McCain Presidency Would Be a Disaster

[The_Professor]

So, if I read this correctly, voting for McCain could be the death knell for the conservative movement?

Naaa, just set it back for about a decade or 2 before the pendulum swings back, and people grasp how disastrous leftist policies like Carter's were, to this country.  But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions.  I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss

I'd hardly call Carter a leftist. Maybe in terms of a tiny piece of the American center from a very relative look at that narrow view. Carter introduced monetarist policy along with Volcker, that was pure Milton Friedman right there. He signifcantly reduced the public debt. He introduced zero-based budgeting, which is a nightmare, but for whatever reason the right-wing seems to like it. Carter fought Congress on the "hit list" of pork barrel spending. Carter deregulated the airlines, along with oil, finance, trucking, and railways. He initiated the funding and transfer of weapons to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, eventually leading to the collapse of the USSR. He also sent weapons, advisers, and aid to some of the absolute nastiest right-wing regimes in Central and South America as well as Africa.

So no, despite revisionism by the Reagnites, Carter was by no means a leftist President. He and Reagan fucked up the airline industry royally hence all of our wonderful bailouts since. Both supported some of the world's worst regimes ever known to mankind in terms of human rights abuses. Monetarist policy, as the UK and US discovered was a disaster. Many people wonder what the hell Friedman was thinking. Zero-based budgeting is, in a manner of speaking, simply a way of ignoring historical data and trends and starting from scratch every year. While it sounded good in Harvard theory, it was ultimately a massive waste of time and resources with very little savings. Carter fought pork barrel spending but was not able to outdo Tip O'Neil. To his credit, he fought much harder than Reagan and especially W, who seems to be in love with anything porcine.

I think Carter's post-presidency has led to a bit of historical revisionism. He wasn't a pie-in-the-sky liberal leftist as many claim. He was more fiscally conservative than his successor and certainly more so than the current POTUS. Personally, I think he was a terrible president, but mostly for the same reasons that Reagan was so awful.

I have always felt that Carter makes a better MAN than a President. I admire his personal integrity and character. He is a true Hero in that regard.

He is LEFT of me in theological terms, however, so there is one example of his Leftist "agenda".

And on a similar note, no one should seriously question Jhon McCain's character based upon his personal background. You may disagree with his politics but even Ted Kennedy and Co. (including your heroes the Clintons) do not question his personal integrity.

The Rebel/Maverick in me admires him greatly. Mavericks must support other Mavericks, you understand. There is simply too much sucking up in the world as it is! (spoken from a Maverick perspective)

[kimba1]

the problem with all presidents is they live in reality
people keep portraying them in exaggerated terms
none are really evil despite what anybody says
I`ve said often bush is not evil and he has no bad intent.
but somehow I get  truckload crap everytime I saying that
the only real issue is the president doing right for the country.
carter,reagan all did what they thought was best.
also we forget they are voted in.
the people of the united states is responsible for the actions of the president.
so tough

[Plane]

===============================
Conservatives may actually feel that the government will raise more money by lowering taxes, but this doesn't make it true. 

Being true makes it true.

The productivity of the tax paying public is not a finite amount.
And most certainly is is not infinate.

Imagine raising taxes to an  amount equal to all profit ,so that there was none left in the hands of the productive , this would quicky reduce tax income to the government for the same reason that a farmer that didn't allow his chickens to eat would notice a falloff in egg production.

If you have a large flock of starveing chickens , makeing a little more chicken feed availible to them can increase egg production enourmously , a farmer that doesn't understand this principal should not be in farming.

If Democrats actually cannot understand that there is such a thing as too much tax , perhaps they should not be in government.

[kimba1]

but does increase spending translate to increase productivity?

[Plane]

but does increase spending translate to increase productivity?

Certainly not, and that is a good point.

Some spending is always waste. The government is not less likely to be wastefull tan the people who must earn their cash.

A businessman is interested in productivity and reduction of waste , most of them are desirous of growth.

The government also wants to grow , but is parasitic on the rest of society so that all government that the people do not need can be defined as waste.

