The Republican's aggressive agenda for 2011

Get over it, dude. Your hero is a fake and now the hard work begins.

Haven't heard much about repealing the financial reform bill. Health care? Have at it guys! I'd rather be going down this road than the road of card check, cap and trade and whatever else the Dems cook up. I'm beginning to think you're past the point of no return.

BG, wow, this politics stuff really has you wound up, take it wayyyy to seriously...

OK, so let's say that we're all wrong and the GOP doesn't take control of either the House or Senate.  Are telling us that you're actually happy with the way things are being run right now?  You make very convincing arguments against the GOP and the ads being run.  But you have yet to convince me, or anyone else for that matter, that Obama and the Dem controlled House and Senate are doing any real good for this country.  Sure, they're promising health care, job creation (or saving), better economy, a chicken in every pot, and four leaf clovers for everyone. 

But all of that stuff comes at a cost to the average person.  For instance,  I got my health insurance packet for 2011 last week.  I feel fortunate that I don't have to worry about finding a new insurance carrier like those folks in NM are going to.  But at the same time I now have to make more money every month, which will raise my taxes, cost me more time and effort, add more stress, and just generally piss me off so that I can pay for my new health care premiums.  You want to know the reason  they gave us?  New health care legislation makes it more expensive for everyone.  So, not only are my taxes inevitably going up to help fund the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, but my health insurance costs are too.  The kicker is that the major components of that act haven't even taken hold yet.  What's it going to be like in 2014 when the majority of the bill actually gets going?  I'm going to have to go independant so that I can afford to buy health insurance for my family.  Wait, no, that won't work because I'm sure NM is just the first state where carriers are going to start shutting down health care plans for individuals and small groups because they're too expensive. 

While I agree with you that $100 Billion isn't even a drop in the bucket of the $13 Trillion - let me put that number in the right light  - $13,000,000,000,000 in current debt, at least it's a start.  That $13 Trillion comes out to $40K+ per US citizen, BTW.  If we have two more years of spending at the rate the Dems have been spending thus far into Obama's reign how big do you think that number will grow to? 

That's the part of this political mess that pisses off most of of the TP and conservative voters.  It's also the obvious hot button that those folks running for office can push.  So, we're getting a lot of ads doing just that. 

The ads in my area are also saying that they're going to repeal parts of the health care bill.  I'm not familiar enough with the bill to know which parts they can or can't repeal, but you can't argue that in a 2000+ page bill there aren't a ton of wasteful or unnecessary additions that can be done away with. 

What do you expect the GOP candidates to say?  Do you want them to say that they can't really change anything, but vote for them anyway? 

Yes, moving to the center could only improve O's reelection odds.

No, the repub agenda does not prove that your banging the drum about staying off in left field is validated.

100 billlion here, 100 billion there. Many of us have a bunch of clients with around 1 million. 1 billion is 1000 million. 100 1000 1000000 is a good start. The economy is fragile, there is not enough demand, so huge cuts right now is not a good idea. Mainly symbolic.

Health care needs to be rolled back to pre "reform" beta. Interstate competition with guaranteed insurability for citizens, portability. Job loss was a  big driver in people losing their coverage (under age 65).

Torte reform, wellness incentives. Look at all of the fatties at Costco, need intelligent bill, not Pelosi's " we'll find out what's in the bill after it's passed".

The repubs will fight to extend the Bush tax cuts and improve the business climate by bringing more certainty around the business climate ( trend toward less regulation, no climate bill, clean up health care uncertainty and tax limbo).

A few minor adjustments and the economy is still in trouble - this is going to be slow going.

At least the grown-ups are back in the driver's seat of the car that the dems drove into the ditch ( B. Frank). Okay, we all put it into the ditch.

Dems should be feeling really ashamed of B. Frank, Obama saying to the Mexicans they should vote against the enemy, Pelosi's weird leadership, Reid's ridiculousness, sheesh, I can't believe what we have endured for the last couple of years.

Maybe we can finally get back to business. Starting to feel enthusiastic again, I'm sure America is moving back to the center of the road. Really positive.

