Posted on 07/17/2005 12:23:07 PM PDT by RWR8189
I've had the same experience (though not with a daughter-in-law, God help you!). I think the myth regarding Dems as better at economics than Repubs goes back to Herbert "Mr Depression" Hoover and Franklin "Happy Days Are Here Again" Roosevelt.
Congress will never cut the fat, because no one wants to give up their share of the pork. People scream about cutting spending, but when it comes to cutting their piece of the pork pie, they scream even louder. Take these base closings, everyone wants to cut Military spending, but not their bases. Go close someone else's base, not mine. As long as you have that mentality, we'll never cut spending. I'm sorry to say that that is the prevailing attitude.
This is the mentality of the Democrat's base. They never try to find out whether or not they are being lied to, they just assume that the Dems are giving them the truth. It's intellectual laziness of the first order. Fortunately, they are no longer in the majority. I have never been able to understand how the Dems can say such outrageously false things and expect the American people to believe their nonsense. It's because they believe all Americans are as ignorant as their supporters. Thank God they're wrong.
LOL! you've made me laugh demonically for the first time today.
Misunderestimated... again!
Oh yes, long before Ronald Reagan has to roll over.
One more time:
It's because they believe all Americans are as ignorant as their supporters.
Well said Yankereb.
BUMP
.
"Rule making for others,
..Rule breaking for herself" =
...HILLARY's Lifetime M.O.
...per MICHAEL BARONE on C-Span/1999
.
"In my own political migration from left to right, I have retained the same views on several issues: immigration (generally in favor), the general thrust of foreign policy (America is a force for good in the world), and federal budget deficits (they don't much matter). I noticed that the deficits of the 1960s and of the 1980s produced in part by the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts seemed to result in low-inflation economic growth. Every large organization carries debt and, as Hamilton understood, should do so, in order to maintain its capacity to borrow: If the federal government has debt, so does General Electric. The important question is not whether an organization has debt but whether it can service the debt at reasonable cost. There was an argument that debt service was getting too expensive for the federal government in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when budget deficits peaked at 6.0 percent of gross domestic product in 1983 and 4.7 percent in 1992 (although the deficits of the early 1990s, as noted, were inflated by the savings-and-loan crisis which was inherently temporary and nonrecurring). But the deficits in this decade were a much smaller share of GDP, peaking at 3.6 percent in 2004. The currently projected deficit of $333 billion for 2005 seems likely to be under 3 percent of GDP, a level at which the debt has proved readily serviceable over the years."
On this 'deficits don't matter much' he is (a) correct and (b) in agreement with supply-siders and VP Dick Cheney.
The fact is deficits matter, but they matter much less than the BIG things, like: What is our growth rate, what is the tax burden, and what is the spending increase rate? And lastly, what is total debt?
The fact is that if the deficit is 3% of GDP, inflation is 2% and the economy grows 3%, *then* the total debt/GDP ratio of 50% remains near to what it was (up .5%). We could have such deficits for a decade or two without too much harm.
At 50% debt/GDP, in fact, 1% deficits are permanently sustainable even under zero inflation and low growth.
If you have high economic growth and low increases in Govt spending, you have the ability to eventually end any deficit and pay off any debt.
More and more of the Left, the ones with half a brain, are jumping ship and being rescued by the Right...Those remaining on board are steering a Ghost Ship...
Her professor wasn't just liberal, he is an idiot.
I've had far left wing teachers who understand and support the laffer curve, even Paul Krugman gets it, they just disagree at what the tipping point is.
Leftists might argue its around 50%, and some claim its much higher. If her professor thinks the laffer curve is a sham, he should not be teaching anything to anyone, period.
Keynesians even grasp the curve, but debate its peak point.
There is only one senator that I know of, who has sworn not to bring home the bacon, and is anti pork for his own state.
Senator Tom Coburn.
Senator Fitzgerald was also like that, even filibustering an attempt to bring pork back to his state.
Obviously, he is no longer in the senate, and senator obbama now has his seat.
BUMP
Flat Tax"
AND
DEATH TO THE DEATH TAX!
It's Bush's fault!
Makes sense. When you carry a credit balance and service it properly according to agreed upon terms, you can build and maintain a high credit score.
I agree. However, we need to come up with a way to systematically "hold their feet to the fire" rather than relying on a groundswell of austerity each year when every inclination will be for them to spend.
For most of my adult life the conservatives I followed had two principles that seem dead now:
What I meant was that though both enjoy public support, either it has not proved fervent enough to overcome the legal challenges or the legislative hurdles that have been placed in its path.
Both parties are killing us, one faster than the other. GWB tax cut worked, but he negated it by passing the largest Prescription Drug program that will add trillions to our unfunded obligations (Social Security and Medicare) over the next ten years. At the rate we are going we can not afford to nuke Communist China, they are the second largest buyers of US Securities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.