Thursday, August 28, 2008
Political Mayhem Thursday: What should McCain Say?
For the first time in my adulthood, I think we have two excellent candidates for president running against one another. Though I will vote for Obama (because of issues that are important to me), I think that McCain would be an excellent president as well, and probably would be better in some areas. It is a good thing to have both choices be men that I have confidence in.
Tonight, Barack Obama will speak at the Democratic Convention, and I expect he will do an exceptional job. He is a wonderful orator, and I am equal confident both in the quality of his speech and the themes he will emphasize-- the unity of his party, and the need for change building on that unity.
The more interesting question, to me, is what John McCain will say at the Republican convention in St. Paul. (IPLawGuy will be there in person, and I fully expect Razor reports from him as our correspondent.) I really can't figure out what his themes will be. He doesn't have the oratorical skills that Obama does, which makes content more important.
If you were McCain, what would you emphasize and explain?
Comments:
<< Home
I would stress that I can end the war that I WILL end the stupid war that I am NOT the same as GW Bush and that I LOVE this country. That I UNDERSTAND war and I know how to effectively end it. That is what I want to hear. But no one is saying that much.
Like most of McCain's campaign thus far, I imagine it will focus on Obama, specifically, why McCain thinks he's not ready to be President. He will talk about drilling offshore, he will talk about his war experience and he'll talk about his time in the Senate. I imagine he'll mention how he's the original maverick and that he places country over party. And then he'll go back to Obama. I honestly think the McCain campaign is making the same mistake with Obama that John Kerry made in 2004-- he's not running for President, he's running against the other candidate. McCain isn't going to throw anything at Obama that Hillary Clinton hasn't already lobbed once or twice, and Obama's ability to bounce back from it (or rather not have it stick) is very interesting. He may not have tons of experience, but he also doesn't have tons of scandal behind his name either, and I think the fact that he's chosen (so far) not to hurl blow after blow at John McCain's non-political life shows that he's (tentatively) at least somewhat different than the campaigns that have been run in the past.
He will stress the need to continue tax cuts for the rich, but not 'rich corporations' and he will talk about getting the US cheap gasoline (drilling in ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico).
# posted by 
: 8:51 AM
: 8:51 AM
He'll just lie and lie. He will promise to lower gas prices when he knows that isn't under his control, and to shrink the government when he knows he can't do that with a Democratic Congress. He will promise to cut taxes without increasing the deficit, when he knows that won't happen (Reagan and Bush II cut taxes and the deficit went up, Bush I and Clinton raised taxes and it went down).
# posted by : 9:28 AM
: 9:28 AM
I think Tyd's got the right idea. McCain's got to stress not only why Obama's not ready, but what make McCain more prepared to be Commander in Chief. "I supported the surge, and now we're pulling troops from Anbar." "I supported Petreaus, and now he's kicking butt over there, and we put him in charge of Afghanistan, too." "We need to finish this right, and I'm the guy who can do it."
The very tough thing that McCain has done effectively is move away from Bush policies (especially on energy) without backing into a center-left position the base won't suppport. So he's finally made his case to the righties, but he's got to solidify the center, where Obama has dominated. So expect "middle America" issues to take center stage: GAS PRICES, HEALTH CARE, and the ECONOMY. Problem is, voter confidence is very low for McCain in those areas, and he is not likely to roll out any new messaging between now and November.
The very tough thing that McCain has done effectively is move away from Bush policies (especially on energy) without backing into a center-left position the base won't suppport. So he's finally made his case to the righties, but he's got to solidify the center, where Obama has dominated. So expect "middle America" issues to take center stage: GAS PRICES, HEALTH CARE, and the ECONOMY. Problem is, voter confidence is very low for McCain in those areas, and he is not likely to roll out any new messaging between now and November.
7:51 - McCain is against drilling in ANWR
8:28 - There are quite a few things the pres can do to lower gas prices, including permanent gas tax cuts and increased drilling (which despite reports will have an impact on gas prices due to speculation). All he has to do to shrink the gov't is some signing spending bills. And you can count on the anti-pork crusader to jump at every opportunity for a spending showdown.
8:28 - There are quite a few things the pres can do to lower gas prices, including permanent gas tax cuts and increased drilling (which despite reports will have an impact on gas prices due to speculation). All he has to do to shrink the gov't is some signing spending bills. And you can count on the anti-pork crusader to jump at every opportunity for a spending showdown.
Do people still actually believe that trickle down economics is a viable economic theory?
# posted by : 9:35 AM
: 9:35 AM
Anon.--
It appears that McCain and Bush still do. That's really the philosophical difference between the Obama and McCain tax policies.
