What happens if Obama can't get re-elected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am conservative on fiscal issues. And I don't think the government should be so involved in business.

Funny, you often hear this, but I have no fucking clue what this is supposed to mean. Especially when framed as "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but voted for Obama."

You realize of course that Democrats have a much better record on the economy than Republicans, right? It's about as dumb as saying, I'm a social liberal, but I vote for the Republicans because they'll keep our country safe.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but there's about a half century of data that shows you're incredibly wrong.

Good think Obama is around to blow the data.

Only in the sense that Bush skedaddled right after setting the house on fire. Two ruinously expensive wars of choice, the Bush tax cuts to "give back the surplus", and Medicare Part D with no ability to negotiate drug prices puts us where we are today.

http://baselinescenario.com/2010/02/08/whose-fault/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A lot of people are more financially conservative than Dems (they want less government involvement in the marketplace)

Right, but my point is that this is just so much poorly informed blather. "less government involvement in the marketplace" is content-free lip-flapping. Is there widespread support for immunizing corporations from any lawsuits? Abolishing the EPA? Further deregulation of the banking and financial sector? No, there's no evidence whatsoever for this. Of course people like to think of themselves as paragons of fiscal and moral rectitude. But for that to mean anything, we need to talk about policies.

Wow, you are unwilling to engage with the other side.

If you really think all empirical data supports the level of government regulation Dems want over what Reps want, well, then I guess there is nothing left to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A lot of people are more financially conservative than Dems (they want less government involvement in the marketplace)

Right, but my point is that this is just so much poorly informed blather. "less government involvement in the marketplace" is content-free lip-flapping. Is there widespread support for immunizing corporations from any lawsuits? Abolishing the EPA? Further deregulation of the banking and financial sector? No, there's no evidence whatsoever for this. Of course people like to think of themselves as paragons of fiscal and moral rectitude. But for that to mean anything, we need to talk about policies.

Wow, you are unwilling to engage with the other side.

If you really think all empirical data supports the level of government regulation Dems want over what Reps want, well, then I guess there is nothing left to say.

Again, specifics. Because I'm not hearing any. "Dems bad for business; GOP good for business" is just uninformed bloviating. Be specific and someone may "engage" you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A lot of people are more financially conservative than Dems (they want less government involvement in the marketplace)

Right, but my point is that this is just so much poorly informed blather. "less government involvement in the marketplace" is content-free lip-flapping. Is there widespread support for immunizing corporations from any lawsuits? Abolishing the EPA? Further deregulation of the banking and financial sector? No, there's no evidence whatsoever for this. Of course people like to think of themselves as paragons of fiscal and moral rectitude. But for that to mean anything, we need to talk about policies.

Wow, you are unwilling to engage with the other side.

If you really think all empirical data supports the level of government regulation Dems want over what Reps want, well, then I guess there is nothing left to say.

Again, specifics. Because I'm not hearing any. "Dems bad for business; GOP good for business" is just uninformed bloviating. Be specific and someone may "engage" you.

I didn't say "Dems bad for business" I said "less government intervention in the economy." Is the GOP too willing to have government intervention in the economy? Yes, but I assume we can agree that the Dems want more of it than the Reps.

As for specifics, I have economic training but do not work as an economist. Are you saying you want me to cite a specific study on one topic against your general claim that "all empirical evidence" goes against the Reps?

Take the minimum wage. Economists are divided on the overall effect on employment levels and economic growth. I happen to find those who think the minimum wage decreases the number of jobs and harms the economy more persuasive.

[Anonymous]

I'm not asking you to cite specific studies. I'm asking for specific policies which you support, which characterize "less government involvement in the marketplace", and which distinguish the GOP from the Democrats.

So far we've got minimum wage. You're in favor of eliminating the minimum wage completely, then? Anything else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not asking you to cite specific studies. I'm asking for specific policies which you support, which characterize "less government involvement in the marketplace", and which distinguish the GOP from the Democrats.

So far we've got minimum wage. You're in favor of eliminating the minimum wage completely, then? Anything else?

I see, you are taking a different position than I took you to be saying. I am sure that some people who are leaning financially to the right just support "less government" without thought, although I see no reason to think that group is larger than the one on the other side which says "the economy should be better, more government help is called for," when they do not know what level of government involvement we have now. You can't just go around saying "more taxes" or "fewer taxes" when you do not know the current tax level.

I am just one person but a few of my other specifics:
- fix the healthcare distribution disaster by opening up the market for healthcare while providing services or money for health to poorer people. Less regulation, more direct payment or provision to poor people.
- create a choice in government-initiated retirement spending. Allow people to opt out of S.S. by having private accounts.
- decrease government spending for support for the moderately poor. Private charity is more effective and there is some evidence that people give more to charity when government does less. The negative externalities of government-run charity are higher for poor communities themselves.
- on the minimum wage, I wouldn't fight too hard to remove it entirely but I wouldn't want it going over a certain level. I would leave it to economists to figure out that level.

[Anonymous]

I think we can reduce government involvement in the economy by not enforcing patent infringements and trade marks. How many dollars would we save?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we can reduce government involvement in the economy by not enforcing patent infringements and trade marks. How many dollars would we save?

