freeman2 wrote:IFunny Monte that you fault RickyP for excessive certainty about the election but give Steve a pass for his near certainty that Romney is going to win.

Not fair.

I did not believe in 2008 that Americans would vote for someone with so little experience and so radical a background. They did.

Now, I am watching the trends. I have seen that Monte believes Obama is likely to win. I disagree. His job approval rating is consistently below 50%. Most people believe the country is on the wrong track--it's not even close. His signature achievements, healthcare reform and the Stimulus, are so unpopular that they got the Democrats thrashed in the mid-terms. Everything that was supposed to make Romney untenable has evaporated and his ratings have bounced back pretty quickly. Ultimately, this election comes down to the record of the President and his campaign's attacks on Romney versus Romney's positive vision. It's class warfare versus opportunity for all.

I am optimistic that optimism wins.

Additionally, the ongoing European financial crunch is not going to help the economy. Whether or not it's President Obama's fault is irrelevant. He will be accountable for what he has/has not done. Importantly, he has not put forth any hint that he cares about the deficit or Debt.

By the way, where is the conservative (Tea Party) critiquie of the Romney plan to cut taxes that is certainly to drive up the budget deficit TThe silence is deafening.

What is deafening is the sheer lack of understanding of the Tea Party you display. The Tea Party wants to shrink government. "Taxed Enough Already" means "we want a smaller government." Romney will also cut the size of government, so I would doubt that he will be "able" to match the President in terms of deficit spending.

Obama is doing the right a favor. His policies will placate the middle-class just enought so that they will not revolt. The middle-class is not going to tolerate their wages going down, access to higher education being cut-off their kids, and social programs like social security and medi-care being "reformed" while the top 1% or top 5 ot let's the top 10% get an increasing percetage of the nation's wealth while constantlyinsiisting on paying a lower rate of taxes.

I'm sorry, Freeman, but this is incoherent. Is it the middle class that is consumed by class envy and addicted to government handouts? If it is, the country is lost for sure.

I am in the middle class and none of those things concern me. Most of the people I know are in the middle class, some are on the lower rungs. I don't know any who have the concerns you cite. As Romney says, I think Americans are more aspirational than they are fraught with envy.

Noit that elities getting most of the economic pie while shifting the tax burden to the poor is new--that is pretty much the history of the planet since agriculture allowed centralize states to develop.

Since between 46 and 50% pay no Federal income tax, what would you do, seize the wealth of those who actually pay taxes? How often can you do that?

Also, as you live in the Worker's paradise, how do you justify the highest sales tax in the country? Isn't that regressive? Isn't the truth that liberals/progressives just want to spend money and they don't really care where it comes from?

The idea that our country is heading towards socialism is laughable.

That's a statement, not an argument based on fact. Your subsequent detour into Citizens United is not dispositive.

If Romney gets in and tries to cut social programs and cut taxes for the rich, like Mach said, better start stocking up on your emergency supplies

Nonsense.

The Occupy movement was founded by ne'er-do-wells, socialists, and street people. It represents 0.1% of the population. If there are common sense reforms to Social Security (like raising the age for retirement on those below 55, indexing based on inflation, tying benefits to wealth, etc.), no one will riot. If some shiftless jerks (see the Alex Pelosi video) have to start working instead of fathering children and running the streets, I suspect there won't be major social upheaval either. Romney has talked about preserving the safety net. I don't doubt that. I would suggest that in a few cases the holes in it are not big enough--some are granted "safety" who do not deserve it.

steve

rickyp wrote:

Imagine if the US had managed to pay off its debt by 2004? There was a pretty good cahnce of that happening when Bush came to office despite the previous 20 years... . If Reagan and Bush one had maintained a better balance, that would have been easy.

steve

Hmm, so when President Obama took office did he know all this or not?

Yes. So what? You can't change the past. You deal with what the past has created.


steve

Or, are you saying he should also blame Reagan--in addition to Bush?

Absolutely. Reagan made deficts poltiically palatable. You could now run deficits in good economic times and grow debt without political consequences. Without political consequences, where conservatives would normally speak out and over spending would be punished at the polls ... you built debt and created the conditions for the disaster that was Bush II to arrive.
Under reagan being conservative stopped meaning to be fiscally conservative and meant ONLY social conservative. That and believing in the wisdom of the markets and the idea that corporations acting in their best interests would always be in the best interests of the country.

At the heart of this is the irrationality of conservative politics in the US . If you can't look back at the causes of deficit and debt and admit where the debt was created ....Where the problems were created ...then its pointless debating what to do about it.
You end up with idiots like Grover Norquist who still can't comprehend the proven complexities of the theoretical Laffer curve.

ray

I like divided government and think that is the better option to keep the deficits down. I'm a social liberal. Democrats are less likely to get involved in wars, and the Republican congress is less likely to spend money.

I think the last 35 years offers contradictions to these statements. Viet Nam? Reagan's spending?
Divided government works when compromise is possible. It worked under Clinton because there were still republicans willing to find a middle ground. They are an endangered species today.

