Why Democrat?

“Interesting points raised.

With reference to term limits, while it seems like a good solution to creating "career" politicians, when have these in CA and for the most part, people are realizing they are poor for government. The learning curve on lots of big issues is very steep and with such a short time in office, but the time the politicians start to have a grasp of the issues, they are termed out. What this creates is an uneducated voting body which can be very dangerous.”

“Roseymonster, I am glad your politicians have a learning curve in California. Here is Illinois, all they learn is all the gimicks to get re-elected. We have some truely double diget I.Q. politicians who could spend a lifetime in politics and not learn enough to cast a sensible vote. I'm for term limits. Let the politicians worry about running the government and not creating a system of favors for special interest groups to insure their re-election.

The definition of a conservative is a liberal who was mugged the night before.”

“The only problem I see with term limits is that the pols will have to do bigger favors earlier in their careers to be set for life once they return to the private sector.”

“"Conservatives like to tax the crap out of you and pass the money to the companies that have paid the most hoping for a trickle down"

Got to disagree with that one donman. A true "conservative" is always in favor of less government. At least the Pubs did the right thing by lowering taxes. They had to work pretty hard to get pasts the Dems who were kicking and screaming for any excuse not to give up any money. I'm not a huge Pub fan, but at least they did the right thing while the Dems tried to create resentments and class-war.

It's not just the career politicians that bother me but the career bureaucrats as well. The more money congress takes from us helps to build more government programs. More programs mean more bureaucrats and their stupid turf wars. Pretty soon you get duplication of services because these fools refuse to share information. The politics of large organizations is an interesting dynamic. Protecting and expanding turf become as important to these people as any mission statement of service. It is human nature for most people to feel more comfortable with those who share their ideas. Bosses feel threatened by people with new ideas and tend to promote people who a$$-ki$$ and use the same buzzwords du jour as they do. Women have complained about a good ol’ boy network for years. This bureaucratic mentality is largely responsible.

Two things I am sure of: I have a choice of whether to buy a product from a company and support them. I have a choice to vote for people who will reduce taxes, thus taking money away from a bloated system that will be forced to better manage, and prioritize, it’s services.



“I believe that there should be NO retirement package (other than 401k) for politicians, I believe that just like any other job there should be "sick" days and ANY politicians that seems to be "working" the system be outed! “

Amen to that one donman. I couldn’t agree more.”

“Arclite, my man, I have not responded seriously to your attempts to stir controversy on this thread mainly because I do not identify with the Democratic Party. I will, however, take exception to anyone who makes themselves an apologist for the rich, as if they are an endangered species.
Following your line of argumentation, there are those in congress whose sole purpose is to tax the wealthy into poverty. I don't see this happening any time soon, do you? I do see some mistaken ideology being purported on both sides of the argument of the role of government. I do believe in providing a safety net for our fellow countrymen, should they need it, not just a safety net for large corporations.
The other fallacy that you put forth is that conservatives want smaller government. HA, HA, HA....... If you look at how much BIGGER the federal government is going to be after GW is out of office, your head will swim. Happened with the conservatives version of god, also, (Ronald Reagan).
The knee-jerk reaction to starve the public sector is as mistaken as allowing the government unlimited growth.
If liberals equal "tax and spend", then conservatives equal "spend and spend" preferring to defer the payment to our children and grandchildren.”

“If liberals equal "tax and spend", then conservatives equal "spend and spend" preferring to defer the payment to our children and grandchildren."
Dunadan
12:29:44 PM
07/26/02


Amen. MP”

“Arc?”

“Must be out in the back yard burying all of his hard-earned wealth.”

“Thanks for that, rosey. Damn near dropped my welfare check when I read that!”

“You have to be really bad to have fellow politicians not want to hang with you. Why are Democracts the only ones expelled in the U.S. House of Representatives?

James Traficant (D-Ohio) expelled 2002
Michael Myers (D-PA.) expelled 1980
Adam Powell Jr. (D-NY) expelled 1967
John Reid (D-MO) expelled 1861
Henry Burnett (D-KY) expelled 1861
John Clark (D-MO.) expelled 1861”

“Good point, Prosecutor. And to balance that out, why are all of the CEO's who have recently been caught stealing from the American public registered Republicans?”

“1861? LOL”

“Dunadan, the reason why most of the CEO that have got caught are republicans is because the democrats who steal are so experienced at it they are harder to catch.”

“I think the reverse is true. Republicans are so good, that they know how to catch the Democrats!”

“i have to pee”

“AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! ! !!”

