Ok Liberals Its Your Turn To Run Things

[tabs]

Here is the government...take it run it anyway you like...BUT remember U can't complain anymore, you have responsibilty of making the thing work..SO PRAY TELL US ALL HOW YOUR GOING TO DO IT....

How are you going to deal with Iraq.
How are you going to deal with Terrorism
How are you going to deal with the Global/US economy
How are you going to deal with education
How are you going to deal with the deficeit
How are you going to deal with Iran/N Korea
How are you going to deal with Immigration

Bashing the USA ain't gona do it, you gotta run it now...and you gotta keep up the property values or your gona be run right outa town..and you might even be the one who goes down in history as the one who killed the Repblic if your not carefull.. So have at it Liberals...

[Moneyguy1]

ANYBODY?

[livi]

Just wanted to check what the man of wealth and taste was up to this time.

Sorry, canīt help ya. I canīt even define Liberalism properly.

[speeder]

What on earth makes you set up some stupid paradigm where voters' choices are the current schitbags or "liberals"? Like that is your only choice, a tired, passe' political philosophy or some corrupt POS cabal that is inept at anything except lining their friends' pockets.

This is one of your worst strawman/troll arguments.

[speeder]

What voters are hungry for is a true conservative after the current disaster, but of course tabs knows this.

[Moneyguy1]

I don't care if it is "liberal" or "conservative"...

Simplify the tax code. Any real analysis of the current code shows that it is over complex and favors certain very small parts of society. Please refer to a recent article in "U.S. News and World Report" May 1 by Editor-in CHief Mort Zukerman which in part reeads:

" The 2001 income tax rate cuts and the 2003 capital-gains and dividends cuts have lowered the average tax rate for the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans by 3.8% but reduced taxes just .03% for the bottom 20 percent. Of the tax savings on investment, the lion's share-more than 70 percent-went to the top 2 percent. Of the 90 percent of the taxpayers who make less than $100,000, only 14% benefitted from the dividend tax cut and onlu 5 percent from the capital gains tax cut. People who own stocks hold them in retirement accounts, which are inelegible for investment relief, and when withdrawn, the profits are reduced by the higher rate applied to wage earnings."
As a consequence, the tax burden on the richest has been reduced to where those who earn $10 or more pay at a lesser rate than those who earn between $500k and $1 million, and the top 400 Americans pay even a lower rate. The share of income going to the top 1% has jumped from 9% to 14%.


Plan for deficit reduction; reintroduce fiscal conservatism. Reagan had a policy of spending control referred to as "starving the beast". What he forgot was that the federal government can print and borrow money, negating the starvation concept. Voodoo it was, and voodoo it still is. Bush I was correct.

Apply some rationale to foreign relations, using the Capone axiom: "It is easier to convince people with a kind word and a gun than it is with a kind word alone".

Keeping property values? That is not a government function. Prices are set by the market place: availability, location, desirability, fear, greed and all the other attributes of a free market.

Immigration? Tough one, tabs...Probably enforcing current laws re: employing "illegals" might be a start. Working with Mexico and the Central American countries to improve conditions there might be a good but obviously long range plan.

Iran? N. Korea? These require more than just US involvement to repair. One thing that does strike me is that any country, when it feels cornered or threatened, has a tendency to sabre rattle. Reintroduce the Teddy Roosevelt policy of speaking softly but carrying a big stick.

Iraq? Let it divide into three parts and each faction has its own sandbox to play in. There is more than politics at work in a country whose tradition is steeped more in the word of "God" than in the concept of tolerance and acceptance.

If all else fails in the ME, containment might be an option. Until the majority (which we are told is peaceful and tolerant) can gain control over their radical bretheren, sanction the entire area. Sort of a 21st century equivalent of an Iron Curtain. No one in, no one out. Ideal, but doable (once we learn how to police our own borders, of course).

Education? Get the system to realize it cannot be all things to all people. There are smart people, there are stupid people. Deal with it. Stop seeking the lowest common denominator. Redo the student loan program to reward outstanding performance, tying the interest rate to over GPA. But with some monitoring.