The fact is that the great majority of people in this country have not substantially benefited from the economic growth of the last several years.
It appears that McCain and Bush still do. That's really the philosophical difference between the Obama and McCain tax policies.
The fact is that the great majority of people in this country have not substantially benefited from the economic growth of the last several years.
Yes, some people still believe in trickle down economics, because it works.
The economy in 1980 was an unmitigated disaster. The highest marginal tax rate was somewhere around 70%. Reagan cut taxes down to where the highest marginal rate was somewhere around 30%. Yes, George HW Bush and Clinton raised taxes, but only marginally, and kept the highest marginal rate around 40%. Over the last 28 years this economy has seen massive and almost unprecedented growth, and the employment number (historically low unemployment over the last 16 years) indicate that the growth at the top has benefited those at the bottom because there are more businesses, more jobs, more growth, and overall more opportunity.
Yes, the deficit has also increased in size under Reagan and W. Of course, if the promise of lower spending and smaller government had come that problem would've been solved. Under Reagan it didn't come because a democrat congress refused to cut any social program and demonized Reagan anytime he even mentioned the idea that the welfare state was a failure (of course, when Clinton signed the same type of reforms in the mid-90s, and they worked, he was credited not demonized). For W. it was a result of being a "compassionate conservative" which is code for a progressive that believes in Jesus and money.
Lower taxes spur growth, in all sectors of the economy. Examples exist in other places as well. The UK and Ireland are two examples of places that shrunk the size of the welfare state and lowered taxes in recent years, and have seen growth that was unprecedented in the previous 50-60 years. If you can't figure it out, during the previous eras those two countries lived under largely socialist welfare states with incredibly harsh tax policies and massive government.
McCain needs to be the fiscal conservative. Small government, keep taxes low, cut spending, get the government out of your life. That message works, and it has the benefit of being correct and realistic about the way the world actually works.
The economy in 1980 was an unmitigated disaster. The highest marginal tax rate was somewhere around 70%. Reagan cut taxes down to where the highest marginal rate was somewhere around 30%. Yes, George HW Bush and Clinton raised taxes, but only marginally, and kept the highest marginal rate around 40%. Over the last 28 years this economy has seen massive and almost unprecedented growth, and the employment number (historically low unemployment over the last 16 years) indicate that the growth at the top has benefited those at the bottom because there are more businesses, more jobs, more growth, and overall more opportunity.
Yes, the deficit has also increased in size under Reagan and W. Of course, if the promise of lower spending and smaller government had come that problem would've been solved. Under Reagan it didn't come because a democrat congress refused to cut any social program and demonized Reagan anytime he even mentioned the idea that the welfare state was a failure (of course, when Clinton signed the same type of reforms in the mid-90s, and they worked, he was credited not demonized). For W. it was a result of being a "compassionate conservative" which is code for a progressive that believes in Jesus and money.
Lower taxes spur growth, in all sectors of the economy. Examples exist in other places as well. The UK and Ireland are two examples of places that shrunk the size of the welfare state and lowered taxes in recent years, and have seen growth that was unprecedented in the previous 50-60 years. If you can't figure it out, during the previous eras those two countries lived under largely socialist welfare states with incredibly harsh tax policies and massive government.
McCain needs to be the fiscal conservative. Small government, keep taxes low, cut spending, get the government out of your life. That message works, and it has the benefit of being correct and realistic about the way the world actually works.
# posted by : 10:51 AM
: 10:51 AM
RRL--
It has worked for the rich, but not the middle class and the working class. They are not ahead of where they were, and haven't benefited from that growth in terms of real income.
You are right that the formula should be (I think) to shrink the government, but neither Reagan nor Bush did that. If you want to cut taxes, it is irresponsible to do one without the other, and I haven't seen Republicans do both even when they control the Congress. McCain's economic plan is hopelessly vague right now (I hope that is corrected). Obama has said what he will do-- go back to 39% on top earners. You may not like that, but it will cut the deficit.
Meanwhile, I don't think either one will shrink government (and, as I said, I think the reason McCain won't is largely because of a Democratic Congress). Given that, I would prefer fiscal responsibility.
It has worked for the rich, but not the middle class and the working class. They are not ahead of where they were, and haven't benefited from that growth in terms of real income.
You are right that the formula should be (I think) to shrink the government, but neither Reagan nor Bush did that. If you want to cut taxes, it is irresponsible to do one without the other, and I haven't seen Republicans do both even when they control the Congress. McCain's economic plan is hopelessly vague right now (I hope that is corrected). Obama has said what he will do-- go back to 39% on top earners. You may not like that, but it will cut the deficit.
