Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
The way I see it, with this nation so divided, each party is going to attract candidates that stand for their parties stance. So.. The greater the polarity, the more extreme the party will be. I believe that scott is right.. I am a tea bagger at heart.. But the problem I have with the tea party leaders is that they are as Jim says.. God aweful.
This country is broken...Polarized... And un-repairable without serious and I mean serious austerity, which will never happen. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This country is broken...Polarized... And un-repairable without serious and I mean serious austerity, which will never happen. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Agree Nebe, serious austerity is needed now and the longer we wait the harder it will be, if at all possible. There is no reason why we need our noses wiped by anyone, unless we are truly helpless. Everyone needs to have skin in the game for an austerity program to work.
Unfortunately we are dealing with a ME Generation that is not willing to give up anything except hard work and sacrifice. I doubt there is any government agency that couldn't give up 10% of their budget if it was managed properly. That would be a good start.
Agree Nebe, serious austerity is needed now and the longer we wait the harder it will be, if at all possible. There is no reason why we need our noses wiped by anyone, unless we are truly helpless. Everyone needs to have skin in the game for an austerity program to work.
Unfortunately we are dealing with a ME Generation that is not willing to give up anything except hard work and sacrifice. I doubt there is any government agency that couldn't give up 10% of their budget if it was managed properly. That would be a good start.
Serious austerity has crippled many European economies. Federal spending like it or not has a big impact on GDP.
It's a component of it...saying Federal Spending has a big impact on GDP is misleading. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sure, there are a lot of components and Federal spending is a big one.
I think the CBO predicted that the Sequester -- which was a drop in the bucket some claimed -- would depress GDP 1.5% in 2013. Given that the difference between recession and strong growth is in the single digits that's a significant impact.
Sure, there are a lot of components and Federal spending is a big one.
I think the CBO predicted that the Sequester -- which was a drop in the bucket some claimed -- would depress GDP 1.5% in 2013. Given that the difference between recession and strong growth is in the single digits that's a significant impact.
-spence
If we rely so much on federal spending for GDP and if it is such a BIG component as you say...then we have a big problem. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Sure, there are a lot of components and Federal spending is a big one.
I think the CBO predicted that the Sequester -- which was a drop in the bucket some claimed -- would depress GDP 1.5% in 2013. Given that the difference between recession and strong growth is in the single digits that's a significant impact.
-spence
It's obvious, without debating abstruse theories (those academic discussion you like to disparage), that government spending has impacts, significant or otherwise. The important question is whether the impact is good or bad, short term or long term. As far as short term GDP goes, there is also the question of mirage or reality. GDP inflated by government spending which does not actually reflect organic economic growth is illusory and accompanied by a rising government debt. In the short term it may appear that so-called GDP has grown due to government spending due to raw numbers of dollars spent, but numbers adjusted to inflation and debt to GDP ratio may tell a different story, especially in terms of the long term economic health and government's credit reliability. The sequester (which was a bit of a mirage itself since only discretionary spending, not mandatory spending, was cut, and since actual spending would grow, just at a slightly smaller pace) would presumably have not only an illusory negative impact on GDP, but also a positive impact on debt to GDP ratio. Which would, supposedly, have a positive long term effect on growth.
But that's all academic. Besides, all that changes from election to election with future administrations cancelling their predecessors legislations and creating new ones. The trajectory consistently being growth of government debt and the debt to DGP ratio. Which leads to, as Piscator says, a big problem.
it was sequestration AND the changes "in certain tax provisions" AND 1/4% attributed to "other" factors that would cause the 1.5% in depressed GDP that Spence is referring to
february 28, 2013
The fiscal tightening in 2013 is mostly a result of two developments: the expiration of certain tax policies that will lead to an increase in tax revenue (relative to 2012, payroll tax rates are higher and tax rates on income above certain thresholds have increased); and the automatic spending reductions scheduled to occur under current law (the sequestration). In the absence of those policies, real GDP would grow about 1¼ percentage points faster between the fourth quarter of last year and the fourth quarter of this year, CBO estimates. (The remaining ¼ percentage point reduction in economic growth due to fiscal tightening comes from other, smaller changes in spending and taxes.) The expiration of those tax provisions and the automatic spending cuts account for about equal portions of that 1¼-percentage-point effect. The spending changes have a smaller budgetary impact than the tax changes, but they affect GDP by a larger amount per dollar of budgetary cost.
Nevertheless, although CBO expects that reducing the amount of fiscal tightening this year would strengthen the economy in the short term, the resulting increase in federal borrowing would weaken the economy in the longer term unless other changes in spending or tax policy were made to offset that additional borrowing.
we live from short term mirage to short term mirage digging the hole deeper and deeper
Serious austerity has crippled many European economies.
-spence
What do you consder Serious austerity cuts, and what were the European cuts?
A 10% cut would no more then knock out waste and I doubt it would
cause them to miss a beat.
Meantime Obama wants our citizens to cut our budgets. As he statedto a group of young people, they could cut some of the $300 monthly costs for their cells/computers/ and cable in order to help pay for their Unaffordable Health Care!
Talk about a hypocrite.
The way I see it, with this nation so divided, each party is going to attract candidates that stand for their parties stance. So.. The greater the polarity, the more extreme the party will be. I believe that scott is right.. I am a tea bagger at heart.. But the problem I have with the tea party leaders is that they are as Jim says.. God aweful.