You see, BG? Your friends here are ready to help you assimilate and rejoin reality. Wake up and say, what happened, dude?

I'm going to have to go independant so that I can afford to buy health insurance for my family.  Wait, no, that won't work because I'm sure NM is just the first state where carriers are going to start shutting down health care plans for individuals and small groups because they're too expensive. 

My solo policy (covering 4 people) just went up 18%. In January, they will decide about the rate of increase to cover the legislation, or even if there will be a private policy in my state. This is really scary and annoying; we take care of ourselves and have been lucky, and can only afford to subsidize the general population up to a point, without going into debt to fund college or even the mortage payments.

[quote=Times7]

Yes, moving to the center could only improve O's reelection odds.

No, the repub agenda does not prove that your banging the drum about staying off in left field is validated.

100 billlion here, 100 billion there. Many of us have a bunch of clients with around 1 million. 1 billion is 1000 million. 100 1000 1000000 is a good start. The economy is fragile, there is not enough demand, so huge cuts right now is not a good idea. Mainly symbolic.

Health care needs to be rolled back to pre "reform" beta. Interstate competition with guaranteed insurability for citizens, portability. Job loss was a  big driver in people losing their coverage (under age 65).

Torte reform, wellness incentives. Look at all of the fatties at Costco, need intelligent bill, not Pelosi's " we'll find out what's in the bill after it's passed".

The repubs will fight to extend the Bush tax cuts and improve the business climate by bringing more certainty around the business climate ( trend toward less regulation, no climate bill, clean up health care uncertainty and tax limbo).

A few minor adjustments and the economy is still in trouble - this is going to be slow going.

At least the grown-ups are back in the driver's seat of the car that the dems drove into the ditch ( B. Frank). Okay, we all put it into the ditch.

Dems should be feeling really ashamed of B. Frank, Obama saying to the Mexicans they should vote against the enemy, Pelosi's weird leadership, Reid's ridiculousness, sheesh, I can't believe what we have endured for the last couple of years.

Maybe we can finally get back to business. Starting to feel enthusiastic again, I'm sure America is moving back to the center of the road. Really positive.

You see, BG? Your friends here are ready to help you assimilate and rejoin reality. Wake up and say, what happened, dude?

[/quote]

This post.     wow.

well put my man    brings a MF tear to my eye

Times7=God

[quote=Times7]

Get over it, dude. Your hero is a fake and now the hard work begins.

[/quote]

Times7=God

Thanks R-R, I'm fallible not God.

" The economy needs to grow by at least 5 percent for a full year to bring down the unemployment rate by a percentage point, economists estimate. "

No way the economy is growing at 5% in 2011, so the recovery is going to be slow. It probably p*sses BG off that the "repubs" will take credit for the recovery, but the fact is things still hang in a fragile balance, with a smaller chance of double dip recession.

Politics aside, I'll predict "America" starts feeling better on Wednesday morning and at least a few employed workers go out and buy a new Jeep. After the market crash of 2000, pundits learned to temper their enthusiasm about the markets - perhaps the potential for a psychological boost (election) to aggregate demand has been understated. 

In this business, bull markets are a lot fun, especially when you are starting your career.

I'm looking forward to having some fun again, and telling my clients I feel it's coming.

Space, again, good post!

I'm not going to change any hearts or minds here, really not trying. Just pointing out the obvious.

That said, I'll give you a great reason to vote for a dem incumbent who voted for the bailouts and stimulus: They did the right thing. That is, in the face of incredible pressure not to do it, they put the country first and their own career second. How many times have you seen a politician do that? Now, two years later their brave vote has stabilized the economy. Because of their vote the bailouts worked. Ironically, with voters still angry over a still weak economy, their accomplishment has been twisted by the political agenda of the oppossing party. It is now being used as a club to defeat them. Again, the beat the dead horse observation, that's just not right! These people deserve to stay in office. We are replacing people with the integrity and fortitude to make a tough decision with, well, liars.

