"Its the Economy, STUPID" (vote, Congress, Reagan, Democrats)

[tomocox]

I am not about defending anyone past or future. While this issue is a key issue to the 2008 Presidential election. I believe the farther we keep government out of our business, both personal and commercial, the better most of us are.

Policing the market, yes, manipulating the market, best left to supply and demand, IMO.

What few liberals will acknowledge is this... a tax is a tax on everyone. Tax a corporation or business, if their product is a staple such as gasoline, heating fuel, food, housing, then people pay more. Tax a luxury such as electronic games; boats; optional clothing, including anything above decency; people loose jobs.

Our ghettos need investment. Our rural equivalent "hollars" and trailer parks need jobs.

I believe in competition. When there is competition, quality of products and services improve, or the business goes out of business.

I think we need to have a real lesson on macro economics. NOT ONE DEMOCRAT or Obama leaning pundit has given me any reason to believe they understand the basic premise of how a truly healthy economy works.

To anyone who responds to this OP, if you truly disagree with me based on genuine economic (non-emotional) theory, please educate me. Tell me how taxing any corporation puts more money in our pockets.

[bale002]

Unfortunately this is not about sound economic policy, but about who has the best opportunity to plunder more of the treasury.

The Bush administration, with the acquiescence of most of the Congress, including the democrats, has done it through monetary policy.

A would-be democratic-controlled government will attempt it through fiscal policy.

The job of the voter in this election (that is, those who know how to get passed the red herring issues) is to decide which combination is the least harmful and hope that in four/eight years some sober minds will rise to the top of leadership in this country, but I see no chance of that right now.

[rightofcenter]

Originally Posted by tomocox

I am not about defending anyone past or future. While this issue is a key issue to the 2008 Presidential election. I believe the farther we keep government out of our business, both personal and commercial, the better most of us are.

Policing the market, yes, manipulating the market, best left to supply and demand, IMO.

What few liberals will acknowledge is this... a tax is a tax on everyone. Tax a corporation or business, if their product is a staple such as gasoline, heating fuel, food, housing, then people pay more. Tax a luxury such as electronic games; boats; optional clothing, including anything above decency; people loose jobs.

Our ghettos need investment. Our rural equivalent "hollars" and trailer parks need jobs.

I believe in competition. When there is competition, quality of products and services improve, or the business goes out of business.

I think we need to have a real lesson on macro economics. NOT ONE DEMOCRAT or Obama leaning pundit has given me any reason to believe they understand the basic premise of how a truly healthy economy works.

To anyone who responds to this OP, if you truly disagree with me based on genuine economic (non-emotional) theory, please educate me. Tell me how taxing any corporation puts more money in our pockets.

Does this mean that you think the Republicans do know how to manage the economy?

[domino]

As long as we are more interested in who called who a pig, who's more Christian, who went to church with who, etc. we won't even hear the politicians' views on the economy. We get what we deserve.

[bale002]

Originally Posted by rightofcenter

Does this mean that you think the Republicans do know how to manage the economy?

You are poisoned by an overdose of red herring.

The monster has two heads, but the body is one.

For example, high ranking democrats and republicans alike were on the boards of directors of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

[paperhouse]

Originally Posted by rightofcenter

Does this mean that you think the Republicans do know how to manage the economy?

Disagreeing with Democrats means that you support Republicans? That's the biggest downfall of a two (ONE) party system that pits us against each other for political gain. They aren't interested in helping you. They only want you to help them stay in power. Nothing changes, except the portrait in the hallway.

[paperhouse]

Originally Posted by bale002

You are poisoned by an overdose of red herring.

The monster has two heads, but the body is one.

For example, high ranking democrats and republicans alike were on the boards of directors of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

No one seems to know much about Chris Dodd's sweet mortgage deal with Countrywide who made so many bad loans that the Federal Reserve negotiated with Bank of America to buy them.

[walidm]

"The ratio of debt to GDP had been generally dropping since the end of World War II. When Mr. Reagan entered office the percent of US debt relative to GDP was down to 33.3%. He argued vociferously to reduce the level of all that liberal spending. However the only real effort he pursued was to get taxes cut while increasing spending. You can see in Figure 2 above that cutting taxes and increasing spending predictably made the debt increase - in real dollars and as a percent of GDP. During his eight years in office the percentage of debt to GDP grew to 51.9%. This amounts to a 64% increase in debt relative to GDP while Reagan was in the White House -- a rather significant increase by anyone’s measure.

The percentage of debt to GDP continued to grow until 1996, when Mr. Clinton began to get government spending under control. The US debt peaked at 67.3% of GDP under his administration. By the end of the Clinton administration this percentage had dropped to 57.6%. Debt as a percent of GDP dropped almost 10% in four years under a Democratic President with a hostile Republican Congress. Mr. Clinton showed steadfast fiscal leadership.."


"Mr. Bush II inherited a shrinking government and debt in 2001. With his first budget he managed to increase the debt to GDP ratio to 60.0%, by cutting taxes but not spending. By 2004 this ratio had risen to 63.7%, as a result of additional tax cuts but no significant corresponding cuts in spending. Government estimations (which are notoriously low) predict that the debt to GDP ratio will grow to 69.3% by 2008, two percent higher than the previous peak in 1996."[1]

Pay as you go: in essence, when you cut taxes, you must make a corresponding cut in spending. Where has spending been cut to correspond to the tax cuts?

"[i]f we look at debt growth for just one year, 2007 vs. 2006, $4.31 trillion of new debt was added in 2007, yet national income that year increased just $608 billion - - meaning it took $7.09 of newly added debt in 2007 to produce each new dollar of national income - - a huge figure, which helps explain the soaring trend above. (On a GDP basis, $5.50 of new debt was required to produce a dollar of GDP.)"

If we do not create jobs, that cannot be outsourced how will we pay the bills?

[rightofcenter]

Originally Posted by paperhouse

Disagreeing with Democrats means that you support Republicans? That's the biggest downfall of a two (ONE) party system that pits us against each other for political gain. They aren't interested in helping you. They only want you to help them stay in power. Nothing changes, except the portrait in the hallway.

I'm not going to disagree with your statements, but I'm not sure of the point. I was asking a clarification question of the OP. The way it was written suggested to me that Democrats are the only ones that can mismanage the economy - I wanted to know if I was reading it correctly.

[ViewFromThePeak]

Originally Posted by tomocox

I am not about defending anyone past or future. While this issue is a key issue to the 2008 Presidential election. I believe the farther we keep government out of our business, both personal and commercial, the better most of us are.

Policing the market, yes, manipulating the market, best left to supply and demand, IMO.

What few liberals will acknowledge is this... a tax is a tax on everyone. Tax a corporation or business, if their product is a staple such as gasoline, heating fuel, food, housing, then people pay more. Tax a luxury such as electronic games; boats; optional clothing, including anything above decency; people loose jobs.

Our ghettos need investment. Our rural equivalent "hollars" and trailer parks need jobs.

I believe in competition. When there is competition, quality of products and services improve, or the business goes out of business.

I think we need to have a real lesson on macro economics. NOT ONE DEMOCRAT or Obama leaning pundit has given me any reason to believe they understand the basic premise of how a truly healthy economy works.

To anyone who responds to this OP, if you truly disagree with me based on genuine economic (non-emotional) theory, please educate me. Tell me how taxing any corporation puts more money in our pockets.

Wow, nice message. Wish more Republicans listened to it.

Seems as if your "Republican" leadership has made competing in the secondary mortgage market prohibatively expensive considering they essentially run the show by taking over Fraudie and Phoney.

Oh yeah, and some businesses are reportedly too big to fail. Now that's good competition!