I left many comments here: MinnPost Colin Powell is a RINO on Steroids
Here is one of them:
Here is one of them:
""I think the party has shifted much further right than where the country is"
I always find this statement interesting, it implies that the GOP is the group who is moving... Whereas in reality it is the country that has been shifting to the Left for decades.
Any idea why Liberals insist on saying the GOP is moving Right instead of just saying the GOP is still fixed in their 1960's positions?" G2AG2A Political Self Awareness
39 comments:
Republicans used to be in favor of things like Planned Parenthood and renewable energy. Krugman has a column about the latter in this morning's Times. Nixon was in favor of a negative income tax.
I think it's a bit deceptive to say that the country is moving right or left. Rather, I think it's becoming increasingly polarized, parts of of it are moving right, and parts of it are not.
--Hiram
You know my view, in the last 100 years government went from controlling ~10% of the GDP to controlling ~35% of the GDP. I think that is a pretty clear data that we have moved from being an almost pure capitalist economy towards a democratic socialist leaning economy.
Or... Individual citizens used to keep 90% of the money for their use, now they only get to keep 65% to use as they wish.
And on the social freedom side: abortion became legal, LGBT actions and marriage became legal, pornography is readily available, drugs are becoming more legal, physician assisted suicide is legal in multiple states, etc.
So I am amazed that folks deny that we are a significantly more Liberal country than we were 50 or 100 years ago. In some ways it good that we have done so... Of course it begs the slippery slope question of how far is too far?
Breibart: Why is America Moving Left
Politico: No America is Not Turning Left
Democrats Moving Left
The growth in government spending is largely the result of successful programs (Social Security and Medicare) which are broadly supported by both political parties. After all, if Republicans didn't like these programs or thought they were wasteful, they wouldn't attack any time somebody tried to change them, right?
The fact that there has been leftward social change, though, doesn't mean that the GOP hasn't drifted rightward. Consider that during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, he signed a treaty prohibiting the use of torture, raised taxes numerous times, equalized tax treatment of capital gains and wage income, and gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. During the Clinton Administration, Republicans proposed health care reform that featured an individual mandate to buy insurance (which was later signed into law on a state level by the party's 2012 nominee for President). In 2007, the Republican governor of this state signed into law strong renewable energy mandates. The party has walked away from all of those positions today.
I thought this was interesting:
"Apparently the Republicans have been sparring internally for a long long time. I like these quotes from:
Wiki GOP
"The Republican Party split into a majority "Old Right" (based in the Midwest) and a liberal wing based in the Northeast that supported much of the New Deal. The Old Right sharply attacked the "Second New Deal" and said it represented class warfare and socialism. "
"Voters liked Ike much more than they liked the GOP, and he proved unable to shift the party to a more moderate position. After 1970, the liberal wing faded away."
As for the Democrats, they definitely seem to be struggling for a common voice also. I mean one of the leading Presidential candidates is a self described Democratic Socialist. At least it is never boring. :-)" G2A
And my other response to RB...
"I personally don't think the Democrats have moved to the Left, I think they have always been there and they just keep trying to pull the country that direction further. (ie enough is never enough)
Where as you said, the GOP did/does support many moderate positions. However they realize that one can have too much of a "good thing"." G2A
In contrast to the social issues, I would say that on other metrics, things have gone the opposite direction. Corporate control of our economy and political system is at all-time highs. Under Reagan and Bush, we punished those responsible for the S&L scandal. No one went to jail for Wall Street's activities in the 2008 crisis. We now allow tens of millions of anonymous dollars to our into our elections, corrupting our politics.
Since the Democrats chose to not prosecute bankers, I assume no one actually committed a crime.
We all still get one vote, rich or poor.
I hope this link works, it shows the Leftward economic shift very well.
US Spend Entitlement Growth
Now I can not disagree that Social Security, Social Security Disability and Medicare seem to be necessary evils since many Americans would likely fail the marshmallow test.
This does not change the fact that government is taking ~14% more out of our GDP to control what we save, where we save, what we invest in, which charities we give to, how much we give to each charity, what each recipient will get, criteria for receiving it, who will get our "retirement" and "disability" funds back, when they/we will get them back, how much they/we will get back... If any...
Being someone who passes the marshmallow test with flying colors, I definitely would have preferred to have an additional 20% in my paycheck that I could save, invest, give away to good charities, etc.