Meanwhile, I don't think either one will shrink government (and, as I said, I think the reason McCain won't is largely because of a Democratic Congress). Given that, I would prefer fiscal responsibility.
Following up on rrl,
Whenever people talk about how bad the state of the economy is now, or America's standing in the world, I just laugh and laugh. These people either have amnesia or are too young to remember the 1970's. If you think things are bad now, think of a time when inflation AND unemployment seemed unsolvable, gas shortages and long lines occurred twice in a decade, we'd just suffered the humiliation of utter defeat in Vietnam and the President had resigned after being involved in Watergate.
Meanwhile, the Soviets were expanding their sphere of influence and this Country seemed helpless.
Today's problems truly pale in comparison.
As for what McCain should say, he should talk about concrete solutions and point out that we need to reign in spending... something he has experience in attempting to do; use our military might effectively if we use it at all (again, he was after Rumsfeld's head for incompetence long before most other politicians of either party) and talk about how fear based policies like protectionism, anti-immigrant tactics, and opposition to any meaningful entitle reform poison the country.
And he should relax and tell jokes instead of trying to be all serious. He's MUCH BETTER speaking extemporaneously.
Yes, I an Alternate Delegate from Virginia to the RNC and will report on the doings in the Twin Cities. Sadly, I will be skipping the Jazz Brunch featuring Pat Boone....
Whenever people talk about how bad the state of the economy is now, or America's standing in the world, I just laugh and laugh. These people either have amnesia or are too young to remember the 1970's. If you think things are bad now, think of a time when inflation AND unemployment seemed unsolvable, gas shortages and long lines occurred twice in a decade, we'd just suffered the humiliation of utter defeat in Vietnam and the President had resigned after being involved in Watergate.
Meanwhile, the Soviets were expanding their sphere of influence and this Country seemed helpless.
Today's problems truly pale in comparison.
As for what McCain should say, he should talk about concrete solutions and point out that we need to reign in spending... something he has experience in attempting to do; use our military might effectively if we use it at all (again, he was after Rumsfeld's head for incompetence long before most other politicians of either party) and talk about how fear based policies like protectionism, anti-immigrant tactics, and opposition to any meaningful entitle reform poison the country.
And he should relax and tell jokes instead of trying to be all serious. He's MUCH BETTER speaking extemporaneously.
Yes, I an Alternate Delegate from Virginia to the RNC and will report on the doings in the Twin Cities. Sadly, I will be skipping the Jazz Brunch featuring Pat Boone....
# posted by : 11:11 AM
: 11:11 AM
Osler:
The average income in the United States, adjusted for inflation, has risen over the past 40 years. Unemployment has fallen over that same time period. There are fewer people on welfare today, as a percentage of the population, than there were 15 years ago.
The economic growth this country has experienced over the past 38 years (including Republican administrations, Democrat administrations, both parties controlling congress, etc.) has benefited every sector of the country and every socio-economic group.
Sure, the wealthy, and the upper middle class, have benefited more. They're the ones that own the businesses. They're the ones doing the investing. In other words, they're the ones assuming the risk that has fueled the growth in the economy and therefore they are receiving the biggest piece of the pie when the economy grows. But the idea that the rich have just gotten richer while nobody else has benefited from the growth just isn't true.
I'm all for cutting spending. But, saying that Democrats wont do that so McCain wont be successful is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Keep taxes low and keep fighting for lower spending and a smaller federal government. Obama isn't the candidate that will do that, in fact he is likely to raise taxes and raise non-military spending. Those are both steps backward. At least McCain wouldn't be a regression.
The average income in the United States, adjusted for inflation, has risen over the past 40 years. Unemployment has fallen over that same time period. There are fewer people on welfare today, as a percentage of the population, than there were 15 years ago.
The economic growth this country has experienced over the past 38 years (including Republican administrations, Democrat administrations, both parties controlling congress, etc.) has benefited every sector of the country and every socio-economic group.
Sure, the wealthy, and the upper middle class, have benefited more. They're the ones that own the businesses. They're the ones doing the investing. In other words, they're the ones assuming the risk that has fueled the growth in the economy and therefore they are receiving the biggest piece of the pie when the economy grows. But the idea that the rich have just gotten richer while nobody else has benefited from the growth just isn't true.
I'm all for cutting spending. But, saying that Democrats wont do that so McCain wont be successful is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Keep taxes low and keep fighting for lower spending and a smaller federal government. Obama isn't the candidate that will do that, in fact he is likely to raise taxes and raise non-military spending. Those are both steps backward. At least McCain wouldn't be a regression.
