South Carolina Debate – A Party in Disarray by Trader_Jorge As I sit here and listen to the Democratic debate which was held in South Carolina yesterday, I can only marvel at how lost the party is. At one end of the spectrum you have an extreme liberal, such as Dennis Kucinich, arguing for a gargantuan increase in payroll taxes in order to finance a single-payer healthcare system (he also wants to end the WTO and cancel NAFTA). On the other end of the spectrum, you have Joe Lieberman, arguing for tax cuts and a stepped up war on terror. Meanwhile you have Howard Dean and John Kerry exchanging personal attacks on courage. Dick Gephardt is an old worn tire at this point in his political career, no one has ever heard of Bob Graham from Florida, John Edwards is an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer with no political credentials, and all the while you have Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun, who are still attempting to figure out proper debate decorum, chiming in with inappropriate platitudes such as ‘the President who was never elected’ and making heinous analogies comparing Bush’s tax relief proposal to the Jonestown tragedy. How can this loose collection of politicians with wildly different political views and such intense hatred for one another possibly field a candidate that can challenge our current President? How can these ineffective, politically rejected policies ever be viable alternatives to bring before the American voters? The fact that the liberal left controls no branch of government comes as no surprise, considering its inability of forming a cohesive message within its own party. The midterm elections were an overwhelming success for Republicans – there can be no debate with regard to that. What have the Democrats learned from this debacle? Evidently, they have learned nothing. They are still widely divided within their own ranks. They have no message. The three main issues that the Democratic candidates have been pushing are education, healthcare, and the economy. The Democrats recognize that they have no credibility with Americans on the topic of national defense, and they have rightly avoided the issue. What are the candidates’ messages for these issues? After listening to the entire debate, the answer is that they have no message. They are split on the topic of raising taxes. Instead of forming new ideas on the topic of economic reform, all they have done is criticize the Bush Administration’s good faith attempts at creating jobs for Americans. They are split on the topic of single-payer healthcare. We all agree that Americans need health coverage, but simply stating that in accusatory tones, as the liberals have done, is not going to magically create an effective policy. Instead of having an opinion on how to reform the educational system, all they could do was repeat Bush’s “leave no child behind” mantra. Again, I repeat, there are no answers. There is no message. How can they mobilize the liberal electorate if their own party’s issues are so wildly different? No majority can be formed this way, and no serious challenge to President Bush can be mounted if this persists.
Good post. The Democrats are in disarray, there is no doubt. Their best candidate is Hillary, and if she thought she could win, there is not doubt that her pledge to finish her 6 year term would be quickly forgotten. She is a smart lady, and she sees the writing on the wall.
National defense is an odd topic to say that the democrats have no stance on. The worst terrorist attack in American history happened on Bush's watch if I remember correctly. Bush's economic policy is based off a theory that has failed in every country it has ever been tried in. He's crippled the epa, and seems to be pro-pollution as far as I can tell. I agree that a democratic candidate needs to take a stand. The key issues are education, the economy, reducing the deficit, and coming up with a real plan for paying for the medicare and social security benefits of the baby boomers that are going to be retiring in massive numbers in less than 10 years. This is not the time to be cutting taxes, and any economist who doesn't live off grants from conservative thinktanks could tell you exactly what effect the current idiotic policies are going to do to the middle and lower classes. Right now, we're setting ourselves up for some very hard times in the future if we keeping traveling down our current path.
the Bush Administration’s good faith attempts at creating jobs for Americans which would be??? The truth is that the economy is in disarray. If the economy does not rebound by 11/2004, one of those "Democrat" losers will be the next president (and the Republican will be in real dsiarray).
See 1992. See 1994. It's amazing how many people try make sweeping predictions two years before an election. Clinton, for example, wasn't even on the radar screen in early 1991. Of course the Democratic party doesn't have a unified message in a freaking primary debate 18 months before an election. What's the point of a debate if everyone agrees on everything? The Republicans were no different when there were like 8 Republican candidates either in 1999. Anyone who thinks a party is dead based on one bad election has no sense of perspective or history. Elections today are won on personality as much as politics. Reagan had far more charisma than Carter or Mondale. Bush had very little, but more than Dukakis. Clinton had far more than Bush or Dole. Bush 2 had more than Gore. If the Democrats field a charismatic candidate without some kind of crazy views -- regardless of the in-fighting that goes on between now and then -- there will most likely be a legitimate race in 2004.
I agree with you, but you have to admit, the Democrats are off to a sorry start. The most credible candidate in my opinion is Lieberman, and his charisma is lacking.