“"Dunadan, what does party identification have to do with your responses? Can’t you join a discussion about deterrents to criminal actions without identifying with a political party? You cannot add any intelligence to my pot-stirring lunacy without indentifying with a party? You consider me an apologist for the wealthy? Your train of logic completely evades me.

The “wealthy” need no apologists. How wealthy are you talking about, Dunadan? The media and politicians overuse that word, then sheep pick up the chant. I use that description because the Democrats have used the phrase, “Tax cuts for the wealthy” as an excuse not to lower taxes. I have never felt the need to apologize for the wealthy; they pay the overwhelming bulk of our taxes. How you reached the conclusion that I am an “apologist for the wealthy” is a leap of logic. Shall we run a syllogism on that leap?

“Following your line of argumentation…” Which logical argument would that be Dunadan? I believe that there are those, not just in congress but in the general populace, who have resentments and believe that people with more money than they have owe them something. I believe that many people look to other people as the root of their psychological problems about security. I believe that prejudice is alive and well in many people from all economic spectrums. I abhor finger pointing and lack of personal responsibility. How could you have arrived at the proposition that I believe, “…there are those in congress whose sole purpose is to tax the wealthy into poverty.” That conclusion does not follow any line of logic with which I am familiar and does indeed make it difficult to “responded seriously.” That is taking my ideas and exaggerating them beyond all sense.

I do not see “…some mistaken ideology being purported on both sides of the argument of the role of government. “ This is because I am not convinced that I know the answers. I like discussion of complex issues. I usually learn something. I believe that it may be a lack of logical reasoning skills that makes people sometimes get a fear/anger response when discussing politics. Many people allow themselves to be sucked into an, “I’m right and you’re wrong” mentality. Many people have a hard time admitting that they may not have all of the answers. It reminds me of any educational class where many people are afraid to raise their hands to ask questions. They believe others will think them stupid. You can practically hear the audible sighs when someone asks a question that really has been bothering so many of them. Why is it so important for many people to feel as if they are right, that they already know the answers? Why is it important for them to feel that they give the outward appearance of such? I enjoy listening to people discuss their beliefs because I am an ignorant man. I try not to pretend differently.

I don’t believe that Bush is a true “economic conservative”, Dunadan. I think he has a mixed bag of policies intended to appeal to a wide range of voters. Do you not think that current world circumstances may have played a part in our expansion of government, Dunadan? Homeland Security is a mighty appealing idea to a wide range of voters. Does anyone have any figures on the growth rates of government during different administrations? “Conservative” ideology talks about reducing government. “Liberal” ideology does not.

Not being an economist, I cannot purport to have complete knowledge of how economies run most efficiently. But most people, who I know, with an understanding of economic systems, tend to be “economically conservative” in their bent. What little I have read points me in an “economically conservative” direction. I would have hoped that my pot stirring would have generated more than your “I know you are but what am I” response: “If liberals equal “tax and spend”, then conservatives equal “spend and spend”… I suppose I got what I deserved. I would agree that some “conservative” environmental policies seem to defer payment to our children and grandchildren, but I am not expert enough to determine the long-term effects of the economic policies of our politicians. Because these policies keep changing with each new administration I would think they would be hard to measure accurately. I do know for certain that Republicans succeeded in lowering our taxes while the Democrats fought them every step of the way. The only way to reduce the size of government is to reduce its source of revenue.”

“For your information, rosey, I do not bury all of my hard-earned wealth out in the back yard. I use it for kindling and toilet paper. Since I certainly don't have any use for it all, that's the only way I can be sure that nobody else gets to use it. Bwaaaaahahahahah (evil sounding)!”

“The only way to reduce the size of government is to reduce its source of revenue."
arclite
12:19:15 PM
07/28/02

Arc, I followed your brilliant argument with some interest. I felt that your thoughts deserved merit and were logically sound.

Why in the world did you cap your statement with such a ludicrous endin? I have yet to see any correlation between reductions in tax and reductions in government.

Did Reagan's tax cuts reduce spending? Or, I ask, did it increase the amount we had to borrow?”

