2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Thomas,

I think you have chosen to ignore the likelihood that Krugman is correct in exclaiming that the "starve the beast" motive is likely behind the tax cuts - however, with a longer range goal in mind than he chooses to address. There is ample reference to this in the political discourse of the republican chattering classes. Moreover, far from being the horrible intent that Krugman implies, it may well be a serious, thoughtful, and even successful way to break the political power of the various self perpetuating groups behind much of what Republicans regard as excessive and wasteful Federal spending, often on non-productive, monopolistic bureaucracies and elites - the education establishment, and others. The contradictions that so excite Krugman are significant only if you accept his rather narrowly defined view of the situation.

0 Replies

Quote:

t may well be a serious, thoughtful, and even successful way to break the political power of the various self perpetuating groups behind much of what Republicans regard as excessive and wasteful Federal spending, often on non-productive, monopolistic bureaucracies and elites - the education establishment, and others.

Gee George, the money would be much better spent on corporate bail-outs and tax cuts for the wealthy, right? More compassionate conservatism! Mad

I fail to see how cutting programs like head-start, cutting federal funding for health care, and decreasing undergraduate financial aid is an example of "eliminating waste." For all the histrionics the far right throws over accusations of class warfare, what in the world do you think you are advocating here?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Thomas, I think you have chosen to ignore the likelihood that Krugman is correct in exclaiming that the "starve the beast" motive is likely behind the tax cuts.

But George, I do think he is correct on this point! What made you think I don't?

georgeob1 wrote:

Moreover, far from being the horrible intent that Krugman implies, it may well be a serious, thoughtful, and even successful way to break the political power of the various self perpetuating groups behind much of what Republicans regard as excessive and wasteful Federal spending,

I agree: it may well be. And the funny thing is, Krugman shares this sentiment, at least up to a point. This made him extremely unpopular among liberal pundids in the 90s. For example, he thinks there's a good case for privatizing social security, and I once heard him on NPR, making approving comments about school vouchers. As to the extent to which "starve the beast" should be pursued, he disagrees with conservative economists such as Greg Mankiw and Robert Barro, who want to go farther than him. But these are differences in degree, and when they are debated between the three, it is done in a tone of mutual respect.

The outrage Krugman expresses in his NYT columns -- what conservative readers percieve as shrillness -- does not reflect the honest disagreements he has with more conservative views of the economy. It reflects the fact that the Bush administration isn't run by people you can have an honest disagreement with. Honest disagreements require a counterpart that's honest. The Bush administration, on the other hand, lies so crassly about the content of its agenda that Krugman feels it's more important to expose their dishonesty than to debate the honest disagreements between liberals and conservatives. I pretty much share this position. When I debate honest conservatives like you, Bob, I have honest disagreements about subjects such as universal health insurance. But when the Bushies say that employees can channel their payroll taxes into private accounts, retirees will continue to be paid as before, and the finances of social security will be strengthened by this operation, this is not about conservative versus liberal. It's about medicine versus snake oil. I can't understand why conservatives sit so idly by as their perfectly respectable agenda gets corrupted by the snake oil sellers.

Liberal economists such as Berkeley's Brad de Long often express this sentiment in the rhetorical question: "Where are the grown-ups in the Republican party?" Krugman's way of expressing it is: "I miss Ronald Reagan." So it's Krugman's opponents, not Krugman himself, who have a rather constrained view of the situation.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

Soros's Deep Pockets vs. Bush
Financier Contributes $5 Million More in Effort to Oust President

From that article ...

Quote:

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson said. "George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party."

Right ...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Soros's Deep Pockets vs. Bush
Financier Contributes $5 Million More in Effort to Oust President

From that article ...

Quote:
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson said. "George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party."

Right ...

It's about time SOMEBODY did. Maybe he will organize the DNC so they can get their act together.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

it may well be a serious, thoughtful, and even successful way to break the political power of the various self perpetuating groups behind much of what Republicans regard as excessive and wasteful Federal spending, often on non-productive, monopolistic bureaucracies and elites

There's another point to make here -- sorry I haven't addressed it in my previous post. Federal spending under George Bush has increased a lot, not decreased a lot, especially in excessive and wasteful military expenses. Moreover, the Bush administration does nothing curb monopolistic bureaucracies and elites -- they hire elite industry lobbyists to run the very bureaucracies that are supposed to control them. So even if I follow your theory of what the goals are, the administration's policies make no sense in terms of them.