Societal changes (not included in tab's list)...Public education that addresses this so-called trend toward "politically correct" behavior. A country that attempts to become all things to all people ultimately becomes nothing to no one.

JUst a few ideas from a fiscal conservative and political independent.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Have to agree with 90% of that, getting past the PC BS is a good point. People need to realize that in all things there will be a winner and loser, you can't make everyone feel warm and fuzzy. Attempting to soften the real world for kids will only make it that much harsher when they're out there. The removal of consequences and morality in public schools is the reason our kids will be attending Catholic school.

I have to take issue with what you mentioned regarding the tax cuts. My wife is an accountant, and most of her clients, including ourselves, benefited in some way from them. We're talking middle class here, not upper crust. People seem to enjoy manipulating the numbers, but it's simple logic that a 1% tax cut will save a millionaire more money than someone making $20k. It's not that clear cut, but in some cases that's been the argument against it. Also bear in mind, people that make $20k a year at Wal Mart don't employ anyone. Rich people employ others. Tax cuts for the rich and businesses allow for expansion, hiring, etc. There is a trickle down effect, even if many don't like to admit it. Sure, some of it goes into their pockets too, but what if you increase their taxes? Does the CEO take a pay cut, or do they fire a few people on the shop floor?

[Dixie]

It's quite insightful.

• Fast-Paste's "Bush is crazy" diarrhea-of-the-moth drivel gets 8.33 posts per hour.
• Tab's "what would you do?" thread gets 1.3 posts per hour.

Everyone loves to bitcch. Few provide reasonable answers.

Sigh......

[Aurel]

I would get out of Iraq, and start bulding nuclear plants, more petrol refineries, invest massively in energy research. Once he USA gets out of the middle east, terrorism will stop. And to get out of the middle east, the USA needs to solve its energy dependancy.
To solve the illegal immigration, I would enforce the law and stop being hypocritical. However, for those who are already here, I would offer a deal: you register with the IRS, and you become legal once your tax payments have totalled $100,000. Make money, contribute to he economy...
One more thing: I would do a complete reform of the presidential campain donations: no more donations from companies, only private individuals, and $10,000 limit. That should take care of the current corruption of the system.

Aurel

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Capt. Carrera
It's quite insightful.

• Fast-Paste's "Bush is crazy" diarrhea-of-the-moth drivel gets 8.33 posts per hour.
• Tab's "what would you do?" thread gets 1.3 posts per hour.

Everyone loves to bitcch. Few provide reasonable answers.

Sigh......

no, this is an electronic tiger that tabs is using to prove a point. He isn't interested in any "answers", just any response that can then be shouted down, resulting in the "see? you can't please everyone."

Didn't see suggestions in your post. Or in my "what's wrong and right with education" thread.

Flat tax. Enforce existing laws that punish companies that hire illegal immigrants. Do away with the "you're born here, you're a citizen" rule.

Provide a minimum level of public health care for all legal citizens.

Cut gov't spending mostly by eliminating ridiculous redundant agencies that can't seem to work together (start with teh three-letter ones and go from there). Get Iraq to some baseline stability then get out. Keep economic and diplomatic pressure on N. Korea and Iran.

Increase gas taxes. Raise the minimum mpg standards. Find incentives for alternative transportation and alternative energy research.

Eliminate tenure at public schools (K-16). Increase pay and decrease administration. Scrap the NEA and create a thin national infrastructure that loosely couples local/state schools. Make oversight based on a combination of peer and local/state admin with private input.

That's a start...

[KFC911]

Unless term limits are implemented, both parties will continue to look out for their particular brand of 'special interests' in order to retain their positions of power. Until our politicians cease to spend most of their efforts attempting to get re-elected, they will not REALLY address the serious issues that face this nation imo.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tabs
Here is the government...take it run it anyway you like...BUT remember U can't complain anymore, you have responsibilty of making the thing work..SO PRAY TELL US ALL HOW YOUR GOING TO DO IT....

For a libertarian answer, in keeping with Misean theory of course.

How are you going to deal with Iraq.