“OK, Arc, I'm going to type this real slow so that you can follow along.
1. I refuse to quote your words back to you. I trust that you can either remember them or look back to your previous posts.
2. In response to paragraph one. I do believe it was you who began this thread with the title "Why Democrat", which does not stir me mightily. Thus my lack of urgency in taking up an argumentative position. I have enjoined the discussion without mention of my political affiliation. Why do you ask?
3. Paragraph two. I agree. I won't be a sycophant for the wealthy. I suggest that your posts could easily be interpreted as such.
4. You don't have any resentments against those who would have the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes? Why don't you take the time to read your posts?
I doubt if there are many in this country who would, personally, not enjoy paying less taxes. Sign me up. However, I do feel incredibly grateful to be able to live as a middle class citizen and live in the manner that I do. What are the truly wealthy complaining about?
5. Why is it that when "conservatives" want to "streamline" government, it rarely includes creating an efficient and small FBI or CIA or Pentagon? Many of those who would call themselves "conservative" are very aggressive when it comes to cutting social programs, but turn a blind eye to the military or FBI or CIA. Are these organizations as sacrosanct? Why are we so quick to create a "Super Agency" that will be much bigger and much more expensive, (that translates into TAXES), when we could reform the agencies that we have already for much less money? I guess you believe in paying a lot of taxes.
6. There are few, conservative or liberal, who would tell you that there need not be some regulatory agencies run by the government to protect the people for whom government exists. The House and the Senate are passing legislation almost unanimously to regulate the market at this very moment. Government is a necessary part of our lives. I suggest that government could do a much better job and cost less to do so, but not until the vast majority of people begin to participate in government. Until then, both "conservatives" and "liberals" in will continue to belly up to the trough.
7. Deferring debt to the coming generations is easy to understand. Going deeper into debt, while at the same time cuttting taxes, leaves debt to be payed at a later date.
I'm looking forward to your next post.”

“the purpose of the government is to defend the people and adjudicate disputes, not pay artist, or to study worms, or to teach political correctness. i want a strong defence(fbi,pentagon) it's their main job.


the constitution is designed to limit the government's power over the poeple, not the other way around.


rich people pay my bills every month, cuz i works for them. they make the world go round & i'm glad they are here. strangle them & you strangle all of us. i remember when clinton came in & raised taxes on the "wealthy", many of my "rich" clients dropped my services(and others) to compensate. it's like when they decided to make a yacht tax, figuring that people who could afford yachts could afford the extra taxes. well, losta of yacht builders lost their jobs cuz they quit buying them. that's trikle down, works either way.


democrats(learders) are only interested in one thing.....power. they play the class envy card to stir up people's greed & get votes. it's all about votes. they generate dependancy & fear, making themselves the savior.
vote for me, i'll give you that guys money!”

“Nothing like having a lawyer in the audience to keep me honest about my EXACT wording. Let me say that reducing revenue is one way to reduce government. It is certainly more effective than the status quo the Dems were pushing (through class envy, exactly).

I'll respond to your post later, Dun. Let me just post some interesting thoughts from economists:

Growth in the Real Size of Government since 1970

in Claremont Colleges Working Papers from Claremont Colleges
Thomas E. Borcherding, J. Stephen Ferris (stephen_ferris@carleton.ca) and Andrea Garzoni

Abstract: From at least 1893 economists have viewed income as an important determinant of government size and the hypothesis that government size increases with income is now enshrined in the literature as Wagner’s Law. More recently, however, public choice economists and growth theorists have tended to reverse that causality by questioning whether government size is a constraint on (or promulgator of) economic growth. Typically, increases in government size arising from increased consumption are viewed as constraints on growth, while increases in size that arise from government investment are viewed as positive in their effect on growth. In this paper we are concerned with the two-way interrelationship between government size and income growth highlighted by these separate literatures and investigate this relationship in three distinct stages. In the first part of the paper we set out what has actually happened to the real size of government for twenty OECD countries over the period since 1970 and survey some of the newer factors and approaches used to explain its more recent evolution. The second part re-estimates the parameters of the demand curve for government allows us to speculate whether the changing pattern of government growth represents a break in the structure of the model determining government size or, more simply, represents a change in the variation of the underlying variables. We find that the same model works at least as well as it did in earlier periods with coefficients that are close to their earlier estimates. We follow this by estimating a simple growth model that highlights the size of government consumption in relation to income and output growth for the same countries over the same time period. Increases in size do appear to constrain economic growth. The third part of our paper recognizes that while each of the two causal relationships has received considerable attention in their own right, less attention has been given to effecting a separation of their co-mingled effects. To do so, we estimate the two relationships simultaneously in the context of our panel. This allows us assess whether ignoring the simultaneity of the two-way relationship seriously biases the measure of either the income effect (in determining government size) and/or the measure of government’s effect on economic growth when each are estimated separately. While our discussion suggests that single equation estimates of the income elasticity in Wagner’s Law may have been biased upwards (in absolute terms) and the constraining effect of government size on growth biased downwards, our three stage estimates finds only modest support in the data. The paper concludes by exploring the interrelationship between government size and government regulation. In particular, we test the hypothesis that the appearance of slower growth in government side is due to the increased substitution of indirect control of private production for direct governmental output. On cross sectional data, we find the opposite. In our sample, larger government size is associated with more rather than less regulation.