Some other points:

The deficit: Bush inherited 240 bilion dollar budget surplus. The national debt was about 4 trillion when Bush took office. When Bush left the Whitehouse the deficit was over one trillion dollars and the debt had soared to 10 trillion. That's what happens when you give trillion dollar tax cuts year after year while at the same time increasing spending. And, ironically no republican outcry for spending reform during Bushs' spend for all.

That said, Obama's spending plan isn't going quite as planned and will end up increasing the debt. This why he's adament about not extending the Bush tax cuts. We can't afford it! The repubs counter argument to cut spending will not signifcantly reduce the deficit or total debt. Add in the tax cuts they want to extend, and the deficit gets worse, not better. Again, the original plan under Bush was that the tax cuts would be more than paid for by the resulting tax infused economic benefit. That didn't happen. Yet, according to repubs that was then this is now, this time it will work. What's that defination of insanity?

Healthcare: pinning cost increase on Obamacare is the newnew thing in corporate suites that want the good old days back. The fact is that very little additional burden has been placed on your insurance company to date. When repubs say they want to undo the healthcare bill what they really want is to undo the cost controls built into the bill which will help reign in costs.  The repubs want to protect profit, not reduce cost. They also want to keep your healthcare insurance company in charge of your family's healthcare. That versus the new plan which will put the patient in the driver's seat.

The other big healthcare lie is the 500bil medicare cut. That's an out and out distortion. The plan seeks to cut by 500 billion the medicare dollars given to large private providers like Humana thru Medicare Advantage. However, there are no cuts to those who utilize medicare. In fact, the plan increases certain benefits in progressive steps.

Past all that, a divided government will probably increase the deficit.

BG, did you not read my post WITH LINK INCLUDED regarding the "Bush inherited a surplus" argument?

Also, because Republicans didn't argue against Bush's spending when they were in power, that means they can't argue against it now?

BG, the last part, you are so trying to have everything one way here, another way there, just to suit your progressive liberal agenda. On one hand, you brag about Clinton beating the deficit, ...while the GOP had the Senate and House, and a majority of Gov houses across the nation. But, in your last sentence, you claim that a divided house will increase the deficit?

You folks are awful good at putting anything negative, on the Bush administration. Just keep blaming him right?

But with Clinton, you folks never credited Reagan/Bush for the economy Clinton inherited...

I agree that the Fed Govt had a responsibility to save the economy, bailouts and bandaids, etc. Otherwise we'd have wound up in a depression for sure. BUT, you can't create a stimulus plan for a TRILLION dollars, then not have any job creation, or even any hope for it! It is the lack of jobs, or hope of jobs that is going to cost the Dems in these mid term elections. The healthcare thing too, amazing that apparently the Dems learned NOTHING when it came to Hillarycare's failure, and the election of 1994. 

Neither party serves the American people. The Dems are hard core left wing socialists, even communists, and are currently being actively supported by communist party of the USA. The GOP forgot that they were conservatives, and have decided instead to become big spending moderates that turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, and social distortion. The Tea Party has come about, because the GOP started rotting from the core. God Bless the Tea Party!

And if you want to see what the Tea Party really stands for, look at the GOP Mission Statement of Maine. Look it up...

When james madison started the the whole thing

....there were 4 departments in the federal govt.

Here is MF "a" today

We should stop cutting when we get back to 4................

BG, all of this looking back and lamenting the fact that dems are unappreciated has some degree of validity. What it means, though, is that both "sides" have stopped communicating, and there are no creative solutions forthcoming.

FA86 is saying, the economy is dynamic. We are now engaged in a post-industrial economy - competing against Chinese labor and such, this is an unprecedented economy.

Big is saying he sees you walking the traditional firing line with your logic in order to continue drawing the political lines - yes, stimulus is needed during a classical recession situation, this situation is different.

And both dems and reps continue to fight over the (shrinking) pie, or at least a pie with 2% growth, which is not sufficient to create enough jobs or even generate enough aggregate demand to have the intended multiplier effect of stimulus.

And as R-R and Big are pointing out,  the repubs were "bad" with their spending and bloating the government, no doubt. Tea Party represents mainly cutting government and debt, which leaves health care to controlled by free market mechanisms.