# posted by : 11:41 AM
: 11:41 AM
Oh, and the government announced today that the economy grew over 3% in the 2nd quarter. I know, I know, I've been listening to the Democratic Convention speeches too. We are supposed to be entering a recession or already in a recession. The world is collapsing. Cats and dogs living together!!!!
The narrative just isn't borne out by the facts.
The narrative just isn't borne out by the facts.
# posted by : 11:43 AM
: 11:43 AM
RRL goes to a 40-year time span to get to rising real incomes, but trickle-down was first implented half that time ago
# posted by : 12:46 PM
: 12:46 PM
Anon:
Actually, the statistics are right (real income has risen and unemployment has fallen since 1980, which was when Reagan was elected and began spilling his awesomeness all over the USA). I just got the number of years mixed up and meant to say 30 years (28 to be exact I guess) instead of 40. My bad.
However, my simple mistake doesn't change the fact that Reagan's tax cuts, and the fact that they were basically continued and entrenched by every administration since, have grown the US economy and benefited most Americans.
Actually, the statistics are right (real income has risen and unemployment has fallen since 1980, which was when Reagan was elected and began spilling his awesomeness all over the USA). I just got the number of years mixed up and meant to say 30 years (28 to be exact I guess) instead of 40. My bad.
However, my simple mistake doesn't change the fact that Reagan's tax cuts, and the fact that they were basically continued and entrenched by every administration since, have grown the US economy and benefited most Americans.
# posted by : 12:53 PM
: 12:53 PM
Just reciting statistics over the past 20 years that the economy has improved is not proof that the improvement was caused by trickle down economics. Real GDP has trended upward since it has been reported.
I don't have a problem with lowering taxes if spending is lowered as well. If you increase spending when lowering taxes, then I think you more then offset any wealth creation that supposedly "trickles down" to the middle classes. The theory also presupposes that job creation can only occur when taxes for the rich are lowered - it ignores the effects of demand and supply on industries, etc.
I don't have a problem with lowering taxes if spending is lowered as well. If you increase spending when lowering taxes, then I think you more then offset any wealth creation that supposedly "trickles down" to the middle classes. The theory also presupposes that job creation can only occur when taxes for the rich are lowered - it ignores the effects of demand and supply on industries, etc.
RRL-- overall, that's true-- income rose. But, it rose a lot for the rich, but not for the middle and working classes.
# posted by : 2:27 PM
: 2:27 PM
When it comes to economics and taxation, I think both sides have got it wrong. It is morally wrong for the rich to hoard their money while the poor starve. But it is equally wrong to compel the rich to surrender their assets for redistribution among the poor to a bloated federal government that is incapable of effectively and efficiently managing money.
I have noticed, however, that rich people will do anything for a tax break. So why don't we create greater tax breaks to people who give to charities and employers who provide health care to their employees? But the breaks have to be enough to justify any additional expense incurred to qualify for them.
I'm not a tax expert, but there's got to be some way to do it.
I have noticed, however, that rich people will do anything for a tax break. So why don't we create greater tax breaks to people who give to charities and employers who provide health care to their employees? But the breaks have to be enough to justify any additional expense incurred to qualify for them.
I'm not a tax expert, but there's got to be some way to do it.
I find it interesting that despite a long history of "fiscal conservatives" since Ronald Reagan, the only President to leave office with a budget surplus was a "tax and spend liberal."
Where is Lane today? The guy wins one trial (according to his blog), and now he is to good to duke it out with BRL.
# posted by : 3:33 PM
: 3:33 PM
IPLawGuy
I too will be at the Republican Convention except I am an Alternate Delegate for Kentucky. If you are ever around the Kentucky delegation I would like to meet you.
I too will be at the Republican Convention except I am an Alternate Delegate for Kentucky. If you are ever around the Kentucky delegation I would like to meet you.
# posted by : 3:35 PM
: 3:35 PM
Justin owned it, pointing out the genius that was Bill Clinton. Of course, it might be important to remember that it was the Republicans in 1994 that ran on the "Contract with America" that included a balanced budget and welfare reform, as two of its major goals. That Republican controlled congress deserves as much credit as Slick Willy.
I would've loved to see what Reagan would've done with a Republican congress.
Also, it should be noted that Reagan/Bush were ending the Cold War and Bush II has had his own military entanglements. These things cost money.
And who called Clinton a "tax and spend liberal?" In fact, I think in my second post I point out that he basically just kept the Reagan tax cuts in place (raising taxes slightly, but nowhere near pre-Reagan levels). Clinton was more like a centrist with a really active sex life and a really annoying habit of biting his lip and crying in public a lot.
I would've loved to see what Reagan would've done with a Republican congress.
Also, it should be noted that Reagan/Bush were ending the Cold War and Bush II has had his own military entanglements. These things cost money.