This is absolutely repulsive. You have absolutely got to be kidding me here. Unreal. President Bush has done more to cripple terror than any world leader in history. He has brought Al Queda to its knees. He has dismantled the terror factory that was Iraq. He has beefed up domestic security by created the Department of Homeland Defense and by enacting the Patriot Act. Had President Clinton done *anything* at all about confronting the terror threat, then Al Queda would not have had the power that they once held. Make no mistake about it, 9/11 was planned under the appeasement policy of President Clinton. The problems that lead to 9/11 were confronted under the Bush Administration. Surely you jest. So, in essence what you are saying is that we need to raise taxes and reduce spending in a time of economic recovery? This is simply laughable. Job growth and stock market gains will be created under President Bush's tax relief plan. I have written several classic posts on this topic -- I suggest you read them. Deficit spending is a necessary evil during a time of economic recovery. Interest rates are at 45 year lows -- what better time to borrow money to finance America's growth? President Bush's tax policy is based on the belief that Americans can spend their own money more efficiently than can the government. I wholeheartedly support his proposal and believe it is in the best interest of the American economy.
It seems kind of strange talking about economics and health care with terrorism and war going on. Not that they aren't important, but they seem to be less critical to me. Especially since, you know, terrorists want to kill me and stuff. I thought Gephardt and Lieberman did the best (from what I saw). Lieberman for his strong stance on fighting terrorism and clearly defining how he is different from Bush. And Gephardt for having and workable honest health care plan.
President Bush's tax plan will create unprecedented access to capital for American corporations and small businesses. These institutions are the ones that create jobs. Because you haven't noticed, No Worries, let me fill you in on the state of the economy: Unemployment growth has slowed according to last week's report, capital spending is making a comeback (Cisco's earnings release this week will shed much light on it), we have had several quarters of positive GDP growth as Bush has turned around Clinton's economic bubble burst, and the market indices are at 11-month highs. The economy is staging a remarkable comeback, and the liberal left continues to make baseless accusations....and you wonder why the party has no credibility.... sigh
Job growth and stock market gains will be created under President Bush's tax relief plan. Didn't you say this after the first tax cut too? That worked oh-so-well. I guess if you keep cutting taxes, the economy is going to eventually recover on its own and you can say "see, it was the tax cuts!" Never mind that we'll be in a ridiculous debt (and no, there's no evidence that tax cuts create the kind of economic growth to cover the new deficits before you make that ridiculous argument) When more people are against a freaking tax cut, of all things, than are for it, you know something has gone wrong.
capital spending is making a comeback (Cisco's earnings release this week will shed much light on it), we have had several quarters of positive GDP growth as Bush has turned around Clinton's economic bubble burst, and the market indices are at 11-month highs. And yet unemployment continues to grow... hmmm. The economy is staging a remarkable comeback Then why risk further deficits and national debt with another tax cut? I thought the new tax cut was because the economy needed a boost.
Wall Street is *firmly* behind the President's tax cut policy. There is no question that the market will react favorably to increased tax cuts -- every single trader/money manager I speak with says as much. Basic financial theory says as much. When less of your money goes towards taxes, the net present value of future cash flows increases, which drives valuations (stock prices) higher. This is corporate finance 101, Major. Accommodating monetary and fiscal policy has led to a period of historically low interest rates. Unfortunately, high profile bankruptcies like Enron and Worldcom initially dampened the effects of these policies as credit spreads widened (as banks got nervous) and money (debt) was hard to come by (raise). As these bankruptices have faded into the background, credit spreads have shrunk to near record levels, providing access to debt capital at *very* low rates. These policies take time to work their way through the system, and now companies are benefitting from the Bush Administration's efforts. No rational economic thinker would expect a tax cut to have instantaneous effects, as you imply. As firms begin to employ their newfound capital in profitable investments, earnings will rise and equity valuations will rise in turn. This wealth effect will bolster consumer confidence and in so doing strengthen demand in the economy. The result of all of this? More jobs. We must be patient, however, this does not happen overnight.
The rate of growth has slowed, an inflexion point has been reached. The bond traders at the CBOE are betting on this, as evidenced by the rise in treasuries on Friday, after the jobless claims report was announced. (Is all of this flying way over your head, or do you understand this? I can dumb it down if need be) Because it is the prudent thing to do. Interest rates have not been lower in 45 years. Now is the time to borrow, because money is cheap. In this time of war, we need a temporary boost to liquidity. Now is the time to be putting money in people's pockets, not to be taking it from them in the form high taxation. Despite the economy's comeback, it still has not achieved it's target 4% annual rate of GDP growth. The tax relief that Bush is proposing will help achieve this, for the reasons stated in my posts above.