Also, this was interesting:

Government Size”

“Is there going to be a test on this later?”

“Your Government Size link was really quite interesting, arc. I'm surprised.

Like the 'Laffer Curve', it remains to be proven where we lie on the 'Armey Curve' but this was a pretty good attempt. Reducing human behavior to statistical analysis is fraught with hazard.

A few interesting points made in the text are that the growth of our national debt seems to have a negative impact on the long-term health of the economy and that we should probably be spending more on education, highways, the environment, agriculture and foreign aid (from an economic growth standpoint). I think you inadvertently answered your original 'Why Democrat?' question.”

“I read it, Arc. Now I really don't understand why the conservatives have pinned all of their ideologies on one knee-jerk reaction; namely tax cuts. Wealth generation requires a public/private effort. Why do the so-called "conservatives" bad mouth the government with their hands held out?”

“I got yer test right here, chili: Who's going to win the Tenn/Fla game? You better get this one right or you're going to feel real bad.



"I'm surprised"? "I'm surprised"? Well thats a fine how-d-do from Mr. smart-butt NJ boy. I does me some lernin' ever now an' then ya know. I'm not sure how you came up with, " spending more on education, highways, the environment, agriculture and foreign aid (from an economic growth standpoint)." I don't read those specifics from either paper. And I already have some good ideas on why someone would be a Democrat. I don't think any questions have been answered yet. Now don't go spoiling my fun, son.



Dunadan, I’ve addressed your post according to the numbers you used. Each number before a paragraph corresponds to the number on your post.

2. Titling the thread, “Why Democrat” was an obvious ploy to get people’s attention. Surely you are familiar with my baiting techniques by now. But just because I didn’t hook you with the thread title is absolutely no excuse not to contribute to some of the discussions here. Chili and I had a discussion about crime and punishment that has absolutely nothing to do with party affiliation. Any of these issues can be discussed without having to identify with one particular party. As roseymonster so eloquently pointed out, I have an obsession to discuss the issue of why the Democrats fought so hard not to cut taxes.

I believe that the issue of why the Democrats fought so hard not to cut taxes goes to the core of denial of anyone who thinks the Democrats want to reduce government spending. Yes the Republicans may increase the size of government during a perceived crisis, but this is not the philosophy of the true “economic conservative.” I also wanted to explore why more people don’t change their affiliations to third parties. The issue has not come up. Heck, none of the so-called “liberals” here would even admit that the Democrats used people’s resentments, prejudice, and fear as a tool of persuasion in order to convince people that their position not to lower taxes was justified. This truth is obvious to the “conservatives” here.

Many people tie their egos to their party affiliation. Say that their party made a mistake and many people take it as a personal attack. This anger/fear reaction often makes it hard for people to admit that their party may have made mistakes. Cutting taxes is an effective way to reduce government spending. Most people will not stand for the kinds of debts this country rang up before the Republican controlled congress was able to pass a balanced budget amendment. Going back on their word would probably effect Republicans about the same way as it effected George B. the First, when he promised “No new taxes” and then went back on his word. We’ll see come election time.

2. What exactly does your question, “Why do you ask?” mean? I have not asked your political affiliation.

3. It is obvious that you took them this way. It is this type of illogical misinterpretation that leads to so many horrible consequences in this world. Next time, if you have a problem with the interpretation, just ask the speaker to better explain what they are saying.

3. Even if you were to take a position defending a group of people that you thought were getting a bad rap by a group of bigots trying to stir up class envy, you wouldn’t necessarily be a sycophant. Nasty word that one.

4. It is a known fact that, if we are not careful, we tend to view other people’s responses through our own frame of reference. Hopefully, most people are aware of this. Yet this type of thinking is also responsible for many of the misunderstandings that lead to so many horrible consequences in this world. I picture bacpac as someone who is mostly having a lot of fun as he proposes his provocative posts. Some people take him very seriously. It is unwise for me to come to conclusions about the emotional state of someone whose words I am reading over the Internet.