And who called Clinton a "tax and spend liberal?" In fact, I think in my second post I point out that he basically just kept the Reagan tax cuts in place (raising taxes slightly, but nowhere near pre-Reagan levels). Clinton was more like a centrist with a really active sex life and a really annoying habit of biting his lip and crying in public a lot.
# posted by : 3:38 PM
: 3:38 PM
Sir, The Kentucky Delegation guy,
The Prof can tell you how to find me. Email him and ask. And if you read this Blog regularly, you could probably figure it out on your own.
RLL is right again. Clinton's fiscal policies were constrained by a GOP Congress. A gutless, if not greedy GOP Congress that didn't have the backbone to slash spending. But at least they didn't make things worse. They waited till Bush won in 2000 to do that.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find many Republicans who will defend the last few years of GOP Congressional misrule... and of course one of the biggest critics of that misrule was.... John McCain!
What made people hate Clinton (and as much as Democrats hate W, Republicans hated Clinton just as much) was his arrogance and snarky attitude. I know, I know, its Bush's arrogance that makes people hate him too. Don't look to me for a defense of George W. Bush, he's not on my Facebook friend list.
Due to several factors, including Republican control over spending, Clinton's domestic legacy is pretty good.. and partly because of the end of the cold war and the money saved due to the wind down. And partly due to the painful choices Bush 41 made in the '91 Budget Deal-- which ultimately cost him the election. Another factor was the Tech boom, which Clinton didn't obstruct, but certainly didn't foster either.
Clinton's foreign policy legacy, however, is sketchy. I heard the excerpt from his speech last night where he compared himself to Obama (what a shocker.. he talked about himself when supporting Obama!) and said that the GOP accused him, Bill Clinton, of being too young and inexperienced to be Commander in Chief. Well, he got lucky during his 8 years in office and did not face the same kind of problems we've faced since. But his various foreign policy moves such as ignoring Rwandan genocide and lobbing a few Cruise Missiles at Iraq in order to distract attention from the Monica mess don't exactly look Churchillian.
Obama has backed and filled from his initial criticism of the now near-universally praised troop surge in Iraq, and he's also realized the direct negotiations with dictators is a ridiculous notion. So maybe he realizes the Presidency is a bit more complicated than supervising a staff of 35 Senate Staffers. But I just think he lacks the experience and knowledge to do this.
McCain's Senate experience includes literally hundreds, if not thousands of trips overseas to meet with foreign leaders, foreign protestors, soldiers and regular citizens. He's Chaired the Armed Services Committee and has a much greater and broader understanding of the world. I am sure Obama and his truly brilliant campaign manager David Axelrod know more about Chicago politics than just about anyone and they clearly figured out the Democratic Party nominating process, but I don't see the qualities I think we need in the Leader of the Free World.
The Prof can tell you how to find me. Email him and ask. And if you read this Blog regularly, you could probably figure it out on your own.
RLL is right again. Clinton's fiscal policies were constrained by a GOP Congress. A gutless, if not greedy GOP Congress that didn't have the backbone to slash spending. But at least they didn't make things worse. They waited till Bush won in 2000 to do that.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find many Republicans who will defend the last few years of GOP Congressional misrule... and of course one of the biggest critics of that misrule was.... John McCain!
What made people hate Clinton (and as much as Democrats hate W, Republicans hated Clinton just as much) was his arrogance and snarky attitude. I know, I know, its Bush's arrogance that makes people hate him too. Don't look to me for a defense of George W. Bush, he's not on my Facebook friend list.
Due to several factors, including Republican control over spending, Clinton's domestic legacy is pretty good.. and partly because of the end of the cold war and the money saved due to the wind down. And partly due to the painful choices Bush 41 made in the '91 Budget Deal-- which ultimately cost him the election. Another factor was the Tech boom, which Clinton didn't obstruct, but certainly didn't foster either.
Clinton's foreign policy legacy, however, is sketchy. I heard the excerpt from his speech last night where he compared himself to Obama (what a shocker.. he talked about himself when supporting Obama!) and said that the GOP accused him, Bill Clinton, of being too young and inexperienced to be Commander in Chief. Well, he got lucky during his 8 years in office and did not face the same kind of problems we've faced since. But his various foreign policy moves such as ignoring Rwandan genocide and lobbing a few Cruise Missiles at Iraq in order to distract attention from the Monica mess don't exactly look Churchillian.
Obama has backed and filled from his initial criticism of the now near-universally praised troop surge in Iraq, and he's also realized the direct negotiations with dictators is a ridiculous notion. So maybe he realizes the Presidency is a bit more complicated than supervising a staff of 35 Senate Staffers. But I just think he lacks the experience and knowledge to do this.
