Fiscal Conservative? The Republican Party isn't for you.

[CIVPhilzilla]

No, we were in the dotcom bust before 9/11, and that era is entirely over. It seems like one long recession because the economy has stayed down, but it has in fact been three different recessions: the Dotcom Bust (now over), the 9/11 Bust (now over) and the Iraq Bust (currently on).

Uh, I don't know what economy you have been looking at but America experienced a 6 month recession after 9/11 but have been growing at a rather good pace since then. Even in face of the dot com bust, 9/11, corporate scandals, rising energy costs, natural disasters, etc the economy keeps on chugging along beating out most industrialized nations. There is no "Iraq Bust" our economy is still growing, although the Fed is starting to limit the growth to keep inflation in check.

 

[Mojotronica]

Nationalized Healthcare is pretty big dem project for the last decade or so.

It's not like we get a free lunch. Right now the burden falls on employers. So you support taxation on business in the form of health care benefits.

Or it can come out of the direct tax dollars allowing employers to hire more people.

 

[Tulkas12]

No, we were in the dotcom bust before 9/11, and that era is entirely over. It seems like one long recession because the economy has stayed down, but it has in fact been three different recessions: the Dotcom Bust (now over), the 9/11 Bust (now over) and the Iraq Bust (currently on). You may recall that the economy hit a very high peak in March 2003, higher than it had ever been before, signalling the end of the 9/11 Bust. Of course, the Iraq Bust was right around the corner.

You are seeing fluctuations within a bear market. These things run in cycles of decades not months. Step further back please, or agree to disagree.

 

[Tulkas12]

Uh, I don't know what economy you have been looking at but America experienced a 6 month recession after 9/11 but have been growing at a rather good pace since then. Even in face of the dot com bust, 9/11, corporate scandals, rising energy costs, natural disasters, etc the economy keeps on chugging along beating out most industrialized nations. There is no "Iraq Bust" our economy is still growing, although the Fed is starting to limit the growth to keep inflation in check.

Its a still in a bear market though. Tax cuts have sheilded us to and extent, now. . .the inflation watch.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

It's not like we get a free lunch. Right now the burden falls on employers. So you support taxation on business in the form of health care benefits.

Or it can come out of the direct tax dollars allowing employers to hire more people.

So in a topic about how fiscally irresponsible our government is, started by you no less, you call for the government to manage the healthcare of our entire country. That is a bureaucratic nightmare that would make the Iraq war look like the cost of a pack of gum.

 

[Cuivienen]

Uh, I don't know what economy you have been looking at but America experienced a 6 month recession after 9/11 but have been growing at a rather good pace since then. Even in face of the dot com bust, 9/11, corporate scandals, rising energy costs, natural disasters, etc the economy keeps on chugging along beating out most industrialized nations. There is no "Iraq Bust" our economy is still growing, although the Fed is starting to limit the growth to keep inflation in check.

You are making the common error of equating the stock market with the economy. The stock market rises nearly constantly, and only falls during times of precipitous economic decline.

That said, I'm done with my debating on this thread. I pass off the torch to someone else.

 

[Tulkas12]

It's not like we get a free lunch. Right now the burden falls on employers. So you support taxation on business in the form of health care benefits.

Or it can come out of the direct tax dollars allowing employers to hire more people.

LOL. So the dreamers keep telling me. Minimum wage increases too then?

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Its a still in a bear market though. Tax cuts have sheilded us to and extent, now. . .the inflation watch.

The economy is still growing at a good pace, and the stock market is still posting good returns. The Fed is taking an active role to nip inflation in the butt and it looks like they are posed to pause or halt rate hikes at their meeting next Tuesday.

 

[Mojotronica]

So in a topic about how fiscally irresponsible our government is, started by you no less, you call for the government to manage the healthcare of our entire country. That is a bureaucratic nightmare that would make the Iraq war look like the cost of a pack of gum.

Actually the topic was how fiscally irresponsible the current adminstration is.

I'd have it managed by insurance companies, the way it is right now. But I'd take the employers out of the loop for the economic efficiencies gained. It could be handled by social organizations or some level of gov't, but having the burden fall on employers is the worst way of dealing with it.

 

[Mojotronica]

LOL. So the dreamers keep telling me. Minimum wage increases too then?

That's a topic for another discussion. The linking of health care to employers costs jobs, plain and simple. If you want to stimulate the economy figure out another way to handle health care.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

You are making the common error of equating the stock market with the economy. The stock market rises nearly constantly, and only falls during times of precipitous economic decline.

That said, I'm done with my debating on this thread. I pass off the torch to someone else.

Both the stock market and economy has grown rather strongly since the 9/11 recession. The Real GDP has grown pretty consistantly at 3.5% or higher the past couple of years, a rate most other western industrial nations can't touch.

As with your other point, 1:30 in the morning is a bit late to be debating economics. I'm off to bed.