0 Replies

Is there an "elite" school I can attend? Maybe an internet course I can take? I would REALLY like to become one of the elite.

0 Replies

I'm really getting to like "elite." its such an interesting word as used on political threads. sometimes it means "them damn intellectuals" and sometimes it means "them damn CEO's" sometimes it means "them damn yankee's" but mostly it just seems to mean anyone i don't like (but then i've always thought of myself as an "elite") back in the 60's i drove a Lotus Elite but when the Lotus Elan' came out i traded in my Elite.

0 Replies

I'd rather have elan than be elite, Dys!!

Email just now from moveon.org affirms that George Soros has pledged to donate 50 cents for every dollar donated by a Moveon member. Moveon has just raised over 3 million. There's money for a change of administration, friends.

0 Replies

Thomas,

Interesting points. I'll confess I haven't followed Krugman's material as closely as evidently you have. My strong impression has been that he is an avowed protagonist for most Democrat political positions. However that may well be just my misreading of his opposition to the current Administration. (A somewhat fine point that can easily be missed amidst all the sound and fury.)

As to the outrage over the dishonesty of the Administration - I'm not so sure. Prevarication is the mothers milk of politics. Lincoln did it after his first election as he goaded the South into the first assault. Roosevelt did it during his first administration in all the ineffectual (some even harmful) New Deal policies he launched to "end the Depression" (of course they went a long way to maintaining a then sorely stressed social contract in the country.), and later in his assertions that he would keep us out of the looming European war - all while conspiring with Churchill to get us in it.

How well would Bush have done if he conceded his intent with school vouchers was to break the political power of teachers unions, the NEA and the cabal of bureaucrats and text book publishers who feed and are fed by them? - Not well, I think. The Democrats have shown clearly their penchant for squeezing as much drama and heart-rending pathos as they can over every conceivable wrong interpretation over the Administration's intentions. We had a saying in the Navy that well applies, "Don't get in a fight with a pig: you both get dirty but the pig likes it."

I would have a hard time imagining a better way to 'get bang for the buck' in stimulating the economy than across-the-board tax cuts. (I also note that public debt in the U.S. is a good deal lower than that in nearly all G-8 countries.) Here I'll freely admit that, in my view, markets are almost always smarter than government.

0 Replies

I like the Navy saying, George, but it leaves out the possibility of winning in such a fight by staying out of the mud and outsmarting the pig.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

Soros's Deep Pockets vs. Bush
Financier Contributes $5 Million More in Effort to Oust President

I find it yet another telling inconsistency from the left that big money spent on their causes is "good" and big money spent against them is "evil". Why aren't liberals castigating Soros for being one of the "rich" people Republicans only exist to make richer? Why isn't his $5M another sign of what's wrong with campaign finance?

Oh, I remember now... because he wants what they want. Everything is relative when you're a liberal. Cool

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

As to the outrage over the dishonesty of the Administration - I'm not so sure. Prevarication is the mothers milk of politics.

Sure, but there are levels and levels of prevarication. And common sense suggests that there be some proportion between the acceptable level of prevarication and the importance of the goals that are advanced with it. The conflict over slavery, the struggle to get out of the Great Depression, the appropriate policy towards Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan -- these were questions of life and death. Compared to that, getting out of the 2001 recession is an easy problem, and the question whether government spending in America should be 30% or just 15% of GDP is essentially one of aesthetics. I don't think the importance of current decisions merits the current level of dishonesty. Consider the Clinton administration, which was certainly no stranger to dishonesty by anyone's standards. It did lie a lot, but never on a level remotely comparable to the Bush administration.

georgeob1 wrote:

I would have a hard time imagining a better way to 'get bang for the buck' in stimulating the economy than across-the-board tax cuts.

Quite possibly true, but these are not across-the-board tax cuts. They are heavily tilted towards the wealthy, who are more likely to save them than to spend them. From memory, the tax cuts' contribution to the deficit is around $300 billion per year. If you let me run a deficit like that, I can create 6 million jobs with average salaries just by employing people to dig ditches in the morning, then fill them up in the afternoon. Tested against this placebo policy even the Democrats don't want, job creation under Bush looks very disappointing indeed.

georgeob1 wrote:

(I also note that public debt in the U.S. is a good deal lower than that in nearly all G-8 countries.)