Strange you would pick Reagan and Bush I as the start of this issue. In the link I posted (hope you looked at it) it shows deficits all the way back to Ike! Yet you pick Reagan because it fits your narrative.

RickyP's is a lie of omission.

The problem is that both parties are at fault. We need a BBA. Otherwise the politicians will disregard the debt like they have since Coolidge/Hoover.

Ray Jay wrote:I thought about this overnight. The funny thing is that I think it is more likely that Obama will win, and I will probably vote for him (but for Republicans for Senate and House where my vote matters). I like divided government and think that is the better option to keep the deficits down. I'm a social liberal. Democrats are less likely to get involved in wars, and the Republican congress is less likely to spend money. I don't think that Romney has a plan to fix the deficit which is my #1 issue.

1. Is divided government the best option to keep deficits down?

I'm not sure. If Democrats somehow manage to keep Reid in power (as they would with a 50/50 split and Biden as VP), they've shown no desire to even pass a budget, let alone put a check on President Obama's spendthrift ways.

I would submit the country would be better off to let Romney have an opportunity to actually put something in place than to let Obama continue to punt. What plan has he put in place?

The only way we will get a budget that addresses entitlement reform and tax reform is with a Romney win--and a convincing one at that. I suspect we will get more specifics from him in the future. We've seen what the President will do--circumvent Congress to fund whatever he wishes.

2. Will electing Romney mark and end to social liberalism?

I don't think so. Romney has called for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage. With all due respect, he might as well threaten to pass an amendment prohibiting AYSO. Actually, that might have a better shot.

Worst-case scenario for social liberals: Planned Parenthood has to get private donations to make up for federal funds.

3. Are Democrats less likely to get us into wars?

I'm not really sure on this one. Clinton, Kennedy, and Johnson certainly did their fair share of using our military. Bush I, as far as I recall, was pretty limited. Bush II--Afghanistan was pretty much mandatory. Iraq was an error.

Obama? Surged in Afghanistan, Libya, and troops in Africa (what's happened to that, anyway).

Romney? I tend to think he's going to measure it pretty tightly. He's not going to want to spend the money unless we have to do it. I think he's less hawkish than his rhetoric might indicate.

The next crisis we will face is Iran. Either Israel will attack or we're going to have a nuclear Iran. What has Obama done? Fist-shaking. Offered an "open hand" and got slapped down.

I might agree with you about split government being good IF we had not seen what this President and Senate Leader are willing to do. However, you are right about one thing: if our votes count, that means President Obama has been hammered like no incumbent since Carter. If the Commonwealth is in play, every Congressional Democrat will be asking for photo-ops with Romney.

bbauska wrote:Strange you would pick Reagan and Bush I as the start of this issue. In the link I posted (hope you looked at it) it shows deficits all the way back to Ike! Yet you pick Reagan because it fits your narrative.

RickyP's is a lie of omission.

The problem is that both parties are at fault. We need a BBA. Otherwise the politicians will disregard the debt like they have since Coolidge/Hoover.

I agree 100%.

The solution is to pass a BBA. The only exception should be if we are in a declared war. If a balanced budget is not passed and signed within 60 days of the upcoming fiscal year (which may not be changed), an emergency election would be held with EVERY seat of both houses and the Presidency on it. We would never run a deficit again.

I think the main difference between Reagan and most of his post-WWII predecessors is that while they all had deficits, under him debt as a proportion of GDP was not going down.

It is not just whether there is a deficit, it's the size of it and the context that matters.

As most US states have a BBA and yeat have fiscal problems, I'm not convinced that it's a panacea for the federal government either. It won't for example, mean no tax hikes and it would probably have a war clause for opt-out.

rickyp wrote:Yes. So what? You can't change the past. You deal with what the past has created.

Very nice. This explains why the President's very first act was to call the Congress into session and negotiate a budget with them, right?

Oh.

Actually, his first action was something on . . . Guantanamo?

Then . . . he signed the $800B Stimulus?

Then . . . he worked tirelessly to bypass the Republicans and spend money on the Affordable Healthcare Act.

When exactly is he going to "deal with (the debt) the past has created?" When he's out of office?

What substantive proposal has he made to reduce the national debt or even annual deficit? Please link the plan.

At the heart of this is the irrationality of conservative politics in the US . If you can't look back at the causes of deficit and debt and admit where the debt was created ....Where the problems were created ...then its pointless debating what to do about it.

^Bonkers.

Look, let's say I have lung cancer. The doctor says, "Well, if you hadn't smoked for 35 years, we would not be here." I say, "You know what Doc? I'm going to go back in time 35 years and not smoke."

He looks at me and prescribes some psychiatric medication.

On the other hand, if I say, "When can we start the chemo?" at least I sound rational.

Our country cannot afford to look back in time and wish we had done things differently. We can argue about whether Reagan's spending was necessary or not, but that won't change a thing going forward. We're not in the Cold War any longer, so the same conditions do not apply. We can argue about whether Clinton left a surplus or not, or whether he benefited from the irrational exuberance of the dot com run up, but it won't change where we are today. We can argue GWB should have been less "compassionate," but that will reduce our deficit by zero pennies.