Remove all troops as fast as they can be loaded on an aircraft, after restoring the lawful government as much as possible on the way out.

How are you going to deal with Terrorism

By prohibiting, via Constitutional Amendment, any US government meddling in foreign nations, and arresting any that haven't received the word. The FBI could have prevented the events of 9/11/2001; detailed in Reason Magazine, June 2006, page 18, "How the FBI Let 9/11 Happen" by Jeff A. Taylor

How are you going to deal with the Global/US economy

By removing all trade barriers and tariff's, returning to free trade totally.

How are you going to deal with education

At the federal level, removing any federal government involvement in education, since that's not authorized by the Constitution.

How are you going to deal with the deficit

By reducing government until there isn't one.

How are you going to deal with Iran/N Korea

With free trade with both countries, to the extent they want it, otherwise leaving them alone.

How are you going to deal with Immigration

By reducing the immigration level, as closely as possible, to no more than can be assimilated into America, probably about 200,000 per year, heavily weighted towards those with cultures most closely resembling American culture.

Bashing the USA ain't gona do it, you gotta run it now...and you gotta keep up the property values or your gona be run right outa town..and you might even be the one who goes down in history as the one who killed the Repblic if your not carefull.. So have at it Liberals...

Done!

What's for dinner.

[Moneyguy1]

Matt:

You are indeed correct about the trickle down and there is one other, called the multiplier effect. THe second works, the first is sporadic at best.

Where the problem comes in is not so much that the CEO will kill off a few jobs on the manufacturing floor or get rid of the upstairs maid. The problem is that, for the very many, the tax cuts are so small as to be of little consequce. Let me try to explain in as simple a manner as possible. When buying a house, you have the option of a conventional mortgage, a "smart choice" scam, or an interest only with a refinancing /balloon arrangement. Now the prudent buyer may opt for the conventional mortgage since it will, in the long run, result in actual ownership of the property. Another buyer may opt for the interest only because he (or she) does not plan to stay in that residence that long OR they cannot swing the deal without the few bucks a month they are "saving" in payments. The small amount they save in taxes may make the difference but they will wind up with no equity in their original loan amount. Sort of like the Government, spending more than they bring in and either borrowing or doing what our hypothetical buyer cannot do, printing money. The future impact is bad for the entire citizenry because the amount owed by the government to creditors must some day be paid. I would rather take a small hit today than pass the debt down to my kids and their kids for a few years of "feel good". Voodo economics is still voodoo economics.


Not all rich people employ that many people, nor do they actually create wealth. They clip their coupons, buy and sell their stocks and bonds, adding little (except some commissions) to the economy. Most jobs are created at the middle and small cap companies. Large companies, unfortunately, increase their net rather than invest in infrastructure (read energy companies here) and once again, add little to the overall economy. As for Wal MArt...There is no greater drag on the American economy than that. How many small businesses have been forced out of the marketplace and what percent of Wal Mart employees have no medical coverage, the bill being footed by all of us? The average net value of the 9 family members is 18 billion apiece!! The argument for Wal MArt is it allows individuals to increase their lifestyle by making formerly luxury goods affordable. It also has contributed to the overall debt load of the lower middle and low income elements in society. Don't get me going on Wal Mart.

I really do wish that cuts for the rich and for businesses did create wealth for the rest of us, but as Porgy and Bess' devil said, "It ain't necessarily so..." Yes, there are isolated instances where something "works out right", but not for the majority.

Just as an aside, since the infrastructure and research/exploration have been so curtailed in recent decades, what effect did that have obn the cost of energy here in the US of A? Had the businesses "grown" and did their homework, would we all be paying in round figures over twice what we were paying two years or so back?

Respectfully....We are not that far apart in our thinking, it's just that finance is my stock and trade and I have "seen too much" to believe that Adam Smith is still alive and well.

[coloradoporsche]

When things go haywire in Utopia, you take your toys and go home. Thank you for playing. You actually lasted longer than I expected.

Dude, don't poke the bull. You won't win.