This is true for Japan and Italy, but for the other countries it depends on your definition of "a good deal". G-8 countries typically have public debts between 60 and 70 percent of GDP, while the US has 60. But I agree current debt isn't the problem. And every economist agrees that temporary deficits of the current size make sense in a recession. But projections of the Congressional Budget Office show that deficits will stay on their current level for all the forseeable future, then getting worse as the Baby Boomers start to hit Social Security and Medicare. It's the future debt that is scary, not the current debt.

georgeob1 wrote:

Here I'll freely admit that, in my view, markets are almost always smarter than government.

I agree. So how do you feel about the way the administration currently expands federal spending?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Soros's Deep Pockets vs. Bush
Financier Contributes $5 Million More in Effort to Oust President

I find it yet another telling inconsistency from the left that big money spent on their causes is "good" and big money spent against them is "evil". Why aren't liberals castigating Soros for being one of the "rich" people Republicans only exist to make richer? Why isn't his $5M another sign of what's wrong with campaign finance?

Oh, I remember now... because he wants what they want. Everything is relative when you're a liberal.

That's an interesting view you have just shown, scrat. I hadn't thought of that. It does make the left even more hypocritical, doesn't it?

0 Replies

OR is the problem that Soros has been a pretty consistent "good guy" in his generosity, while Republican supporters -- particularly those representing big business -- expect (and get -- oh boy do they get!) a quid pro quo.

0 Replies

McG, I would opine nothing could be done to make The Left look even more hypocritical. An absolute is an absolute, not subject to degree.

0 Replies

Thomas,

I would like to see a good deal less Federal spending than has occurred, and even a Bush veto or two. I suspect the question for Bush is the marginal effect it would have on the amount of political heat from Democrats he would have to endure to achieve it. I certainly don't see any hope for such a reduction coming from the Democrats.

The tax cuts were carefully designed to make the resulting structure ever so slightly more progressive after the cuts than before. How would you have distributed a cut of the same net size differently? I'll confess that my pleasure in a tax cut of any form outweighs my concerns about the details of it. It has stimulated the economy and that will cause both employment and tax collections to rise.

On a practical basis the only alternative to the Bush tax cuts was none at all - and with that in mind we are very much better off for them. If it is radical change you are looking for, how about funding social security from general revenues and abolishing the payroll tax on employers and employees? I would favor that, but doubt that it is politically feasible.

Given the close nature of the last election, it seems to me that Bush was correct in carefully choosing his priorities and not unnecessarily overstretching his mandate. Doing as much good as you can is the right way to define the prevarication boundary in my book.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I certainly don't see any hope for such a reduction coming from the Democrats.

Then how do you explain that federal spending as a share of GDP has risen less under Clinton than it's doing under Bush?

georgeob1 wrote:

How would you have distributed a cut of the same net size differently?

Keep the estate tax, the inheritance tax, and the highest tax bracket. Cut it out of the lowest tax bracket, which every taxpayer pays no matter how much he makes. If you have a federal sales tax, cut it out of that, too. Most importantly, let all of the tax cut take effect immediately, don't phase it in over a decade. This isn't too far from what the Democrats have proposed, so I don't see why doing nothing at all would have been the only practical alternative.

0 Replies

Kerry Kampaign Kaos

Quote:

Two More Officials Quit Kerry Campaign

Nov 11, 3:44 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat John Kerry's press secretary and deputy finance director quit Tuesday amid chaos on a presidential campaign staff that lost its manager a day earlier.

Robert Gibbs, chief spokesman for the Massachusetts lawmaker, quit to protest the firing of campaign manager Jim Jordan, let go by Kerry Sunday night.

Deputy finance director Carl Schidlow also quit, although the reason was not immediately available ...

... Several campaign officials said the firing was viewed as unfair by many Kerry aides, and there remained a possibility that others would follow Gibbs and Schidlow out the door.

Can you say "Meltdown", boys and girls? Things are heating up in Mr. McAuliffe's neighborhood.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson said. "George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party."

It's about time SOMEBODY did.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know