And I would argue that the free market is still the best alternative - too bad the world is so overpopulated and corrupt, but:

What is implicitly understand is that two years ago, hope and change might have meant the U.S. focused on a few things and did them well, like, energy independence (use social policy to reduce dependence on foreign oil).

In fact, the libs sold out this opportunity in favor of corruption ( unions, big government, big corps, big spending) - follow the money.

Therefore, the moral authority of progressivism has become undermined ( no big surprise to students of capitalism).

If you want to defend or realize some kind of ideal, you have to do better than defending the corrupted status quo of Democratic politics. People can clearly see through that now, the best alternative is still less government.

In order to create solutions, you have to give up some ground and communicate with the other side. Come to the reasonable center and reexamine your beliefs. Change.

[quote=BondGuy]

Past all that, a divided government will probably increase the deficit.

[/quote]

Lots of things I disagree with BG, but this makes me question your thought process on all issues.  Assume the house and senate go to a small majority Republican.  What happens to tax rates?  I assume they go up to Clinton era rates or at least they do over $250K AGI.  What happens to new spending?  I assume (or at least hope) that the republicans hold their end of the bargain and stop new spending and/or reduce existing spending. So, more money coming in (higher marginal tax rates) coupled with less money going out (less spending) yields a decreasing deficit, not increasing. 

[quote=BigFirepower]

BG, the last part, you are so trying to have everything one way here, another way there, just to suit your progressive liberal agenda. On one hand, you brag about Clinton beating the deficit, ...while the GOP had the Senate and House, and a majority of Gov houses across the nation. But, in your last sentence, you claim that a divided house will increase the deficit?

Big you need to do something about your reading comprehension probelm. I didn't credit Clinton for handing Bush a surplus. I said only that Bush had a surplus.

I'll go into more detail in my answer to Incredible's post about how a house divided increases the deficit, since you can't seem to figure that one out for yourself.

You folks are awful good at putting anything negative, on the Bush administration. Just keep blaming him right?

Big, you can argue about results, but you can't argue with results. The legascy of the Bush era was a 10 trillion dollar national debt and a trillion dollar deficit. I'm not blaming him, just pointing out that fact. If you have facts from some alternative universe where the debt and deficit didn't get run up, by all means, share!

But with Clinton, you folks never credited Reagan/Bush for the economy Clinton inherited...

When you say you folks who do you mean? Because i always credit Bush 1 for the economy that Clinton inherited. So does Clinton. Just so you know, you can't credit Reagan. he's the guy that ran up the debt that caused Bush to raise taxes and pushed the economy into recession. To put in today's terms reagan did to Bush what Bush 2 did to Obama. That is, handed over a budget that was in meltdown phase. The interesting thing about the 92 election was that the economy was in a similar position to today's economy. The worst was over and we were on an upswing. But, Bush didn't get it, that there was still a lot of pain out there. Clinton did and thus "it's the economy stupid" was born.

 The repubs learned that lesson and from the moment they lost two years ago have made sure the economy lays on its back for as long as it takes to regain power. It's sad that you blame dems for today's problems when dems have done all they can to move the economy forward. meanwhile the repubs have remained a  solid rock in the road. You said it yourself, the bailout/stim was needed. How many repubs voted for those programs? If those no votes had impeded the bailouts stim would we be better off today or worse?

I agree that the Fed Govt had a responsibility to save the economy, bailouts and bandaids, etc. Otherwise we'd have wound up in a depression for sure. BUT, you can't create a stimulus plan for a TRILLION dollars, then not have any job creation, or even any hope for it! It is the lack of jobs, or hope of jobs that is going to cost the Dems in these mid term elections. The healthcare thing too, amazing that apparently the Dems learned NOTHING when it came to Hillarycare's failure, and the election of 1994. 

Define job creation? Stim has saved an esitmated 1 million jobs.  How is a job saved not the same as a job created? But, you are right, the dems are headed for a 1992 Bush like defeat even though they don't deserve it any more than Bush did back then.

Then there is this: Many economist beleive we need another round of stimulus to pull us out of this mess for good. What are the chances of that happening with a repub house?