Wall Street is *firmly* behind the President's tax cut policy. Wow, I'm shocked. That was a nice little speech. Irrelevent, but entertaining. There's no evidence whatsoever that the balance of tax cuts outweighs the new $400 billion that will be taken out of investment in the private sector economy in order to fund this year's deficit alone. Until you consider both sides of the tax cut, your rambling really doesn't mean much. The rate of growth has slowed, an inflexion point has been reached. The slowing of a rate of growth is not an inflexion point. The inflexion point is the point at which the rate of growth itself goes from negative to positive - which hasn't happened as of yet. Is all of this flying way over your head, or do you understand this? I can dumb it down if need be. Because it is the prudent thing to do. Interest rates have not been lower in 45 years. Now is the time to borrow, because money is cheap. That would be true if there was a plan in place to pay back the money borrowed. But since there isn't and it only adds to our long-term debt, the short-term interest rates aren't all that relevent in the overall scheme of things. In this time of war, we need a temporary boost to liquidity. Now is the time to be putting money in people's pockets, not to be taking it from them in the form high taxation. (a) This isn't a war like Korea or Vietnam or WW2. The costs were nothing near the levels of past wars. Don't try to use that as a silly justification for anything in the world of economics. (b) Our tax rates are already low compared to anytime in recent history. What exactly do you define as "high taxation"? Despite the economy's comeback, it still has not achieved it's target 4% annual rate of GDP growth. The tax relief that Bush is proposing will help achieve this, for the reasons stated in my posts above. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. There's certainly no actual evidence that it will - lots of theories both ways. Plenty of experts on both sides of the argument. What it will definitely do is expand (in real terms and in terms of % of tax revenues and % of GDP) an already ridiculous debt and deficit that will constrain future growth. I guess I just have more faith in you that businesses are capable of rebounding on their own. If you cut taxes everytime there's a recession and never raise them, then you have a recipe for absolute economic disaster.
TJ, wall street is about making money, so anything that enriches them will garner their full support. Not sure why that's news to you. They're about as in touch with the average american as you are. You're saying that americans who are already looking at an uncertain economic future should put more financial burden on themselves by borrowing money? The math doesn't add up. Most americans are content with a decent job that allows them to support their family. It's a simple request, and the current economic policies aren't really in tune with that. You're relying on the haves to do what's best for the havenots. It's faulty logic, but as long as people like yourself make out okay then i guess it's good for the country.
Al Sharpton and his fro all the way to the whitehouse. What is Sharpton's group called? The fro gonna go to the big show.. which is the white house.
The most interesting thing to me is the division in the Democratic party...this question of whether to lean further left, and differentiate themselves more from the Republican party...or lean to the middle...and blur the differences. This, of course, is the same thing we were talking about the day after the mid-term elections...the lack of any real definition for the party. Curiously enough, I hear many Democrat friends say that Joe Leiberman is just a Republican running as a Dem. Nevertheless, that guy appears to be the front-runner in all the polls I've seen among Dems.
Major, once again you are going bear hunting with a stick when you attempt to debate economic matters. Your argument is not about putting forth your own opinions, instead you choose to only attempt to refute mine (and you're not doing too well). Despite last night's one-sided shout down, you inexplicably come back for more punishment. Well, if you insist: What you are having trouble grasping is that a tax cut would be permanent in nature, thereby providing benefits in future years. The alleged $400bn number that you throw out there is a one-time capital raising event. Don't try to compare a steady stream of benefits to the economy to a one-time charge. Even with your limited background in finance, you can hopefully understand that a recurring stream of earnings is more valuable than a non-recurring event. An inflexion point in the *rate* of growth -- which I have been referring to all along, and which the market is more concerned with -- has been reached. Last week's April jobs report proved this to be true. I really don't know why you are arguing this point, you are showing your lack of insight into the market. Traders are concerned with rates of growth, not absolute figures. I would expect someone new to finance to make this mistake, though. I forgive you. There most certainly is a plan to pay back the debt, to imply otherwise is absurd. The debt will be paid back the same way it was in the late 90's, by higher tax receipts from an improved economy. Surely you are able to see a correlation between economic growth and tax receipts, I shouldn't need to explain this. Short-term rates are *absolutely* relevant, when you are financing the deficit. Short-term rates are what the latest round of financing will be priced at. The rates will be locked in at historically low levels. How anyone can think that this is a bad time to be borrowing is truly amazing. The duration of the war on terror is unknown. The level of technological investment to fund our armed forces is very high. To flippantly assume that this war will be cheap is not sound policy. Second, tax receipts as a share of GDP reached 29.6% in 2000 and 29% in 2001. Bush did his best to reverse this trend, as receipts shrunk to 26.3% in 2002. There is much work left to be done before we reach a pre-1970's level of around 24.5%. A tax cut is a step in the right direction. Why don't you trust Americans with their own dollars? The private sector will lead this economy out of Clinton's bubble burst, and in order to do this, they need their money back. CASE CLOSED
Let me guess, You have a job, and you are a healthy person. Ask anyone who has an ongoing medical condition or a senior citizen living on fixed income who has to buy prescription drugs that why they would DARE talk about healthcare or economics while a war is going on.