The government should be on a diet so that its feed is available to the chickens that actually lay.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If the population of the US is growing, the government must grow to maintain services eventually.
If the economy grows, if there is any inflation at all, the government must grow.

It is not possible for any government to maintain growth and not have something like 2-4% inflation at a minimum. No government has ever managed to grow without some degree of inflation.

The government is NOT 'parasitic'. The government-any government- is a necessary and integral part of the economy and the society. It is not some sort of flea or tapeworm as conservatives spew. Without a government, there is no growth at all. Observe how well Somalia has been doing with no government. Somalis all speak the same language and most belong to the same religion: it is a much more coherent society than the US from a linguistic and ethnic point of view. And yet it is a doisaster, for it has no government.

I propose that those who are for a smaller government move to Somalia.

When Reagan was elected, I wrote him and proposed that his view of a smaller government was unlikely to work, as it did not go nearly far enough. I proposed that the US move its capital to Juneau, Alaska, which seems to lack enough territory between the mountains, the glaciers and the sea to be big enough for a state capital. But in Juneau, there would be no room for lobbyists, perhaps not enough room for staff aides, and the Congressmen would have to do their own work.

Reagan failed to heed my wise suggestion and kept the capital in Washington, where t grew and grew. The debt grew and grew as well. Reagan was a dismal failure at making government smaller or more efficient. Jimmy Carter and his zero-based budgeting did a lot better job than Reagan at this.

[_JS]

(including your heroes the Clintons) do not question his personal integrity.

The Rebel/Maverick in me admires him greatly. Mavericks must support other Mavericks, you understand. There is simply too much sucking up in the world as it is! (spoken from a Maverick perspective)

My heroes the Clintons?

 

Thanks Prof, I was having a rough day.

[Michael Tee]

<<The government also wants to grow , but is parasitic on the rest of society so that all government that the people do not need can be defined as waste.>>

You have things so screwed up that it is hard to keep a straight face when responding to some of your posts.  This one is right over the top.  "Parasitic" on the rest of society?  Why?  Because they defend you against foreign enemies?  Because they monitor your health through the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes for Health?  Or because they (when properly run by non-idiots) provide disaster relief?

I'll tell you what is "parasitic on society:"
1.  The tobacco industry
2.  The alcoholic beverages industry
3.  The military-industrial complex
4.  The automotive industry
5.  Agribusiness and the food industry, loading you up on fats, sugars, trans-fats, preservatives etc.
6.  The advertising industry
7.  The pharmaceutical industry
8.  The health insurance industry, reaping huge profits from plans that a single-payer system could administer much more equitably at a much lower cost
9.  The chemical industry, poisoning the fucking environment

[_JS]

===============================
Conservatives may actually feel that the government will raise more money by lowering taxes, but this doesn't make it true. 

Being true makes it true.

The productivity of the tax paying public is not a finite amount.
And most certainly is is not infinate.

Imagine raising taxes to an  amount equal to all profit ,so that there was none left in the hands of the productive , this would quicky reduce tax income to the government for the same reason that a farmer that didn't allow his chickens to eat would notice a falloff in egg production.

If you have a large flock of starveing chickens , makeing a little more chicken feed availible to them can increase egg production enourmously , a farmer that doesn't understand this principal should not be in farming.

If Democrats actually cannot understand that there is such a thing as too much tax , perhaps they should not be in government.

Here are the problems with what is being said.

1. Productivity is most certainly finite. I have no idea where y'all get these notions that wealth and productivity are infinite. To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.

2. The only times the theory of cutting taxes has led to increased government revenue in this country, the tax cuts where also met with massive increases in government spending and huge increases to the public debt. The United States has never attempted what economists term "shock therapy" which is a massive cut in taxes, large scale privatisation, and sharp and quick cut to actual government expenditures. Nations that have have experienced absolute economic disasters, which doesn't lead much credence to your theory.