The healthcare isn't the big evil the repubs make it out to be. Could it have been better, yes. Know this, even if the repubs get a majority in both houses they aren't unwinding the entire healthcare package. They only want to undo the cost controls. It's about money, not your money, and not the govt money.

Neither party serves the American people. The Dems are hard core left wing socialists, even communists, and are currently being actively supported by communist party of the USA. The GOP forgot that they were conservatives, and have decided instead to become big spending moderates that turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, and social distortion. The Tea Party has come about, because the GOP started rotting from the core. God Bless the Tea Party!

I'm with you on the immigration issue. But maybe we both need to lighten up on that. If the demographic trends continue the way they are going, we won't be a hispanic nation 50 years from now, We'll be a Muslim nation. Either way the rich white men will be a minority.  I disagree about your far left view of the dems. I see centrist in both partys. However your view neatly illustrates the polarized nature of the country.  It's black or white, no grey, no compromise.

And if you want to see what the Tea Party really stands for, look at the GOP Mission Statement of Maine. Look it up...

I'll check it out

[/quote]

The difficult thing for the incoming TP candidates is going to be telling the American people no.  You can't cut spending, shrink governments, lower taxes, and stop healthcare without pissing off some people.  At some point, if they do what they've been elected to do, they're going to step on everyone's toes. 

The problem is that the average American is way too short sighted and selfish to understand that sometimes you have to be told no, or at least told to figure it out for yourself, for the betterment, no survival, of the country going forward.  Seniors are already upset that they're not getting a raise in their SS checks.  Just wait until you tell them that they aren't going to have this service or that service that Federal dollars used to pay for.  We're all OK with cutting benefits and services that don't affect us.  We're not OK when we get told no. 

Bond - I don't disagree with you that some of the dems that voted for the bailouts didn't get the recognition they deserve.  But the problem you have with that argument is that one good decision does not a great politician make.  Sure, that was the right decision at the right time.  It's the many, many issues that followed that really concerns us.  Obama has started a social justice/social engineering spending spree that isn't going to work in the long run and will cost taxpayers lots and lots of money.  FDR tried similar tactics in the 30's with the New Deal and the New Deal part deux.  They worked about as well as I would expect Obama's tactics to work today.  The Dems/Progressives follow him blindly into that initiative without thought for what those social engineering policies might actually do to our country. 

I bothers me when the Obamas, Pelosi, Frank, and some of the other high profile Dems talk down to me as a conservative.  The lump us all into the Republican party, which is fine for talking points but not technically correct.  They talk about us as a king or monarch would - you're to dumb and uneducated to make these kind of tough decisions for yourself so we're going to make the decisions we want to make regardless of  what you think.  That kind of rhetoric is maddening. 

So, this next election, I'm going to excercise the most powerful right I have in this country - the right to vote.  You and I will most certainly vote differently.  That's OK.  The sun will still come up on Nov. 3.   Maybe then we can have a discussion not about donkeys or elephants, but rather about floating rate funds vs short duration funds. 

The problem is that the average American is way too short sighted and selfish to understand that sometimes you have to be told no, or at least told to figure it out for yourself, for the betterment, no survival, of the country going forward.  Seniors are already upset that they're not getting a raise in their SS checks.  Just wait until you tell them that they aren't going to have this service or that service that Federal dollars used to pay for.  We're all OK with cutting benefits and services that don't affect us.  We're not OK when we get told no. 

Yep. I think the other significance of the Tea Party movement ( besides political)  is behavioral. Hoard your cash and property, structure your life to avoid taxes. This might not be good for aggregate demand or social works, but "every man for himself and his private charities" is probably the smartest course and most logical response to the madness of BG politics as usual.

This is how the country will survive, by promoting selfish interests, without an ever increasing percentage of GDP going to taxes. Period.

The difficult thing for the incoming TP candidates is going to be telling the American people no.  You can't cut spending, shrink governments, lower taxes, and stop healthcare without pissing off some people.  At some point, if they do what they've been elected to do, they're going to step on everyone's toes. 