However whether it is good or bad is not the point of this post, the point is that the US Government has moved significantly to the Left over the last 70 years or so. The GOP wants to stop this slide whereas the Left leaning Democrats want to double down on it with single payer healthcare, free college educations, mandated minimum wages, etc.
You know my view, I think 1/3 of our GDP is more than enough to give to the politicians and bureaucrats to run our country, keep us safe and take care of our truly disabled or mentally challenged.
Now the question is how do we demand better results and effectiveness from those who are controlling the spend of that $6,200,000,000,000/yr?
And how do we get them to cut that spend or raise taxes some so that we are not spending more than we are taking in during these "good times". Debt should be paid down during good times... So the credit card is available when the skies get stormy... Maybe the politicians would also fail the marshmallow test.
"Since the Democrats chose to not prosecute bankers, I assume no one actually committed a crime."
That's called "return on investment".
"We all still get one vote, rich or poor."
Have you seen what's going on in Alabama?
"Debt should be paid down during good times..."
And you're backing the GOP? Have you seen what their presidential candidates are proposing? Jeb! is touting the fact he's *only* increasing the deficit by $3 trillion over the current baseline over the next decade!
So are you saying that Obama and Holder are corrupt? (ie looking the other way while crimes are committed) They own that one.
Alabama Controversy Is this related to big donors controlling our country?
I agree the politicians all seem to fail the marshmallow test when campaigning. It is what us citizens want. (sumptin for nuttin) (ie low taxes and high freebies)
"So are you saying that Obama and Holder are corrupt? (ie looking the other way while crimes are committed) They own that one."
The crimes were committed before they took office. But, yes, they own responsibility for it (although there's no chance the GOP would have prosecuted them for it, either). Obama, for my tastes, has been too much about looking forward instead of requiring those who committed crimes -- be it on Wall Street or as it relates to the use of torture -- to be accountable.
"Is this related to big donors controlling our country?"
You better believe it. There's big money behind efforts to disenfranchise voters. The most obvious example are the Kochs, who have given to such efforts in 38 states. You have model legislation produced by ALEC, which has major corporate backing.
"I agree the politicians all seem to fail the marshmallow test when campaigning."
Just when campaigning? The last Republican President added an entitlement with a bigger 75-year funding gap than Social Security, wanted to replace Social Security with a plan that had trillions in unfunded transition costs, and cut taxes during war. It's only when Democrats hold the White House that the GOP shows any seriousness about the debt.
By your own comment, apparently Reagan and Bush did prosecute criminals.
How is this any worse than the big Public / Private Union groups and their supporters who are pushing their politics across the country. (ie there is big money on both sides)
Wiki ALEC
I think most of the tax cuts occurred before the wars. Wiki Bush Tax Cuts
"By your own comment, apparently Reagan and Bush did prosecute criminals."
Reagan and GHW Bush aren't today's Republicans.
"How is this any worse than the big Public / Private Union groups and their supporters who are pushing their politics across the country. (ie there is big money on both sides)"
Disenfranchising voters is slimy business.
And, incidentally, if it were up to me, I would blow up our current campaign finance system in a way that folks like the Kochs/Soros or the unions would both dislike.
"I think most of the tax cuts occurred before the wars. "
Sure, the 2001 tax cuts was bigger than the 2003 one, but cutting taxes during a time of increased war spending is not smart handling of the economy -- if you're actually concerned about the debt.
Of course there are many GOP politicians just like Reagan and GHW Bush, or the GOP would not have so much internal strife... Mitt Romney was very close to Reagan from my perspective.
I hope you succeed in getting money out of politics, then we will not be bombarded by negative ads during the election season.
Sadly I think Bush thought the war was over when he removed the dictators from power. Unfortunately he did not count on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan being somewhat crazy power hungry war mongers. I think his BIGGEST mistake was assuming that these people actually wanted peace, properity and self rule. That and cutting taxes without an equal number of spending cuts.
"Of course there are many GOP politicians just like Reagan and GHW Bush, or the GOP would not have so much internal strife... Mitt Romney was very close to Reagan from my perspective."
I didn't hear any Republicans criticizing Obama for his failure to prosecute Wall Street. Did I miss some? I guess I don't see the Romney-Reagan comparison, personally. And, frankly, I don't see many GOP politicians today that are like Reagan and GW Bush. All 16 folks running for President are to the right of where they were -- even the so-called "moderates" like Kasich or Christie.