 

[MobBoss]

Actually, if you want the Republican party to be more fiscally conservative, then it IS the party for you. The only way to truly faciliate change is from within. As a republican myself, I am not happy with the level of spending. But I would rather work from within the party to change this, as opposed to jumping ship for the Dems or a loser third party.

 

[Red Stranger]

Who cares what fiscal conservatism is when things are working. The current version of trickle-down-economics works well, and I support it no matter what it's called. They could call it fiscal liberalism, or fiscal islamofacism. I don't care. As long as it works, I'm happy.

 

[zulu9812]

The set the government doesn't talk about is the audited financial statement produced by the government's accountants following standard accounting rules. It reports a more ominous financial picture: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If Social Security and Medicare were included — as the board that sets accounting rules is considering — the federal deficit would have been $3.5 trillion.

If Social Security and Medicare cost 2.75 trillion dollars, why are so many Americans living below the poverty line and without medical treatment?

 

[El_Machinae]

Who cares what fiscal conservatism is when things are working. The current version of trickle-down-economics works well, and I support it no matter what it's called. They could call it fiscal liberalism, or fiscal islamofacism. I don't care. As long as it works, I'm happy.

It's all short-term gains at long-term cost. It looks good now, but it really isn't. This administration shot the economy in the foot for a long-time to come.

As you get more and more into business economics, you'll understand. Inflating the economy with debt-dollars only helps executives who think in 3 month cycles.

 

[Mojotronica]

Actually, if you want the Republican party to be more fiscally conservative, then it IS the party for you. The only way to truly faciliate change is from within. As a republican myself, I am not happy with the level of spending. But I would rather work from within the party to change this, as opposed to jumping ship for the Dems or a loser third party.

One could say the same thing about the Democrats, and argue for changing it from within. Certainly as the party out of power the Dems have more political incentive to make radical changes. And they are already moving in the right direction by embracing fiscally conservative ideas that the Republicans have abandoned.

What pressure is there for the Republicans to get more fiscally prudent when the current strategy is working politically? It was only after losing power back in 1994 that the Democrats started getting serious about change. The political parties will only respond to lost votes.

 

[Masquerouge]

It is not that obvious that government accounting should be held to the same standards as private business accounting.
The goal of a government is not to make a profit: it should aim for balance.
A government must implement and maintain many very costly things that will never turn in a profit, like the army. A private company will only go after things that are profitable.

Please note that I agree that running an increasing deficit is bad.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's like setting fire to the cabin to stave off the cold!

 

[MobBoss]

One could say the same thing about the Democrats, and argue for changing it from within. Certainly as the party out of power the Dems have more political incentive to make radical changes. And they are already moving in the right direction by embracing fiscally conservative ideas that the Republicans have abandoned.

They are only embracing such ideas because they see it as leverage against their opponent. I would also point out that the democratic party has been changing from within by embracing groups further and further from the left. By giving these groups a voice in the party, the Dems themselves have moved their base away from most moderate ideals. Most democrat politicians embrace the left thinking it their way to success...the smart ones however, (like Hillary for example) have been drifting more moderate for awhile now, knowing full well if no compromise is made to moderate america the dems will be out of power for a long time to come.

What pressure is there for the Republicans to get more fiscally prudent when the current strategy is working politically?

Answer: Its not. The Feds spending is a pretty big issue even among republicans and a lof of us want it curtailed. I predict a fiscally conservative republican candidate to do very well in the '08 election.

It was only after losing power back in 1994 that the Democrats started getting serious about change. The political parties will only respond to lost votes.

I would say that the Dem party right now is much farther left than it was in 1994. As for it being more fiscally responsible, I dont see evidence of it outside of basic lip service. And it is going to take more than lip service to convice todays voters. I do agree that both political parties respond to lost votes.

 

[Mojotronica]

Don't you think it's going to be tough to transition from your party's current stance that "any criticism of George W Bush is unpatriotic" to "party of change?"

What's the plan for managing perceptions?

Totally disagree that the Dem Party of 2006 is more Liberal than the Dem Party of 1994, especially in the fiscal sense. Back then Keynesian economics were still at the heart of the parties' platform. That all changed with Clintonomics.

In some ways the Republican party was more "liberal" back then -- H Ross Perot had two major platform issues, a balanced budget (which is fiscally conservative) and an intense anti-NAFTA platform, and that was a strong enough incentive to siphon off 19% of the vote (mostly at Bush the Elder's expense.)

These days anti-free traders are radicals, Buchanan's guys on the right and the Fair Trade movement on the left. Neither of those groups is at the center of either major party. And to be honest, popular flirtation with trade interventionism is partly a symptom of the mismanagement of it by the Bush Administration. His bi-lateral approach to trade negotiations is the wrong way to go, his decision to subsidize the Steel industry was (on it's face) anti-free trade and his handling of CAFTA was completely unimpressive.