4. That’s a buzz phrase, Dunadan. “Fair share of taxes” is a phrase I often hear coming from the Democratic Party. Is it fair for a clothing store to ask how much I earn and charge me for my shirts according to that figure? Is it fair for a plumber to charge me for his services according to my income? My credit card companies know my income, as does my mortgage lender. Would it be fair for them to charge me an interest rate that is proportional to my income? What if the automobile dealer gave a car to somebody without one and charged me for it? I think everyone can agree that having a car would improve that person’s life. What if the automobile dealership gave me no choice as to who they gave a car? What if it were the automobile dealership that determined who was worthy to receive this car? What if they did this every year and sent me the bill? Is this a “fair” system to you, Dunadan? I am not asking you to extrapolate Dunadan. I am asking you to answer these specific questions.

4. Actually, Dunadan, I don’t hear people with comfortable incomes complaining nearly as loudly as I hear “liberals” complaining about “the wealthy” not paying their “fair share of taxes.”

5. This is not so much an indictment on “economic conservatives” as it is the Republican Party. I wouldn’t sarcastically call those actions “streamline.” I think that it is totally ridiculous to create a Homeland Security cabinet level post and not include the CIA and FBI under its jurisdiction. But that is just my opinion.

6. Do you suppose that many of the people who are so positively voicing the need for regulation understand economics? Do you think they have an understanding of what kind of regulation is needed? Reporting stock options as a company expense sounds like a reasonable start to me. What type of regulations would you suggest?

7. I have heard many interesting views on short-term government debt. From what I understand, short-term debt does not alarm me. But my understanding of this issue is not complete so I will not make any positive proclamations about the exact nature of the dire economic effect of government debt.”

“arc -

I quote from your linked article:

"Interest payments on the national debt, actually another form of transfer payments, seem to have a negative impact. A simple negative-linear relationship between interest payments and output is marginally significant (at the 10 percent level), whereas the Armey Curve relationship is highly significant. The only category of federal spending, which shows some positive relationship with output, is the "other" category, a residual category that includes such things as educational, highway, environmental, agricultural, and foreign aid spending."

You've got two number 4s in your above post. *snicker*”

“#&%!$. That's two number 3s and three 4s!”

“arc, to some extent, you sound like Howard Dean of Vermont.”

“As Prosecutor stated on 7/26:

James Traficant (D-Ohio) expelled 2002
Michael Myers (D-PA.) expelled 1980
Adam Powell Jr. (D-NY) expelled 1967
John Reid (D-MO) expelled 1861
Henry Burnett (D-KY) expelled 1861
John Clark (D-MO.) expelled 1861"

I'm thinking we may be able to add Sen. Robt. Torricelli (D-NJ) to that list....”

“Because the King Bush/ Cheney / Rumsfeld / Ashcroft team suck.”

“Good eye, violin. I missed that even on my second scan. So how come it took you two posts to figure out that I had three responses to Dunadan’s #4 post? Will it take you another couple of posts to figure out that I have two responses to #2 and two responses to #3? I say, I say, boy…you bring me up then let me down.



Don’t know how I missed such an obvious thing. I suppose I was more concerned about reading these (four) excerpts, violin:

1. Government has an essential role to play in a free and open society. Its average contribution is positive; but I believe that the marginal contribution of going from 15% of the national income to 50% has been negative.....

1. Furthermore, additional empirical work below suggests that the optimal size of government may well be smaller than 17.45 percent.

1. We estimated equation (2) for many different categories of spending. Literally scores ofregressions were run, and in the interests of readability and efficiency the results are summarized in Table 2. Beginning with income maintenance or entitlement programs which currently dominate the federal budget, we generally see the existence of an Armey Curve, or, worse, a persistent negative spending-output relationship. The broadest measure of transfer payment spending, incorporating income security, health, medicare, and social security, shows both a statistically significant Armey Curve and a statistically significant linear negative relationship. It may well be that when this broad category of spending was relatively small (say, less than 3 percent of GDP, which was the case before 1958), further expansion had some modestly positive effects, but that those effects are dominated by the negative effects of expansion once these programs became large (first passing 10 percent of GDP in 1982). The Armey Curve analysis suggests that these transfer payment programs reached their optimal size from an output maximization perspective at about 7.33 percent of GDP, about the level reached in 1974. … Since total spending on these transfer payment programs now approximates 11.5 percent of GDP, this analysis suggests that about these payments exceed the growth optimization point by about 4.2 percentage points of GDP (currently somewhere around $350 billion annually). This gap is more than the total gap between actual total federal government spending (as a percent of GDP) - about 20 percent - and that amount that would maximize output (17.4 percent of GDP, using the 1947-97 data and the original model). Thus, the evidence seems to suggest that the problem of excessive government growth in the postwar era is a problem relating to entitlements and income transfers. There is a distinct Armey Curve relationship observable with respect to income security programs (AFDC, food stamps, etc.).