McCain's Senate experience includes literally hundreds, if not thousands of trips overseas to meet with foreign leaders, foreign protestors, soldiers and regular citizens. He's Chaired the Armed Services Committee and has a much greater and broader understanding of the world. I am sure Obama and his truly brilliant campaign manager David Axelrod know more about Chicago politics than just about anyone and they clearly figured out the Democratic Party nominating process, but I don't see the qualities I think we need in the Leader of the Free World.
# posted by : 4:29 PM
: 4:29 PM
I would just like to say that iplawguy's most recent post was a thing of beauty. Like watching youtube footage of Janeane Garrafolo crying on Air America after Kerry lost the last election, iplawguy brought joy to my heart.
# posted by : 4:48 PM
: 4:48 PM
RRL--
Next time he is in town, I'll have to get you and IPLawguy together. Then, once you are happily emplaced at Scruffy's (which is his kind of place), I'll leave you alone and go to a fern bar and talk about alternative energy.
Next time he is in town, I'll have to get you and IPLawguy together. Then, once you are happily emplaced at Scruffy's (which is his kind of place), I'll leave you alone and go to a fern bar and talk about alternative energy.
Oh, and for what it is worth, I think what IPLawGuy says is pretty much true. I just don't think foreign policy is as important as domestic and economic policy.
Osler - as you know, I completely welcome you to stay at Scruffy's with me and iplawguy. I would be happy to throw in some discussion on alternative energy (big supporter really). That is how we will soften you up before we attempt to completely convert you to the good side.
# posted by : 5:20 PM
: 5:20 PM
He's Chaired the Armed Services Committee and has a much greater and broader understanding of the world.
Now if only he would quit repeatedly referring to countries that ceased to exist 15 years ago in the present tense. No matter how many times you reference it, Senator, Czechoslovakia has not been a country since 1993.
Now if only he would quit repeatedly referring to countries that ceased to exist 15 years ago in the present tense. No matter how many times you reference it, Senator, Czechoslovakia has not been a country since 1993.
I'd point out the danger of letting squirrels get too cocky. They are all over university campuses and think they belong around the learning institutions. It is only a matter of time until they try to enroll and pay for tuition with nuts.
Also, we need to find out why dolphins seem so happy. That is just wrong, they can't even text message one another or create a facebook but they seem like the happiest things alive. Until we figure out the secret to their happiness, we need to ensure they don't become canned tuna. After we learn their secrets, to hell with them! I hope they are still happy when they are being mistakenly consumed with tuna.
Also, we need to find out why dolphins seem so happy. That is just wrong, they can't even text message one another or create a facebook but they seem like the happiest things alive. Until we figure out the secret to their happiness, we need to ensure they don't become canned tuna. After we learn their secrets, to hell with them! I hope they are still happy when they are being mistakenly consumed with tuna.
I admit I don't know much about economics, and some of it I don't understand. But I've always been mistrustful of the idea of trickle-down economics, because it seems very indirect, and overly optimistic. Why would it necessarily follow that one group who suddenly has A LOT more money because their taxes are cut would do things with it that would either directly or indirectly benefit those in VASTLY lower-income brackets?
I mean, does it necessarily follow that my elderly great-aunt, who's had two husbands die and leave her very well-off, would suddenly start pumping money to her great-nieces who are earning $25K a year just because she's suddenly getting taxed a lot less? Does people's behavior really change that much?
I love my great-aunt, but I can tell you it didn't happen and it ain't gonna happen. Now, I realize this is highly simplistic, and yes, maybe that extra money she put into a savings account or wherever helped support the bank she put it into, but it just keeps the wealth going among the wealthy, it seems to me. There doesn't appear to me to be any guarantee that trickle-down really helps the lower-income brackets in any substantial way.
I think economic aid, tax relief, whatever, has to be something that affects people directly; that's the only way you can ensure you're helping someone economically. Like substantially raising the minimum wage, or reducing the cost of health insurance or medical care.
If any of you Republicans are interested, there was a very thorough and reasonably fair analysis of Obama's economic plan in this past Sunday's New York Times magazine.
I mean, does it necessarily follow that my elderly great-aunt, who's had two husbands die and leave her very well-off, would suddenly start pumping money to her great-nieces who are earning $25K a year just because she's suddenly getting taxed a lot less? Does people's behavior really change that much?
I love my great-aunt, but I can tell you it didn't happen and it ain't gonna happen. Now, I realize this is highly simplistic, and yes, maybe that extra money she put into a savings account or wherever helped support the bank she put it into, but it just keeps the wealth going among the wealthy, it seems to me. There doesn't appear to me to be any guarantee that trickle-down really helps the lower-income brackets in any substantial way.