"Sadly I think Bush thought the war was over when he removed the dictators from power. Unfortunately he did not count on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan being somewhat crazy power hungry war mongers."
Insert Santayana quote here.
So maybe you are incorrect in thinking that something worth prosecuting actually occurred.
Like this one... "Periods of tranquillity are seldom prolific of creative achievement. Mankind has to be stirred up." Santayana
Santayana Quotes
"So maybe you are incorrect in thinking that something worth prosecuting actually occurred."
Or more likely, Republicans saw this as an opportunity to take more of the campaign dollars from Wall Street -- which, lo and behold! -- has happened.
Please remember the Democrats owned any possible prosecution. Don't try to push that off on the Republicans. They controlled the Presidency, the Justice Department, and Congress in 2009 and 2010. If anyone was looking for campaign dollars in this case... It was the Democrats.
"Don't try to push that off on the Republicans."
I'm not. My point was that Republicans didn't make any ruckus about Obama being "soft on Wall Street". Instead, they took a hard line against any attempts the Administration did make towards tightening regulations on Wall Street. And, voila! Republicans are now taking a much larger chunk of the Wall Street campaign donations pie!
Maybe this link is needed here also.
Forbes High Taxes is 1/3 of the Issue
I do feel for the irresponsible and/or foolish people who lost their homes during the recession. However process, regulation, due diligence, paper work, oversite, etc is very expensive. I realize that the Democrats want to protect every customer from every risk, however we can not afford to do this and be globally competitive. Adult citizens need to take responsibility for their choices and actions.
In the Words of WC Fields "You can't cheat and honest man"...
Sarbanes Oxley is still cost firms and America a large amount just because Enron was playing games...
" I realize that the Democrats want to protect every customer from every risk"
Once again, you have expertly demolished an argument that no one is making.
"Sarbanes Oxley is still cost firms and America a large amount just because Enron was playing games..."
SOX didn't pass until after the WorldCom scandal, which happened a year after Enron. And of course, there was Cendant and Waste Management and Tyco and Qwest and Adelphia and Global Crossing (just to name a few) that all occurred from 1997 to 2002.
"Adult citizens need to take responsibility for their choices and actions."
This ought to include corporate executives, not just poor people trying to make a better life for themselves. You only seem to want to punish poor people for their bad decisions, though.
I am happy punishing law breakers whoever they are, but in this situation Obama, Holder, etc apparently did not see that any laws were broken by an individual. Otherwise I assume someone would have gone to jail, just like people did before SOX.
Wiki SOX
Fines
The $100B in fines referenced in your link represent less than 4% of those companies' revenues from 2008-2014. They also pale in comparison to the damage done to the economy by these shenanigans. The damage to the residential housing market alone is estimated to be around $700B, and the economy as a whole lost in excess of $5T in economic activity in the Great Recession. So, yes, $100B is a large number, but in context, maybe not so much.
How would anyone know? It was a housing bubble that popped. How would one determine "normal"?
Normal in such analyses is a comparison to historical trends. You can quibble over the specific numbers, but the large point stands. $100B is not a large number in comparison to what happened in this economy as a result of the financial crisis.
So if I am correct that the following contributed to the problem:
50% Banks and Investors
20% Poor Government Oversight
30% Irresponsible or Fraudulent Home Owners
Should we fine the Government and those who walked away from their freely accepted debt?
"Should we fine the Government and those who walked away from their freely accepted debt?"
Those who walked away from their houses take their penalty in the form of destroyed credit -- which makes it hard to even rent a property, much less get another mortgage. Job hunters often have their credit checked by their employer.
How exactly would you fine the government?
Yep, the banks have had a rough go of it.
It would be interesting to know how many bankers and investors were fired and their careers ruined over the mess.
Here is a different view. Even if likely biased.
I don't disagree that many citizens learned a very hard lesson through the recession. The question is did they change their behaviors? G2A Recession Oldies
I know they have been doing well for me. I hope they continue.
VFAIX Chart
BAC Chart
"Here is a different view. Even if likely biased.'
It appears to be. Wallison and Pinto essentially stand alone on that point. Numerous analyses have shown that Fannie and Freddie were small players in the subprime market at the time of the crash (originating less than 20% and insuring about one-quarter of them).
Another explanation
Post a Comment