This country is broken...Polarized... And un-repairable without serious and I mean serious austerity, which will never happen. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think if you were to attempt to name the "god-awful" Tea Party candidates, the list would be quite short, they'd be those that the media focused on intensely casting a shadow over the entire Tea Party effort in certain races and they most likely lost their races, which means they aren't in Washington doing harm....many "outstanding" candidates from both parties get elected and turn out to be "god awful" legislators and governors....then get re-elected for decades..I can name quite a few...can you name a "Tea Party leader" or two? and explain why exactly they are "god-awful"....I'm just curious to know exactly who it is that you find so much worse than the existing "god-awful" entrenched legislators and governors...it seems to me that the candidates for the most part, who were supported by various Tea party organizations that were successful in getting elected have been the enemy of both parties in Washington as well as the media exactly because they've insisted on holding the line on spending accountability and have been working against the establishment in that regard...for that they are demonized by the establishment and it's allies...and I believe they are the only "group" that can claim to be fighting for the things that many will tell you are wrong with the current system
I'd also suggest that the average "god-awful" candidate is most likely someone like you or me....the "outstanding" candidate is most likely a product of the corrupt system with all of the connections, media savy, ability to lie and deceive on a dime in front of the spotlight and during the pressure of a campaign...I think we have a Washington full of those, not sure why Jim thinks the Tea party should be looking for those....
the "ideal" candidate would be someone who understands and will reflect the concerns and needs on the different issues of the people that they want to be elected by, has some measure of honesty and integrity and considers their time in Washington or State office or local to be a privilege rather than an opportunity for self enrichment and is not beholden to special interests of the various kind to the extent that they will compromise their principles to fulfill the wishes of those special interests....sadly...few of those exist I think and those skills and qualities do not make for a "good" candidate in our current state of affairs...we choose candidates that are outside of the establishment like sports teams draft talent, you do your best to locate and promote someone with ability and skills who has had success at the previous level or in another endeavour, but you never know how they will hold up under the bright lights in the big game or during the rigors of a political campaign particularly going from local to national and you don't always know what they've said and/or done in the past or what they will say or do that may seized on by media and political rivals....it's a crap shoot many times, there are a lot of Heisman Trophy winners who never amounted to anything in the NFL and there are many who will never get beyond state and local races, but not because they don't have the ability or talent as in the sports analogy but because the skill set necessary to climb the ladder has little to do with their ability to govern or legislate and everything to do with their ability to project a superficial cult of personality and a willingness to follow a party line and conform to the desires of the special interests that fund their climb....they succeed or fail based on how the media judges their performance and on factors that have little to do with their abilities and everything to do with the ability and willingness to follow one party line or another...those that don't comply and display reverence for the corrupt system are labeled all sorts of things by the media and the establishment.... "crack pots"
I think if you were to attempt to name the "god-awful" Tea Party candidates, the list would be quite short, they'd be those that the media focused on intensely casting a shadow over the entire Tea Party effort in certain races and they most likely lost their races, which means they aren't in Washington doing harm....many "outstanding" candidates from both parties get elected and turn out to be "god awful" legislators and governors....then get re-elected for decades..I can name quite a few...can you name a "Tea Party leader" or two? and explain why exactly they are "god-awful"....I'm just curious to know exactly who it is that you find so much worse than the existing "god-awful" entrenched legislators and governors...it seems to me that the candidates for the most part, who were supported by various Tea party organizations that were successful in getting elected have been the enemy of both parties in Washington as well as the media exactly because they've insisted on holding the line on spending accountability and have been working against the establishment in that regard...for that they are demonized by the establishment and it's allies...and I believe they are the only "group" that can claim to be fighting for the things that many will tell you are wrong with the current system
I'd also suggest that the average "god-awful" candidate is most likely someone like you or me....the "outstanding" candidate is most likely a product of the corrupt system with all of the connections, media savy, ability to lie and deceive on a dime in front of the spotlight and during the pressure of a campaign...I think we have a Washington full of those, not sure why Jim thinks the Tea party should be looking for those....
the "ideal" candidate would be someone who understands and will reflect the concerns and needs on the different issues of the people that they want to be elected by, has some measure of honesty and integrity and considers their time in Washington or State office or local to be a privilege rather than an opportunity for self enrichment and is not beholden to special interests of the various kind to the extent that they will compromise their principles to fulfill the wishes of those special interests....sadly...few of those exist I think and those skills and qualities do not make for a "good" candidate in our current state of affairs...we choose candidates that are outside of the establishment like sports teams draft talent, you do your best to locate and promote someone with ability and skills who has had success at the previous level or in another endeavour, but you never know how they will hold up under the bright lights in the big game or during the rigors of a political campaign particularly going from local to national and you don't always know what they've said and/or done in the past or what they will say or do that may seized on by media and political rivals....it's a crap shoot many times, there are a lot of Heisman Trophy winners who never amounted to anything in the NFL and there are many who will never get beyond state and local races, but not because they don't have the ability or talent as in the sports analogy but because the skill set necessary to climb the ladder has little to do with their ability to govern or legislate and everything to do with their ability to project a superficial cult of personality and a willingness to follow a party line and conform to the desires of the special interests that fund their climb....they succeed or fail based on how the media judges their performance and on factors that have little to do with their abilities and everything to do with the ability and willingness to follow one party line or another...those that don't comply and display reverence for the corrupt system are labeled all sorts of things by the media and the establishment.... "crack pots"
by God awful, I don't mean ideologically pure. By God-awful, I mean completely unelectable, like the witch that got nominated for the Senate.
Hybrid Mode
