There's a lot wrong with this post. Dukakis didn't lose because the economy went south. History shows that Obama can enact straight GOP policy and the GOP will turn against it simply because Obama is for it. Also tax cuts aren't good stimulus, as history has shown over and over.
1. I'd like to see how the EPA is running amok these days. Especially in an environment where shutting it down has become part of a public discourse. (Where that pinko Nixon would be spinning in his grave). 2. Oh noes, Obama will not bend over and enact the policies the Republicans want, and might want to enact policies the Democrats like! I know you might think otherwise given how Democrats can act at times, but maybe that's what they do! 3. I liked the Bush tax cuts, but I'm getting to the point that I think it's going too far. Not to mention I have no clue how a cut on government spending is supposed to stimulate the economy, short of what Krugman describes as the magical confidence fairy.
You have it backwards, the only hope of the economy succeeding is winning the election. The only way for the economy to improve is for Obama to enact GOP policies, a tacit admission of failure. He's shot his Keynesian wad and there's nothing else he can do that will get him reelected. No, I'm saying Obama will maintain a 40% base coalition ala Dukakis and will lose most independents. If Obama proposed tax rate/spending cuts, the GOP would go along. Disagree, Harding/Kennedy/Reagan/Bush tax rate cuts all led to increased GDP growth rates, which is what Obama needs.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...se-electricity-rates-by-up-to-60-percent.html Spoiler <iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HlTxGHn4sH4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iJ55UzAsp6M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> I don't expect him to, but that's what it would take to get economic growth. Spending cuts are to prevent a long term debt crisis ala Greece. You need tax rate cuts to spur capital investment for economic growth.
I hear this meme repeated over and over again, but the numbers just don't bear out the claims. The Kennedy tax cuts were the right thing to do, but the way the deficit and debt jumped after Reagan's cuts, it should be clear that those rates are ultimately unsustainable. The base broadening was the right thing to do during that era and Reagan probably couldn't have made it happen without the rate cuts. However, it is also pretty telling that we were able to balance the budget again after two rounds of tax hikes (Bush the elder and Clinton's) and that deficits and debts skyrocketed again after Bush's tax cuts and spending spree. This is all about the "starve the beast" strategy, cutting taxes to unsustainable levels in the hopes that the red ink will make enough people angry enough to accept draconian spending cuts in programs that Republicans don't like. This is class warfare, the rich are winning and have been for decades.
You mean that we might be making efforts to get away from coal? And do something about climate change? Finally? And this is far as I'm concerned the contradiction in Republican economic thought these days. You want Obama to deal with the deficit and fix the economy at the same time which means that while you continually cry out "tax cuts" like some mantra, Obama's in a lose-lose scenario when it comes to spending. If he cuts spending, the economy will have problems as Keynes describes, and then you'll blame Obama. If he doesn't, then you get to whine about big government. Now to mention, I have no confidence any more that the GOP will make one move towards actually cutting spending. You had your chance when there was a GOP majority in Congress, and Bush there. And what did you do? Put in more entitlements, and fight wars. You can whine your "No true Scotsman" stuff about how Bush wasn't a Real Conservative, but the idea that the GOP will cut spending is a joke. Go ahead. Tell me how the GOP will make sizable attacks on government spending. Mention pork, subsidies, Obamacare, and you lose.
I'm talking about GDP growth, not deficits. But in all of those instances revenues (eventually) increased despite lower overall rates. Since WWII federal spending has never gone down no matter who is in control of the purse strings, so I'm not sure when these draconian spending cuts are supposed to happen (they certainly need to). If we need more revenue and the solution is higher taxes, where is Obama's tax hike proposal?
Can debate climate change elsewhere, but the EPA regs are a huge drag on the economy. You assume economic growth comes from government spending. We are spending at record levels and the economy is not improving. If anything, the mantra is coming from the Keynesians in the face of failed policies. They just tell us things would be alot worse. Problem is we know things could be better, it has been in the past. Balanced budget amendment with spending caps is the only way, it would need presidential political support for passage. There are several candidates in favor such an amendment. As far as what gets cut, I would eliminate DoEducation/HUD/Dept of Commerce for starters. Eliminate all subsidies and bailouts of any kind. Means test social security and medicare, rich don't need it. That would be a good start. Or even better, just pass the last budget from a previous year that would equal current revenues (2003).