There ought to be plenty of folks around willing to do this job. Term limits might be a next step. Take a few years out of your life and go kick some a$$ and have some fun - show the grandkids what America is all about even while spending a little more of their inheritance to do some good for the country.

I bothers me when the Obamas, Pelosi, Frank, and some of the other high profile Dems talk down to me as a conservative.  The lump us all into the Republican party, which is fine for talking points but not technically correct.  They talk about us as a king or monarch would - you're to dumb and uneducated to make these kind of tough decisions for yourself so we're going to make the decisions we want to make regardless of  what you think.  That kind of rhetoric is maddening. 

Exactly. This in itself is a desperation move, a last resort. That political capital has been burned. Look at Obama on the comedy show, folks are laughing at him as much as with him. But the pissed off people, even if they are in the minority, are the ones holding the money. That's why they are pissed off.

If you doubt this, compare the tone with right before the election, when Obama was lecturing America about hope and change. The patronizers were just gaining power, now they are the victims of their own self deception. ( Jobless, taxes going up, no solid plan in place to increase economic growth and create jobs). You can only drift on BS for so long.

[quote=Incredible Hulk]

[quote=BondGuy]

Past all that, a divided government will probably increase the deficit.

[/quote]

Lots of things I disagree with BG, but this makes me question your thought process on all issues.  Assume the house and senate go to a small majority Republican.  What happens to tax rates?  I assume they go up to Clinton era rates or at least they do over $250K AGI.  What happens to new spending?  I assume (or at least hope) that the republicans hold their end of the bargain and stop new spending and/or reduce existing spending. So, more money coming in (higher marginal tax rates) coupled with less money going out (less spending) yields a decreasing deficit, not increasing. 

 [/quote]

Get out your calculator: Extending the tax cuts over a ten year period will decrease tax revenues by an esitiamted 4 trillion dollars. Over the same time period repubs have estimated they will cut 700 billion in spending. Maybe it's me, but a quick pass with the calculator gives me a negative 3.3 trillion dollars. I know that the resulting tax induced job creation is supposed to cover that, but been there done that got the tax bill !!!!

As long as spending outstrips revenue the deficit goes up. Try this at home with your own budget. It's exactly the same thing and will make this concept brutally clear.

On the fed budget under the current plan the deficit is reduced by the extra revs. Though hobbled by the recession, it still reduces the deficit.

If repubs gain a majority in the house the chances of a deficit increasing extention of the Bush tax cuts increases. If they win both houses, the chances increase some more. Note, that with Obama in the White House they aren't going to get what they want without compromise. Of course, neither will Obama.

Ok got it? The extention of tax cuts combined with not enough spending cuts will increase the deficit. This is the republican agenda.

One other thing- the new TP rookies are going to give their leadership indigestion on any compromise with Obama. No compromise means nothing gets done. Nothing getting done puts a bullseye on their backs. OTOH, compromise with someone they've characterized as the devil isn't going play well on main street back in Myopia.

Obama has started a social justice/social engineering spending spree that isn't going to work in the long run and will cost taxpayers lots and lots of money.  FDR tried similar tactics in the 30's with the New Deal and the New Deal part deux.  They worked about as well as I would expect Obama's tactics to work today.  The Dems/Progressives follow him blindly into that initiative without thought for what those social engineering policies might actually do to our country. 

You'll never get someone like BG to admit what is really going on here. This has been a huge grab for power during an economic storm. Ironic that BG accuses the Repubs of being a rock in the road, while the progressives are trying to steal control of the country through nationalization of banks, car companies, home loans, student loans, energy, education, military and so on.

BG claims the conservatives have been blocking a recovery, but in fact there is reason to believe the progressives have intentionally extended the meltdown. Prove it? When almost every business person is in a funk about investing for a couple years, because things like liquidity in real estate have not been competently address, and so consumers are (still strung), you gotta wonder, is it just stupid or is it diabolical?

I believe government in this country (local, state and federal) is approaching 50%. These guys have been  having drinks in the White House and visualizing a scenario where the conservatives never regain power. We'll see what happens on Tuesday!