1. All of this suggests that from the standpoint of enhancing the growth in the production of goods and services, a budget strategy would:
1) reduce federal expenditure growth in general below that of total output growth, thereby reducing the claim that federal spending makes on total output;
2) place particular emphasis on containing transfer payments, stopping their growth relative to income and output. These results support the arguments of persons advocating limiting the growth of entitlements.
3) the maintenance of balanced budgets would appear to be useful, inasmuch as that would reduce net interest payments of the federal government as a percent of GDP over time.


Which all talk about the ONE obvious fact that BEFORE we go increasing spending on the positive relationships, we ought to REDUCE existing spending.”

“I concur with arc that existing spending should be reduced. However, the problem lies in where the cuts should be made.

IMHO, a major issue defining "Democrat" and "Republican" positions is the relative spending for social programs and defense.

The Democrats would cut one and boost the other. The Republicans would take the reverse position.

In order for budget reductions to occur, we have to reduce the "big ticket" items. Perhaps the best way to reduce expenditures is to increase efficiency in all of our programs. Governmental agencies basically operate under the premise that the checkbook will remain open and there is little or no consideration for streamlined operations. Conversely, in the corporate world, every department is faced with a two fold mission, consistent growth in income and operation within the budget.

I think the OMB had done some good work on a sporadic basis. However, our government works on the "good ole boy" system (for the most part). If you want a high level job with any agency or Department, you are going to need to know someone to get it. If the OMB paid salaries competitive with the corporate world, and the "politics" were removed, I feel that the positions would most likely be filled with the same caliber of people who drive corporate America. Without this type of due diligence, our chances of getting streamlined are remote, at best.

I have yet to see any party take a serious, consistent position of "Let's do more with less". Increased effeciencies and smarter spending would result in having the same level of service (be it military or social programs) with less dollars.

While I agree that we need to reduce spending, I am convinced that we can do that without a massive reduction in services where they are needed.”

“I agree that we should be able to do more with less. My job brings me in contact with a number of governmental agencies and while some work as efficiently as any private business (probably better than many), some are basically run as patronage machines. That is a huge waste of resources.

While I could be classified as a 'liberal' on many social issues, I am a fiscal conservative. The deficit spending of the Republicans is highly irresponsible in my opinion. Even Chairman Greenspan cautioned that the tax cuts should be repealed if they resulted in a deficit.

The arguments you have cited, arclite, assume that government should be run so as to promote wealth maximization at the exclusion of all other goals such as social justice or fairness. I'm not sure that is an assumption that is universally shared. The economic model developed in the ‘Armey Curve’ discussion does not take these other legitimate goals into account.”

“Violin, I strongly agree with your second paragraph.”

“republican spam
just the same old pork in a
fancier new can

democratic spam
business is as usual
blind leading the blind”

“Did we lose arclite again? I was pretty sure I was about to be labeled a socialist for arguing that social justice and fairness were legitimate social goals.”

“Oh, somehow, I feel assured that he is deep in the bowels of the library, digging up some more ammunition.”

“Funny choice of words regarding his location.”

“Chili, violin, are you guys subtly suggesting that, due to my absence, I must have made an appointment with that cranial-proctologist that you guys go to? I wouldn’t dare do that until I had consulted with you both. I wouldn’t want to take up the valuable appointment time that you schedule for yourselves and YO MAMAS!

Violin, I have not been arguing “that government should be run so as to promote wealth maximization at the exclusion of all other goals…” Social justice and fairness? Do you mean the kind of social justice and fairness that our legal system delivers? I would argue that creating the opportunity for economic wellbeing is fair and socially just. What types of social justice and fairness do you think we should strive for while doing more with less? I’m sure we could have a long discussion about that, but that has not been my point.

I too agree that deficit spending by the Republicans is irresponsible. The Democrat controlled Senate recently passed a defense/security bill for $355 billion after the Bush administration asked for a little over $200 billion. The Republican controlled House recently approved a $320 billion prescription drug benefit bill. It is running into opposition in the Senate because the Democrats don’t think that’s enough. Congress has not yet passed any of the 13 bills, currently before them, keeping government agencies functioning. The two parties are arguing because the Democrat controlled Senate wants to spend $11 billion more than the Bush administration and the Republican controlled House. These are current events.

The point that I have been arguing is for smaller more-efficient government. I have been arguing that of the two largest political parties in this country, the Republicans have done a better job than the Democrats in achieving this goal. It is a very simple proposition.