Also, even if you're not a Keynesian, cutting education budgets has to be one of the most short-sided things I've ever seen suggested.
I am curious about this reference---I am assuming you are talking the Reagen years. In which case, I caution you to be careful. Economic analysis indicates that his period of prosperity may actually have more to do with a certain gentleman named Volcker, a textbook Keynesian. it's like Friedman claiming the New Deal actually extended the Great Depression and etc. etc., the war between Keynesians and the Austrian school rages on and on. there are good arguments and bad arguments for both sides. but to deride one economic school of thought as a failure, over such a short period of time, and over such sketchy evidence (what is to say the stimulus did not prevent a 14% unemployment rate? analysis is split on this as well), is nothing short of fool-hardy.
This will never, ever work. I guarantee it. 1. Any amendment is going to have to account for scenarios where it IS permissible to go over budget, such as beating Hitler or spending like crazy to stretch the Soviet economy to the breaking point. The GOP likes to act like your household budget and the government budget are the same thing. Well, using that analogy, there are times where you do have to go over your budget, such as if your kid gets sick. Either this theoretical amendment would be so severe that spending in those emergencies will be difficult... or it will be completely ineffective thanks to that loophole. 2. In order to actually balance the budget, severe, severe changes will have to be made. And in order to protect their personal constituents, I figure that the representatives would slash things that would not be as big a harm to your own personal district. Which means that we're much more likely to close down the Department of Education ( btw, good god, I used to subscribe to that libertarian BS about how you can just let the states determine everything, when most people on this forum post from a state that still is trying to implement creationist crap) than subsidies to Big Oil. 3. The risk of a default grows much larger under those circumstances. If the Republicans are pretty to play with defaulting under the current circumstances, what's to stop them from actually doing it when they have to create a balanced budget under the Constitution?
Would rather have the BBA with a loophole than no BBA at all. Meh maybe. If your argument is "that'll never happen, they'll never do it", I can't debate a hypothetical. Lots of folks in favor of corporate subsidies got voted out of office in 2010. We wouldn't default, we have plenty of revenue to pay interest on the debt. Borrowing in perpetuity leads to default eventually, or a denial of credit (that is the same as a personal budget). It's either pain now or more pain later (Greece). Surprised how many people think education needs to be run out of DC. What benefit does that serve? That standard should be applied to everything the federal government does, why does it need to be uniform across the states? Several reasons of course, centralized power and control is appealing to those that have it, and they like to perpetuate and enhance that power. It's human nature. Plus it's easier to flee a state to avoid government controls than it is to leave the country. The regulators need a captive audience. Also, rich and/or well run states can subsidize poor and/or badly run states via a giant federal pool of money.
Why SHOULDN'T education be uniform across states to a large extent? Why have 50 state bureacracies doing the exact same things when you can have one do it all far more efficiently? Why force textbook makers to make 50 slightly different versions of textbooks, raising costs? Why cause problems for kids who move state to state and now have a different educational background than their peers? Beyond that, local school boards are perfect example of why local control is overrated - some are great, but a lot are just filled with crazy and highly unqualified people. In Texas, even the state school board is filled with morons. The flipside of local control is the insurance industry - you have 50 different regulators controlling health insurance. It's a huge contributor to the industry being inefficient and wasteful. It causes people to have all sorts of problems when moving from state to state. It creates a highly non-competitive insurance market, causes threats by companies to leave individual states, etc. The problems aren't the same, but you waste lots of resources and don't remotely get a better system out of it. There are a lot of things the federal government is certainly NOT good at. But the idea that we should run away from centralized control in the name of decentralization is really misguided - there are also lots of things that state and local government sucks at or situations where there simply don't need to be 50 different governments doing the exact same thing. In those cases, handling things at the federal level does make more sense.
Monopolies suck and they aren't efficient. If people are fleeing your state to where better jobs/schools are, it might incentivize you to do better.
Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock. Honestly you are one of the dumbest dudes around - can't tell if you're faking or honestly that dumb. I challenge you to a debate of whether or not wrapping a plastic dry cleaning bag around your head (speaking in 2nd person here) is a good idea. You willl take the pro- I'll take the con-. Deal or are you afraid?
Our buddy Mitt disagrees... Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better. - Mitt Romney