3. Your examples have no relevance to the discussion.

4. I'm asking this sincerely. Why do people on the political right believe that they are all automatically endowed with an economics degree through political affiliation? I don't mean this as a personal insult to anyone, and Lord knows that economists disagree on nearly everything, but I find that many on the right (for example I listened to Glenn beck yesterday) don't understand basic economics - let alone something as complex as national level public economics.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is one of the principal beliefs of the Reaganites that government is the CAUSE of most of the country's problems, and that government is incapable of solving any problem at all, other than national defense and a lack of weapons, which for some reason never specified, government does quite well with no tinge of incompetence or corruption (unless a Democrat is in office).

Naturally, this leads to the wacky belief that government, all government other than the military, is by nature parasitic. When UPS delivers a package, it is a noble achievement of free enterprise, but when the post office does the same thing, even to some trapper up the Fortymile River in Alaska where neither UPS nor FedEx would deign to go, well, that is parasitic and socialistic.

If Ken Burns does a documentary on the Civil War or baseball, with nary a commercial, that is parasitic, but when Directv runs 20 minutes of commercials featuring Beyonc? chomping on a gold bling reading 'UPGRADE' interrupting 40 minutes of dimwitted criminals getting caught by smartass cops on 'COPS'., again, that is an example of stirring Free Enterprise in practice.

It is an utter insult to the intelligence of the American public that PBS receive their 39? of tax money for a Burns documentary when so many more people would prefer seeing awful singers being insulted by Simon Cowell.
As JS states below,  cutting taxes in order to supposedly boost revenues and stimulate the economy has NEVER resulted in anything other than massive deficits, which only have been mildly ameliorated by a following and more responsible Democratic administration. The country cannot afford more than 12 years of cost-cutting, borrow and squandering, warmongering Republican administrations. Even Olebush had to raise taxes to avoid utter disaster, because the Laffer Curve model does not work, It was better off as a cocktail napkin.
====================================
. The only times the theory of cutting taxes has led to increased government revenue in this country, the tax cuts where also met with massive increases in government spending and huge increases to the public debt. The United States has never attempted what economists term "shock therapy" which is a massive cut in taxes, large scale privatisation, and sharp and quick cut to actual government expenditures. Nations that have have experienced absolute economic disasters, which doesn't lead much credence to your theory.

------------------------------
Regarding Ronald Reagan, there are too things one must remember about him.
(1) He knew a lot.
(2)Virtually nothing he knew was actually true.

[Christians4LessGvt]

[Plane]

Productivity is most certainly finite. I have no idea where y'all get these notions that wealth and productivity are infinite. To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]



We really need to get past this notion that everything is either finite or infinite , finite is the opposite of infinite the way that the nort pole is opposite the south pole , but does the north pole being truely the opposite of the south pole mean that everything is either Arctic or antarctic and nothing is on the globe but the polar opposites?

Your thinking is in a box so tight and a rut so deep that you can't see out of the rut , there are several things between the poles and several states of number that are neither finite nor infinite.

The economy could be viewed as an equation with many functions , so is a function infinate or is a function finite?

[Plane]

To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.

Leaving aside your misapprention to the nature of finite, you do assert here that  productivity is malleable and can be increased or decreased.  So can you imagine a rate of taxation being so high that it causes a decrease in productivity?

[sirs]

Only appreciable difference is likely more stability in the Middle East under the "male".  Otherwise, not a whole lot else

[_JS]

Productivity is most certainly finite. I have no idea where y'all get these notions that wealth and productivity are infinite. To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]



We really need to get past this notion that everything is either finite or infinite , finite is the opposite of infinite the way that the nort pole is opposite the south pole , but does the north pole being truely the opposite of the south pole mean that everything is either Arctic or antarctic and nothing is on the globe but the polar opposites?

Your thinking is in a box so tight and a rut so deep that you can't see out of the rut , there are several things between the poles and several states of number that are neither finite nor infinite.

The economy could be viewed as an equation with many functions , so is a function infinate or is a function finite?

Funny thing about mathematics, you can't just MTSU ("make that shit up") anything you like. You call it a "tight box" of thinking. I call it math.

The simplest definition of a finite number is that it is not equal to +/- infinity. I'm not going to get bogged down in the semantics again and call on an Oxford theoretical methematician. If you can't comprehend what finite means and you find math to be too closed-minded, then I can see why economics is causing so much grief.

Now, try and follow-up on the other points, please.