The facts are these: 1. A Republican controlled Congress was able to pass a balanced budget amendment after years of deficit spending by a Democrat controlled Congress. 2. A Republican controlled Congress was able to pass tax cuts effectively taking revenue away from the government and putting it back into the hands of the citizens. 3. Of the two spending packages going through Congress, the Democrat sponsored package includes far more spending the Republican package, leading to greater deficit spending. The Democrats can now blame the large deficit on the Republican administration because there are people in this country who believe that the executive branch controls spending.



Violin, I’d like to address your comment that, “Mr. Greenspan opposed tax cuts.” Here are two articles that show Greenspan’s cautionary comments about tax cuts.

By Katherine Hobson
ABCNEWS.com from TheStreet.com
June 28, 1999 — Does Alan Greenspan have something against lower taxes?
When the Fed chairman testified before the House of Representatives last week, and again before the Senate today, he didn’t directly criticize the 10-year, $792 billion tax cut plan eventually passed by the House.
But he did drop a strong hint that he doesn’t think it’s a good idea — not now.
Greenspan said that ongoing progress to pay off the national debt (which is owed to everyone who holds U.S. Treasury securities) is “an extraordinarily effective force for good in this economy,” and that his first priority would be to continue to rack up annual budget surpluses.
A tax cut package, meantime, could be kept in the holster for when and if the economy starts to falter and needs a shot in the arm.
Tax Cut Means More Spending
Economists said that it’s not that Greenspan is philosophically opposed to a tax cut — far from it. In fact, he’s a champion of smaller government. “Given the choice between spending more money [on government programs] or cutting taxes, his preference is for lower taxes,” says Douglas Lee, chief economist with HSBC Washington Analysis.
But Greenspan has also spent the last dozen years battling inflation, and he knows all too well what Americans do when they get a little serendipitous cash in their back pockets. “Whether they get more money because of a pay raise or a tax cut or a winning lottery ticket, they tend to spend it,” says Lee.
Higher consumer spending can speed up growth, and when the economy is already humming along at a fast clip, that raises fears of inflation: when consumer demand for goods and services outpaces supply, and prices rise.
U.S. Economy Still Looks Strong
A lack of inflation, and the accompanying low interest rates, is what’s helped keep the economy humming for so many years, says Kathleen Camilli, director of economic research at Tucker Anthony. “That’s done tremendous good in making the consumer wealthier,” says Camilli.
And while Greenspan seemed willing to save tax cuts for a rainy day, it’s still pretty sunny in the U.S. The economy grew at a 4.3 percent rate during the first quarter, while economists expect the government will say on Thursday that the economy expanded at a 3.4 percent rate during the second quarter.
A tax cut on top of that kind of growth “would be like pouring gasoline on a fire,” says Camilli, essentially signaling to the Fed that higher interest rates are needed.
Moreover, it’s important to demonstrate to foreign investors that the U.S. is serious about reducing its debt and focusing on savings and investment, she says. And the tax plan relies on predictions about the economy that may or may not come true.
Greenspan, Conservatives Differ
To be sure, many proponents of a tax cut say that fear of a Fed rate increase is no reason not to get rid of provisions like the marriage tax penalty.
“We view tax policy as something that should be motivated by … a fair, simple, efficient tax code that will maximize the economy’s long-term potential,” says Dan Mitchell, tax economist with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
The proposal passed by the House includes an across-the-board cut of 10 percent on individual rates, a cut in the maximum tax on capital gains for individuals from 20 percent to 15 percent, a cut in the maximum tax on capital gains for corporations from 35 percent to 30 percent, and a phaseout of the estate tax.
The plan being taken up by the Senate this week also totals $792 billion, but includes extra tax breaks for retirement savings like IRAs and 401(k) plans, in addition to lower individual rates.
It’s difficult to predict with any certainty what consumers will do if taxes go down. “If the price of macaroni and cheese goes up by 25 percent, people buy less, but we don’t know … how much less,” says Mitchell.
Ultimately, Mitchell believes that the current tax code penalizes people who save, since it levies taxes on investment gains and estates. He says an overhaul to remove those penalties will encourage saving.
Greenspan, a free market enthusiast, would likely agree, but in his current job, he’d rather err on the side of caution: keep funneling the surplus towards paying off the debt, and save tax cuts for when they’re really needed.