I think economic aid, tax relief, whatever, has to be something that affects people directly; that's the only way you can ensure you're helping someone economically. Like substantially raising the minimum wage, or reducing the cost of health insurance or medical care.
If any of you Republicans are interested, there was a very thorough and reasonably fair analysis of Obama's economic plan in this past Sunday's New York Times magazine.
# posted by : 7:35 PM
: 7:35 PM
hey though I think McCain DOES have a sense of humor My God the guy was on SNL!!! He sang Barbra Streisand songs!!! He was hilarious!!!
I want to see more of THAT John McCain. and also Iplaw, tell him to end the war please, when you see him. Thanks.
I want to see more of THAT John McCain. and also Iplaw, tell him to end the war please, when you see him. Thanks.
and Liberaldespoticeterrorist?
I am totally with you on the squirrell thing... never for get that raccoons also travel in threes. WHen you see a raccoon you will know that there are two more hiding and lying in wait.
I am totally with you on the squirrell thing... never for get that raccoons also travel in threes. WHen you see a raccoon you will know that there are two more hiding and lying in wait.
It doesn't really matter what he says. Political conventions and political speeches have not mattered one whit in my lifetime. It's a four day advertisement, and not a particularly good one, and I doubt a single voter is ultimately swayed by the conventions.
People will be swayed by misleading media coverage which oversimplifies the issues, misleading advertisements which stop just short of outright lying, and misleading whispering campaigns that everyone will deny. Or is that too cynical?
I'm not going to get into the economic discussion, but I don't think any of the people who make fiscal policy seriously believe in trickle down economics. It's always been of a marketing label.
While the GOP will deny it, they are just as Keynesian as the Dems. Rely on the Fed to set rates, and the GOP presidents spend even more money than their Democratic counterparts. It's just on different things. But neither party truly believes in small government or that the poor will see the benefits if you give benefits to the rich.
And in the end, both parties will screw the middle class. How is this not worse than the 1970s? We're stuck in the same malaise as we were under Carter. And in my lifetime, there's never been a politician I've trusted. they are liars and thieves. And they can all rot.
Wow, I'm feeling particularly bitter about the process today. Conventions do that to me. i hate them mainly because I hate being lied to, and conventions are an exercise in lying
People will be swayed by misleading media coverage which oversimplifies the issues, misleading advertisements which stop just short of outright lying, and misleading whispering campaigns that everyone will deny. Or is that too cynical?
I'm not going to get into the economic discussion, but I don't think any of the people who make fiscal policy seriously believe in trickle down economics. It's always been of a marketing label.
While the GOP will deny it, they are just as Keynesian as the Dems. Rely on the Fed to set rates, and the GOP presidents spend even more money than their Democratic counterparts. It's just on different things. But neither party truly believes in small government or that the poor will see the benefits if you give benefits to the rich.
And in the end, both parties will screw the middle class. How is this not worse than the 1970s? We're stuck in the same malaise as we were under Carter. And in my lifetime, there's never been a politician I've trusted. they are liars and thieves. And they can all rot.
Wow, I'm feeling particularly bitter about the process today. Conventions do that to me. i hate them mainly because I hate being lied to, and conventions are an exercise in lying
Yes, Poseur, and I would say "trickle-down" was a cynical and insulting marketing label at that--insulting to those who might have had the good fortune to have some money "trickled" upon them, like a servant who's supposed to be grateful for the master's hand-me-downs . . . cynical because it's acknowledged to be only a trickle.
# posted by : 9:47 PM
: 9:47 PM
Eight houses or nine
Houses. Who's counting? I got
Mine! Bring on Barak!
Is it haiku Friday yet?
RFDIII
Houses. Who's counting? I got
Mine! Bring on Barak!
Is it haiku Friday yet?
RFDIII
# posted by : 11:34 PM
: 11:34 PM
Osler,
If it wasn't for trickle down economics, your fern bar wouldn't exist!
Think about it, the last congress gave tax breaks to loggers who had to plant lots of trees to make up for all the ones they were cutting down. In the process they had extra money to plant Fern IN ADDITION to the trees. In the process, the number of ferns drastically increased and thus the price of the ferns came tumbling down. So much so in fact that people in Waco found out about the cheap ferns in the paper, which incidentally also cost less because we were cutting down more trees and making more paper, thus lowering the price. When some small town enterprising young law student saw the need for such a Fern bar + the cheap and plentiful ferns available in a place like Waco, he obiviously couldn't resist opening such a bar at such a discounted price.