The government does not police patent and trademark infringement. The owner of the patent or mark sues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we can reduce government involvement in the economy by not enforcing patent infringements and trade marks. How many dollars would we save?

The problem with most forms of negative government involvement in the economy is not the cost of taking the government's action (so, court enforcement of patents) but the cost it causes in the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not asking you to cite specific studies. I'm asking for specific policies which you support, which characterize "less government involvement in the marketplace", and which distinguish the GOP from the Democrats.

So far we've got minimum wage. You're in favor of eliminating the minimum wage completely, then? Anything else?

I see, you are taking a different position than I took you to be saying. I am sure that some people who are leaning financially to the right just support "less government" without thought, although I see no reason to think that group is larger than the one on the other side which says "the economy should be better, more government help is called for," when they do not know what level of government involvement we have now. You can't just go around saying "more taxes" or "fewer taxes" when you do not know the current tax level.

I am just one person but a few of my other specifics:
- fix the healthcare distribution disaster by opening up the market for healthcare while providing services or money for health to poorer people. Less regulation, more direct payment or provision to poor people.
- create a choice in government-initiated retirement spending. Allow people to opt out of S.S. by having private accounts.
- decrease government spending for support for the moderately poor. Private charity is more effective and there is some evidence that people give more to charity when government does less. The negative externalities of government-run charity are higher for poor communities themselves.
- on the minimum wage, I wouldn't fight too hard to remove it entirely but I wouldn't want it going over a certain level. I would leave it to economists to figure out that level.

I don't get what some of your proposals actually mean, but the Republicans already tried to pass legislation privatizing part of SS. Problem is that the average person has now concept of risk but is very excited about having more money when they retire. And the result is bad investment decisions If Bush had his way, we would be bailing out millions and millions of retirees because the government is not going to let them twist in the wind. If you thought "too big to fail" is awful, it would pale in comparison to privatizing ss.

Decreasing support for the moderately poor is the best way to ensure that we have people who are even more poor. We already learned the lesson here and changed accordingly. The way to get people to work is to make sure they have enough support to take a job. If you pull support for a working mom, she has no choice but to quit and sink down to the level where she can get benefits again. Food and daycare are expensive. Anyway we fixed all this in the bipartisan welfare reform that Rick Santorum is bragging about in the debates. The key to welfare reform is to make sure people are supported up and out of the system. Your comments about private charity are nice, but almost no one doing private charity work would advocate what you suggest.

Minimum wage has not increased in inflation-adjusted dollars. Have no fear it is not going over any "certain level".

[Anonymous]

17:02, we can debate particular policies if you want to, I guess. But that's not what I was responding to. You said that people who wanted less government involvement in the economy than the Dems, and who then sometimes voted for Reps, had no idea what they were saying and it was just lip-flapping.

My point is that's not true and I gave you some specific policies preferences of mine at your request.

Let me add that in particular I think it is unfounded to have this view of people who say they find neither party satisfying because they want less involvement in both the economy and social issues. This group may be no more informed than your average Dem or Rep but seeing as they have bothered to break out of the standard two-party mode, I'd be inclined to think they are at least not less informed.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:See.....I'm all over the place. I think I could vote for someone like Hillary Clinton. I don't agree with her on everything. But I think she has the leadership ability and most of all experience to lead the country. Obama is really good at coming up with ideas and motivating people. But he doesn't have the leadership ability necessary to actually get things done.

I don't think you're all over the place. You're pretty much libertarian. I don't think Clinton is anything close to what you want; she's very close to Obama on most issues. I would think Ron Paul would be your guy.

[Anonymous]

- fix the healthcare distribution disaster by opening up the market for healthcare while providing services or money for health to poorer people. Less regulation, more direct payment or provision to poor people.

Somebody told you wrong. This is exactly what "Obamacare" is trying to do. States are asked to set up an open marketplace for insurance providers to allow consumers to know exactly what's on offer and do some comparison shopping. An open marketplace. Run by states. And yet republican governors are falling all over themselves to put a stop to this madness that allows people to choose their own plan. Kansas and Florida have sent back the federal funds they received to help set these up. Their citizens have the freedom to either BE sick and poor or to PAY for the sick and poor.

- create a choice in government-initiated retirement spending. Allow people to opt out of S.S. by having private accounts.

Maybe you were in a coma or something at the end of 2008, so I'll just kindly inform you that many people who were planning to retire on money accumulated in private accounts are now flat broke. Private account go BOOM, then bye-bye. Maybe seniors should just go out and get a job now.

- decrease government spending for support for the moderately poor. Private charity is more effective and there is some evidence that people give more to charity when government does less. The negative externalities of government-run charity are higher for poor communities themselves.

This bullet leads to so many questions. What is moderately poor? Not yet evicted from your house? Still able to eat at least once a day? How is "effective" defined and where is this evidence? What are "negative externalities." Do you mean how much it sucks to live outside? Fact is, in a down economy like this one, charitable giving is the first thing to dry up because non-profits typically rely on corporate profit. Which is only one reason why any decent social contract may include charity, but won't be reliant upon it. I'd like to think we're still in a decent country, but lately I wonder.

