Sierra Club and the Audobon Society; after all, who knows better about protecting the environment than them, right?

Maybe the fact that said energy policy is a giant easter egg for the energy industry and focuses mostly on increasing supply rather than reducing demand, which just happens to benefit the people who wrote up the policy, notwithstanding the fact that reducing consumption of a nonrenewable resource or developing alternative energy sources is indisputably a better long term plan on multiple levels?

But when you just call it "encouraging production" it sounds so much better.

 

Wait one second here Mister! Are you saying that Al Gore was lying when he said that social security funds would be put into a lockbox???

I never really figured out what the hell he was talking about there, but yeah, I'd assume he was BSing. SS needs lots of reform, but none of the current proposals solve anything. Real reform is going to ultimately involve giving people less money (lower benefits, higher age limits, lower inflation index, etc), because right now the program simply takes in less and less money relative to what is distributed.