A leader, which President Obama is alleged to be, says, "This is where we are. How we got here does not matter. Here's where I'm going to take us and here's how we're going to get there. I need your help. Let's get this done."

Instead, President Obama has blamed Bush and said the solution was to raise taxes on "those guys." Anyone with half a functioning IQ knows his solution is not even the beginning of a solution.

You end up with idiots like Grover Norquist who still can't comprehend the proven complexities of the theoretical Laffer curve.

Or, people who delusionally think raising taxes is the solution. It has not worked in New York, Illinois, California, Massachusetts, and how many other States?

danivon wrote:As most US states have a BBA and yeat have fiscal problems, I'm not convinced that it's a panacea for the federal government either. It won't for example, mean no tax hikes and it would probably have a war clause for opt-out.

But, they have no structural, permanent fiscal problems. They don't have tens of trillions in unfunded mandates.

As for a war exception clause, you would have to have that. However, we have not declared war, iirc, since WW2. I would say the exception clause, if it had that exact language, might prove fairly restrictive.

I though California had pretty serious fiscal issues, along with large liabilities in the future.

Besides, a BBA could easily be subverted by the Federal government - they can get money printed to balance the books. Inflation would of course be the result, but it's a marvellous trick that the states cannot pull off.

Ray Jay wrote: Democrats are less likely to get involved in wars,...

Historically, this is less then accurate. Looking at just the 20th Century, WWI was entered by Wilson (D), WWII was entered by Roosevelt (D), Korea started under Truman (D), U.S. troops were sent to Viet Nam under Kennedy (D) and escalated under Johnson (D), U.S. forces were introduced to the Bosnia/Serbia conflict by Clinton (D) and Obama put U.S. forces into Libya

I think arguably the only Democratic President of the 20th Century that didn't put U.S. troops into a conflict situation was Jimmy Carter.

(note I am saying Republicans are any better or worse on this issue just that Democrats less likely to get involved in wars is false)

danivon wrote:I though California had pretty serious fiscal issues, along with large liabilities in the future.

Their liabilities are primarily pensions given to unions.

Their serious fiscal issues could be remedied by exploiting their natural resources (farming and oil), which they refuse to do. They also could cut spending, but that would mean hurting Democratic constituencies. They do not, technically, have an ongoing "debt."

Besides, a BBA could easily be subverted by the Federal government - they can get money printed to balance the books. Inflation would of course be the result, but it's a marvellous trick that the states cannot pull off.

Meh.

More constraints could be placed on the Fed. In the bigger scheme, voters have to decide if they want to think only of themselves and the moment, or if they prefer a country that can sustain itself and extend prosperity to their children and children's children. Europe chose the easy route (note well the outrage that arose because Sarkozy raised the retirement age from 60 to 62). If we go down that route, or rather, if we CONTINUE down that route, our result will be the same.

I know, I know--Britain made cuts.

Yes, and you're not insolvent.

Greece refused to stick with cuts and where are they? Spain? Italy? Portugal?

Point is, Steve, that a BBA didn't stop California from building up problems.

Oh, and we weren't insolvent and we were in a far better position than Greece. And we also use the money printing trick of QE, which we can because we are not in the Euro.

By the way, Spain's debt is lower than Germany's. Spain's major problem - like that of Ireland - is not that the government is directly in trouble fiscally, it's that banks are in deep hock thanks to a property bubble bursting (Spain has a ridiculous number of empty homes). Because bank deposits are guaranteed to a limit, and because failing banks are a really bad think for a nation's economy, the government is forced to either guarantee support or watch as the rug is pulled from the banks and then the treasury.

And Spain is also cutting, by the way. Check their GDP trends.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Ray Jay wrote: Democrats are less likely to get involved in wars,...

Historically, this is less then accurate. Looking at just the 20th Century, WWI was entered by Wilson (D), WWII was entered by Roosevelt (D), Korea started under Truman (D), U.S. troops were sent to Viet Nam under Kennedy (D) and escalated under Johnson (D), U.S. forces were introduced to the Bosnia/Serbia conflict by Clinton (D) and Obama put U.S. forces into Libya

I think arguably the only Democratic President of the 20th Century that didn't put U.S. troops into a conflict situation was Jimmy Carter.

(note I am saying Republicans are any better or worse on this issue just that Democrats less likely to get involved in wars is false)

I really opened up a few cans of worms. I think that Obama has been judicious in his use of the military. We are mostly out of Iraq, and we never got into Libya. He won't surge again in Afghanistan. We are using drones in Pakistan and Yemen; it ain't perfect, but it is better that massive US casualities. He's put pressure on Iran and is studying his options.. I personally don't know the right answer here, but my sense is that he is pursuing it rationally. Perhaps Romeny would be similar, but there's no way to know for sure.

Re the economy, I would prefer Romney over Obama (I can see that I didn't make that clear), but I'm not confident that Mitt will do this right. He's talking about increasing military spending and lowering taxes which is hard for me to imagine. I think the right answer is a grand compromise that lowers spending and rationalizes our tax system. Can Romney deliver that? Perhaps. It comes down to the same issue which is Who is Mitt Romney? What's his core. I've met the guy and I don't know.