Ok got it? The extention of tax cuts combined with not enough spending cuts will increase the deficit. This is the republican agenda.

So what. With extension of the Bush tax cuts, the deficit increases, and the value of the dollar decreases. Exports increase.

Social Security benefits are not cut because you won't be in office if you make people work longer. Health care is rolled back to Medicare and privitization.

The only reason you are worried about the deficit is to support your social programs. Military, SS and Medicare, these are untouchable. The rest is history. Watch what happens. State services severely cut in most cases.

Interest rates go up. Capital flows in from overseas. More government services cuts. Maybe pension cuts if some state go broke. This is going to be interesting.

On the fed budget under the current plan the deficit is reduced by the extra revs. Though hobbled by the recession, it still reduces the deficit.

Total BS. The current plan is the same as the Republicans, increase the debt until the dollar is devalued and interest rates go up, investment capital comes to America and the debt itself is devalued.

Difference is, the Repubs will cut individual taxes (extended cuts) and even corporate taxes, and hurry up the process. As long as you can print money to extend liquidity, the cycle will continue. This will be the case, since the alternative is social unrest in China and starvation in Europe.

Poverty and wealth in America will reach new lows and highs. This is the only logical outcome of the actions of either party, the Repubs are just accelerating the process and bringing liquidity to the markets faster. Did you think you could just keep printing and selling bonds forever, or are you just trying to slow down the market long enough to make a few more bucks for yourself?

Yes you can keep printing money, no you can't keep printing bonds. Accelerating the meltdown of the American middle class is the most humane action at this point.

The alternative vision requires higher social cooperation and honesty. Your pal Obama will go down in history as being the fellow who sold out that utopian vision of Americans living in economic unision gracefully in a post-industrial society. Missed window of opportunity, but the alternative capitalist reality fits with where we are coming from and is the most reasonable outcome at this point.

The really funny thing, which BG kind of points out is - with gridlock, everything stays in motion.

There's no progressive majority to throw up trade quotas and tariffs, or borrow more money. With high unemployment and low consumer demand, state governments are free to melt down and start throwing more workers onto the labor market.

Demand may decrease even more, governmnent revenues are down, debt increases, interest rates go up, private  innovation begins.

Who would want to be a politician who was promising anything? Better to go to Washington with the idea that you'll be unpopular with the masses.

The result of progressive do gooder meddling is the same as Reagan's "vote with your feet". If you don't like how we screwed up the economy by promising everyone home ownership and a better quality of life by exporting your job to China, you can move to a warm climate and pick fruit (probably no unions there).

BG - go rent the movie " Planet of the Apes". (Original version). The Chinese are the guys on horses. This all started with trying to lift all boats in the world. A very humane notion, with unintended consequences. Keep your insurance license so you can keep making sales.

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

The difficult thing for the incoming TP candidates is going to be telling the American people no.  You can't cut spending, shrink governments, lower taxes, and stop healthcare without pissing off some people.  At some point, if they do what they've been elected to do, they're going to step on everyone's toes. 

Actually, no, TP rookies are going to get in line or get stepped on themselves. The TP faction of the repub party will not be in a leadership role. They will do what the old repub hacks tell them to do, or else! As i said in the other post, compromise. They will have to first compromise within their own ranks and then compromise with the dems or at least Obama. Regardless, little of the TP agenda will get done. I doubt any will survive in it's unadulterated form. That's not to say the messege is lost. it's not. Just don't expect too much.

The problem is that the average American is way too short sighted and selfish to understand that sometimes you have to be told no, or at least told to figure it out for yourself, for the betterment, no survival, of the country going forward.  Seniors are already upset that they're not getting a raise in their SS checks.  Just wait until you tell them that they aren't going to have this service or that service that Federal dollars used to pay for.  We're all OK with cutting benefits and services that don't affect us.  We're not OK when we get told no. 

It's hands off entitlemments. A politican that doesn't get this is dead man walking.