February 23, 2000
Greenspan said the reasons behind recent “tax surprises” that have overstuffed government coffers during the economic boom in recent years are not entirely understood by economists yet. Therefore, it is difficult to predict whether they will persist.
For that reason, he said he believes using surpluses to pay down the national debt is the best thing lawmakers can do for now.
Until surplus projections are more certain, Greenspan said, “I’ve argued that we should allow the surpluses run and ... reduce the debt outstanding.”
However, if political pressures on lawmakers to use surpluses are too great, the Fed chairman said, he would prefer a tax cut over new spending programs.
President Clinton’s final budget projects that the $3.7 trillion publicly held portion of the $5.7 trillion national debt could be eliminated by 2013, making the government free of debt to the public for the first time since 1835, when Andrew Jackson was president.
Clinton has also proposed extensive new government programs, however, including an expansion of Medicare to include prescription drug coverage. Republicans, meanwhile, are pushing for large tax cuts.

This was before tax cuts were enacted and the economy was doing well. Greenspan had some fiscally conservative reasons for his caution. Would you say that these were the reasons that the fiscally conservative and responsibly cautious Democrats had in mind when they opposed tax cuts? If so they did a terrible job of articulating their reasons. Why do you think all of the fiscally conservative Democrats on this thread have not mentioned these reasons? If I were to believe both you and chili, I would come to the conclusion that the Democrats and Republicans have equally extravagant spending habits but different priorities. I would have been much more inclined to agree with you before the balanced budget amendment, the passage of tax cuts, and the current spending packages being debated in Congress.


Here are two articles from a later date that show Greenspan’s endorsement of tax cuts before they were enacted. I believe this endorsement came as the economy was slowing. Notice Daschle’s comment in the second article.

January 25, 2001
Greenspan: Debt Reduction AND Tax Cuts
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan endorsed tax cuts at a Senate hearing today, modifying his long-held stance that the single best use for burgeoning federal surpluses is paying down the national debt, according to Reuters.
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan keynoted the Cato Institute's 18th annual Monetary Conference this year. His comments are available online. The newly released Cato Handbook for Congress also calls for drastic tax cuts.
In "Return the Surplus to Those Who Earned It," Doug Bandow writes that the individual tax burden is huge and giving it back to workers would be a boon to the economy. "Cutting taxes would also be the right thing to do. People are paying too much for too little. The budget is larded with pork, unnecessary programs, special interest subsidies and blatant waste."


Oct 3, 2001
Greenspan gave his blessing during a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill in an effort to boost a sagging economy severely disrupted by the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Although disputes over specifics are expected to arise, a final package will likely include more tax cuts that could take effect before the end of the year. Policy-makers aim to keep consumers confident and spending, and prevent corporate balance sheets from further unraveling.

"We are borrowing money to provide this stimulus and people ought to know that," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. "This is deficit spending once again and it's very disconcerting to many of us, but I don't know that there is an alternative."
Separately, a coalition of union leaders and lawmakers today called on Congress to pass airline relief legislation to help the 120,000 people in the airline industry who have lost or will lose their jobs.
While the government has signed off on $15 billion in aid to the airlines, little if any of the money is earmarked for the pilots, flight attendants, baggage handlers, skycaps and other personnel who will lose their livelihood.
"It was inequitable that Congress only bailed out investors in airlines and left the workers twisting in the wind," said Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill. The relief legislation "will provide job training while they are looking for work, and provide health care so they continue on in their health plan and with the doctors they are used to," he said.


I remember a quote attributed to Greenspan (but was unable to find it) where he says that he was wrong about tax cuts and he would now prefer to pay off the debt. That quote came after 9/11 and Enron. It came after the President and Congress called for politically popular security spending that not only erased any possible surplus but put us back into debt. It would seem that hindsight is 20-20. His reverse-flip seems to be a position based on the fact that politicians (especially Democrats) are unable to display the type of fiscal discipline that Greenspan endorses.



One parting though before I bid you Aloha. This is really too bad because I thought that Joe was a stand-up guy. Yes, I still have some youthful naivete:

When the Financial Accounting Standards Board was going to rule, in 1994, that stock options had to be treated as a company expense, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D, Connecticut) sponsored a non-binding Senate resolution urging the board to back down. The board did back down.

Treating stock options as a company expense is a cornerstone of the new reforms that were just signed into law.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic VP hopeful was quoted in Wednesday’s paper as saying, “In just eighteen months, this administration has unraveled the fiscal discipline it took us eight years to build.”


Ah’ll be bahk after 8/24. If you guys want to set up an appointment for me (assuming that it doesn’t conflict with your own) while I’m gone, I would appreciate your kindness. Exactly how much does a cranial-proctologist charge anyway?”

“arc, common decency would dictate that you wait until sometime other than Monday morning before you make a gajillion word post!”