- on the minimum wage, I wouldn't fight too hard to remove it entirely but I wouldn't want it going over a certain level. I would leave it to economists to figure out that level.

The real question I'd like to ask someone with your beliefs is whether or not there's a minimum wage that's too low. Do you think that because unemployment is so high that Americans should and would be grateful to make, oh, $3 an hour? The family of four in Ohio where dad lost his factory job and mom lost her teaching job--do you think they'd write their congressman a note of thanks for eliminating minimum wage if a happy regulation-free employer came to town (because the governor eliminated state taxes for corporations, natch) and ensured everyone could have a job making $120/week ($88 after taxes--I mean someone's gotta pay 'em!) ??????

Republicans want to smash every rung on the socioeconomic ladder so that when the masses are all finally too tired and too sick to jump and strive, they'll be grateful to hang at the bottom of a slick rope, and too dumb to think life should be any better than that. And they've got people who will not only rationalize it and vote for it, they'll get dressed up in funny little costumes and make signs and scream until they're hoarse to rally behind it. We want our country BACKwards! It's criminal genius.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

- fix the healthcare distribution disaster by opening up the market for healthcare while providing services or money for health to poorer people. Less regulation, more direct payment or provision to poor people.

Somebody told you wrong. This is exactly what "Obamacare" is trying to do. States are asked to set up an open marketplace for insurance providers to allow consumers to know exactly what's on offer and do some comparison shopping. An open marketplace. Run by states. And yet republican governors are falling all over themselves to put a stop to this madness that allows people to choose their own plan. Kansas and Florida have sent back the federal funds they received to help set these up. Their citizens have the freedom to either BE sick and poor or to PAY for the sick and poor.

- create a choice in government-initiated retirement spending. Allow people to opt out of S.S. by having private accounts.

Maybe you were in a coma or something at the end of 2008, so I'll just kindly inform you that many people who were planning to retire on money accumulated in private accounts are now flat broke. Private account go BOOM, then bye-bye. Maybe seniors should just go out and get a job now.

- decrease government spending for support for the moderately poor. Private charity is more effective and there is some evidence that people give more to charity when government does less. The negative externalities of government-run charity are higher for poor communities themselves.

This bullet leads to so many questions. What is moderately poor? Not yet evicted from your house? Still able to eat at least once a day? How is "effective" defined and where is this evidence? What are "negative externalities." Do you mean how much it sucks to live outside? Fact is, in a down economy like this one, charitable giving is the first thing to dry up because non-profits typically rely on corporate profit. Which is only one reason why any decent social contract may include charity, but won't be reliant upon it. I'd like to think we're still in a decent country, but lately I wonder.

- on the minimum wage, I wouldn't fight too hard to remove it entirely but I wouldn't want it going over a certain level. I would leave it to economists to figure out that level.

The real question I'd like to ask someone with your beliefs is whether or not there's a minimum wage that's too low. Do you think that because unemployment is so high that Americans should and would be grateful to make, oh, $3 an hour? The family of four in Ohio where dad lost his factory job and mom lost her teaching job--do you think they'd write their congressman a note of thanks for eliminating minimum wage if a happy regulation-free employer came to town (because the governor eliminated state taxes for corporations, natch) and ensured everyone could have a job making $120/week ($88 after taxes--I mean someone's gotta pay 'em!) ??????

Republicans want to smash every rung on the socioeconomic ladder so that when the masses are all finally too tired and too sick to jump and strive, they'll be grateful to hang at the bottom of a slick rope, and too dumb to think life should be any better than that. And they've got people who will not only rationalize it and vote for it, they'll get dressed up in funny little costumes and make signs and scream until they're hoarse to rally behind it. We want our country BACKwards! It's criminal genius.

1. Obamacare is death by regulation. There are better ways.
2. Going to a private retirement system doesn't mean you go 100% to risky equity positions. You could have an age based system where the allocations change and risks decrease based on your age. There are better returns to be had that ARE risk tolerant.
3. The welfare system does nothing but eliminates social mobility and creates a permanent underclass. The best thing for the moderately poor is less govt handouts, less regulation and more school choice.
4. What is wrong with four unskilled workers making low wages? Is that not better than zero income or perpetual unemployment benefits and welfare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17:02, we can debate particular policies if you want to, I guess. But that's not what I was responding to. You said that people who wanted less government involvement in the economy than the Dems, and who then sometimes voted for Reps, had no idea what they were saying and it was just lip-flapping.

My point is that's not true and I gave you some specific policies preferences of mine at your request.

Let me add that in particular I think it is unfounded to have this view of people who say they find neither party satisfying because they want less involvement in both the economy and social issues. This group may be no more informed than your average Dem or Rep but seeing as they have bothered to break out of the standard two-party mode, I'd be inclined to think they are at least not less informed.

You are confusing me with someone else. I was a new poster merely responding to your budget suggestions. Do you still think they are good suggestions or do you agree with me?