[fastpat]

Don't take this personally, but I'm finding this discussion of wealth realocation more than a little bit disgusting.

Last week, one of my favorite economists wrote an article on the bite the leviathan state takes from us all. The politics of jealousy play into the hand of state power, and help no one.

a short excerpt
The other day, a young economist named Mark Brandly did some speculative calculations on some possible unseen effects. He points out that from 1959 to 2005, the real GDP increased an average of 3.37% annually. Let's say that America's massive tax, regulatory, welfare, and warfare state decreased real economic growth by 1% per year - a very conservative estimate. GDP would be 55% higher than it is.

Even if we look at it statically, the median family income would be $68,000 instead of the $44,000 it is today. And if we eliminate the tax bite that takes 35% of income, the real increase would be much higher. What might have been done with that money? How much investment? How much savings? How much in wealth passed from generation to generation? We are talking about incredible amounts of lost wealth - losses in prosperity that we will never see.

It's clear, to me at least, that America needs a drastic change, and rearranging the deck chairs on the SS Sociatanic ain't going to help anything. Your proposals are more of the same tripe that's been foisted upon us for more than 74 years.

All of it needs to go.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by speeder
What voters are hungry for is a true conservative after the current disaster, but of course tabs knows this.

If we had one your party would be demanding somebody more moderate, sorta like Bush...There is no winning with Democrats. Their greed for power colors everything they do. If Bush was absolutely right on every policy decision he made, they would say he was wrong on every policy decision he has made. Sorta like now. There would be no change if Bush was perfect. Power is all that matters to the Democrats -- country, economy and safety be damned.

BTW...You lay down with Patsy's rhetoric ("blah blah blah...real conservative...blah blah blah") and you only come up stinking and infested with fleas.

[RoninLB]

Can the whole beltway till 2008 and put the military and bankers in charge till then.

[tabs]

Contray to popular belief I wan't "trolling" nor was I doing whatever Nostatus said I was interested in either...

I simply have gotten tire of Liberals bashing America...that we are soooo bad...If we are sooo bad what would U do to make make us sooo GOOD....

Well the political reality in the world is that the Liberals to make the BEAST work would be doing the same kind of ***** that they are complaining about...otherwise they would find themselves without a pot to pi$$ in....Mull came the closest the DEms aren't interested in making the US sooo Good but in having their snout back in the trough of the public treasury.

Now Pastys answers are great if your dealing in a unilateral world...but it ain't the case it takes two to tango..specifically with Free Trade and Tariffs...try and make the otherside play the game as U would like...that is what I would like to see.

If Patsy is right then the real decline in America started with LBJs GREAT SOCIETY...where nobody should be left behind/poor anymore in a country with such wealth...thats like trying to please everyone an impossibility that winds up pleasing no one...and in this case making everyone Broke..except for the very few... Leveling the field to accomadate everyone just doesn't work...

Patsy would argue FDR...FDR would be appalled by the system as we now know it...

Patsy would argue no govt...however there is a role for govt...one to act as a refree...to insure a more level playing field based upon rules..like having a Police Force to see that your Bank Accounts aren't looted with impunity...that the rules are adheard to...

The only way for the Repblic to survive is for the MONEY TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM....Both sides of the political system are bought by the same people.

The move in the last 60 years has been to make everyone in the world a US citizen...thus the American Empire....brought to your local area by McDonalds, Coca Cola, Philip Morris and Disney...and Wally World I suppose...backed by a Super Carrier off your coast if you don't want to play the game by our rules.

[john70t]

I have a naive question for the economists:
Doesn't the hoarding and protection of large sums of money by the super-wealthy take dollars out of circulation, therbye causing deflation and reduce future US manufacturing opportunities?
It seem contrary to some of the retoric.

[Scott at Pelican Parts]

Originally posted by john70t
I have a naive question for the economists:
Doesn't the hoarding and protection of large sums of money by the super-wealthy take dollars out of circulation, therbye causing deflation and reduce future US manufacturing opportunities?
It seem contrary to some of the retoric.

Unless they are hoarding the money in a trunk buried in the backyard, then

savings = investment