Bond - I don't disagree with you that some of the dems that voted for the bailouts didn't get the recognition they deserve.  But the problem you have with that argument is that one good decision does not a great politician make.  Sure, that was the right decision at the right time.  It's the many, many issues that followed that really concerns us.  Obama has started a social justice/social engineering spending spree that isn't going to work in the long run and will cost taxpayers lots and lots of money.  FDR tried similar tactics in the 30's with the New Deal and the New Deal part deux.  They worked about as well as I would expect Obama's tactics to work today.  The Dems/Progressives follow him blindly into that initiative without thought for what those social engineering policies might actually do to our country. 

Clue me in here. I admit I'm not up on neo conservative economic spin. What budget programs are you characterizing as  social engineering spending sprees?

One good decision? Ah, that one good decision saved your butt from the unemployment line as well as the soup line!  Not good enough?

I bothers me when the Obamas, Pelosi, Frank, and some of the other high profile Dems talk down to me as a conservative.  The lump us all into the Republican party, which is fine for talking points but not technically correct.  They talk about us as a king or monarch would - you're to dumb and uneducated to make these kind of tough decisions for yourself so we're going to make the decisions we want to make regardless of  what you think.  That kind of rhetoric is maddening. 

Yet, it doesn't bother you that your own party leaders treat you the same way? Even if i agreed with you that obama and company are talking down to conservatives, nothing they could have done compares to the the repubs playing their faithful for rubes by lying about the need and effect of the bailouts and stimulus. So worst case, obama may talk to you like you are too stupid to think for yourself, but, your own party leaders have absolutely assumed it! They've  engineered an election plan that is counting on stupidity, people unable to think for themselves, to bring them into power. That is unless i've got it wrong and all the bailout and stim ads are right? That is, not only did thebailouts not work, they got us into this mess. I'll take the guys that talk to me like i'm stupid over the guys counting on  it with million dollar campaign ads.

I too don't like Pelosi. Won't be sorry to see her go. I like frank even though i don't always agreewith him. Most conservatives don't like him thus don't understand him. Many hate him, and not for his politics.

So, this next election, I'm going to excercise the most powerful right I have in this country - the right to vote.  You and I will most certainly vote differently.  That's OK.  The sun will still come up on Nov. 3.   Maybe then we can have a discussion not about donkeys or elephants, but rather about floating rate funds vs short duration funds. 

Yeah, me too. Actually, i'm voting for a repub in my district. He's more or less centered. More important, he's honest. He hasn't run one bailout stim ad. As long as he doesn't, I'll vote for him. BTW, the dem incumbent didn't vote for the bailouts. He wasn't in office then. If he had, i'd have to vote for him. That kind of political bravery deserves to be rewarded. It was, most likely, a once in a lifetime happening.

I'm not a fan of either type of fund, but that's another topic.

[/quote]

Bond Guy, could we agree to this: if you take the (current) income and property tax rate of most areas in the U.S. as a ratio to income, you can see that we are screwed.

This creates an increasing separation of rich and poor, destruction of the middle class.

Since the U.S. is dependent on imports of certain key items, stopping globalization is not an option

What has really caused the meltdown ( which was accelerated but symptoms delayed by the securitization of mortgages) is free trade, devaluation of American labor.

( You could argue that the leveraging of mortgages to buy imported stuff from China is temporary, but we still spend money for oil and now there is compounding interest on the increasing debt.)

The last two years have stabilized the economy, the real debate has been about control over public resources, or public control over private resources.

Since the ratio of income to expenses is increasingly unfavorable, the ratio of poverty to wealth increases (regardless of politics).

With regard to the macro economy, the outcome of the policies of right and left will be similar in the long term. ( Even with trade protection, short term wealth might increase but long term wealth might decrease or be the same.)

With regard to progressive politics, it's about wealth redistribution. For conservatives, it's about the rights of the individual. Some folks would say this is a spiritual notion.

So when you say people are stupid for wanting to look out for themselves, you're saying it's smart to look out for the poor. This could be a spiritual idea.

I don't see you making any arguement for progressivism increasing the overall wealth of the nation.

Would you admit that you just want redistribute wealth from rich to poor?

This strategy did not seem to work very well in post revolutionary China. I don't see it playing in India or Brasil, or any other growing economy. Do you want us to look more like France?