Thus this poor/middle class student benefitted from the economic gains made by the evil and super wealthy owners of the logging companies who lobbied congress for a tax cut. In the process the paper mill owners and fern farm owners also made a killing due to the falling prices of their product but not proportional fall of their prices. In the end however prices fell far enough to make it worthwhile to put a fern bar in WACO of all places.
You really should be thankful for this economic theory.
Oh and by the way, I want to point out that trickle down economics has always been around and has been responsible for many great economic booms (ferns included) throughout history, it just hasn't been used as "policy" in this country until Ronnie rolled into town.
If it wasn't for trickle down economics, your fern bar wouldn't exist!
Think about it, the last congress gave tax breaks to loggers who had to plant lots of trees to make up for all the ones they were cutting down. In the process they had extra money to plant Fern IN ADDITION to the trees. In the process, the number of ferns drastically increased and thus the price of the ferns came tumbling down. So much so in fact that people in Waco found out about the cheap ferns in the paper, which incidentally also cost less because we were cutting down more trees and making more paper, thus lowering the price. When some small town enterprising young law student saw the need for such a Fern bar + the cheap and plentiful ferns available in a place like Waco, he obiviously couldn't resist opening such a bar at such a discounted price.
Thus this poor/middle class student benefitted from the economic gains made by the evil and super wealthy owners of the logging companies who lobbied congress for a tax cut. In the process the paper mill owners and fern farm owners also made a killing due to the falling prices of their product but not proportional fall of their prices. In the end however prices fell far enough to make it worthwhile to put a fern bar in WACO of all places.
You really should be thankful for this economic theory.
Oh and by the way, I want to point out that trickle down economics has always been around and has been responsible for many great economic booms (ferns included) throughout history, it just hasn't been used as "policy" in this country until Ronnie rolled into town.
# posted by : 1:07 AM
: 1:07 AM
Lane is in his hometown helping his family with some family issues, and being a substitute teacher.
Lane would love to duke it out with RRL today (because I enjoy worthy opponents), especially over trickle-down theory, or as George H.W. Bush likes to call it, voodoo economics, but in the end, would just like to say:
McCain has no need to satisfy the Republican base. Anyone who thinks that corporations and the wealthy need tax cuts never votes Democratic anyway, and would vote for a scarecrow paraded around in a GOP badge. The ones that McCain needs to pander to are the perennial "swing voters," those who don't side with the Republicans because of social issues nor economic ones, but the ones that actually care about the policy. Barack Obama's speech tonight set the terms of the debate: he's an outsider, he lacks "experience" (which I think works for him, at least in my mind), and he's still young enough to be a bit idealistic. Were I McCain, I would focus on being cynical and playing up the cynicism of self-styled independents and swing voters. "Sure, Obama talks tough and wants to bring change, but I'm an insider. I know the game. He's going to try to buck the system, and that never works. I can get what you need done."
But, in reality, he'll make a lot of pretty-sounding speeches about personal responsibility, the wonders of privatization, stump on some "traditional values" (these are traditionally the values of whom, really? Not me!) and family issues, and conclude by touting up his war record. It will play well to the hardline Republicans, and he won't have won any new voters.
I do hope he'll acknowledge what a blessing the Hillaryis44.com people have been to him, though. Someone needs to throw them some recognition for the utter lunacy that goes on over there.
Post a Comment
Lane would love to duke it out with RRL today (because I enjoy worthy opponents), especially over trickle-down theory, or as George H.W. Bush likes to call it, voodoo economics, but in the end, would just like to say:
McCain has no need to satisfy the Republican base. Anyone who thinks that corporations and the wealthy need tax cuts never votes Democratic anyway, and would vote for a scarecrow paraded around in a GOP badge. The ones that McCain needs to pander to are the perennial "swing voters," those who don't side with the Republicans because of social issues nor economic ones, but the ones that actually care about the policy. Barack Obama's speech tonight set the terms of the debate: he's an outsider, he lacks "experience" (which I think works for him, at least in my mind), and he's still young enough to be a bit idealistic. Were I McCain, I would focus on being cynical and playing up the cynicism of self-styled independents and swing voters. "Sure, Obama talks tough and wants to bring change, but I'm an insider. I know the game. He's going to try to buck the system, and that never works. I can get what you need done."
But, in reality, he'll make a lot of pretty-sounding speeches about personal responsibility, the wonders of privatization, stump on some "traditional values" (these are traditionally the values of whom, really? Not me!) and family issues, and conclude by touting up his war record. It will play well to the hardline Republicans, and he won't have won any new voters.
I do hope he'll acknowledge what a blessing the Hillaryis44.com people have been to him, though. Someone needs to throw them some recognition for the utter lunacy that goes on over there.
<< Home
