Wisconsin Election
This would be an example of something that I "won" but really lost. Am I the only one that feels sorry for both candidates? What a mess. Let the recount dance begin...again....barf. There's no victory in this for anyone and I'm really beginning to question the election of judges. Shouldn't they just be appointed like they are at the federal level? The whole thing has become so partisan with both sides screaming activism. I am happy that voter turnout was high, though. It needs to stay that way but I doubt it will considering our culture can't focus on anything for more than a few minutes. Speaking of which...
Happy Trails, Glenn
Glenn Beck and Fox News have parted ways. His show will end at the conclusion of this year. I've received some emails and a few posts in comments wondering what I thought so I thought I'd at least mention it. First of all, it was only a matter of time. The same thing happened to Rush and then he went back into his niche on radio. That's where Glenn will be and he will do quite well. Second, I think we may have seen the zenith of short wave radio fantasy peddlers. They'll still have their core audiences and will make zillions of dollars off of fear, anger and hate but it's not going to be as mainstream anymore. After all, you can only say the country is going to be thrown into a boiling pit of sewage by evil communists for so long. When it doesn't happen, then what do you say? It works in the right wing blogsphere (cue the photos of skulls) with so many true believers there but not in the more widespread media where the public, thankfully, isn't that moronic.
An interesting tandem to this is the decline of Sarah Palin. As soon as the "liberal" media stopped covering her, she suddenly didn't seem to matter much anymore. Maybe she should do another interview with Katie Couric to rile up the base again.
Ryan's Road Map
Paul Ryan has some good ideas in his long term plan. Restructuring Social Security and Medicare certainly has to happen. As is always the case with folks like him, he didn't stop to think and realize that the under 55 crowd, if they are paying more for health care, probably won't be much of a revenue generator for the government. Essentially, his ideas are very one sided and they will likely make our deficit worse. Surprise, surprise!
I have noticed of late that every word from the right has been about spending cuts. Honestly, it's become such an obsession that I doubt they are thinking clearly at all. They have to confront the revenue question seriously. We are wasting too much time managing their anti tax fantasies. Of course, that's what you get when the John Birch society takes over your party. When they start to talk about revenue and honest cuts in defense, I'll start to take them more seriously. But for right now, they are not thinking rationally.
24 comments:
"As soon as the "liberal" media stopped covering her"
Just like many posters here tried to tell you, since YOU were the only one covering her. I can't find any conservatives who want her to run for CinC.
Re: Spending Cuts
How else can this country afford to continue? Compare government spending this year to gov't income this year.... not GDP, or GNP, or Net Worth of all government assets... just government income vs expense.
Does that seem sustainable to you?
Is it possible -politically, or even practically- to tax enough to balance the yearly budget? No? Then when will it be possible?
I noticed something else on this Thursday. The word "Obama" does not appear on the front page of this blog at all. The last 8 entries haven't even mentioned his name. Yeah yeah yippy dogs, I know it's Marks blog and he can say what he wants, yadda yadda...heard that already before.
You said Bye Bye to Rush 2 years ago...he's still around. You say they won't be mainstream? Just a year or so ago, you said they were effectively brainwashing 60% of the American people through outstanding marketing.
Rile up the base? Maybe rile up the media again is what you mean.
I disagree that the right has to confront the revenue question seriously. I think your president has to confront it...that's what leaders do. But he hasn't confronted it, and that's why you don't really talk about him much anymore. Gas prices are nearly $4 a gallon and we coincidentally have nobody asking why that is?
I know it sucks being on defense which is why you are trying to stay on offense.
Regarding my comments about Rush two years ago, I have to admit that I was naive. I had no idea that there was that much hate, anger, and fear out there. The knee jerk reaction to personally hate President Obama took me aback and still amazes me to this day. Of course, the Obama haters all think they are just doing the same thing that was done with President Bush but it's not even in the same ball park. It's that perception thing again. Liberals and conservatives don't have the same brains so it's understandable that are misunderstandings.
Everyone has to confront the revenue issue. Unfortunately, the right has controlled the tax debate for far too long. The left needs to grow some fucking balls and tell the Howells their taxes are going to go up to what they were when we actually ran a budget surplus. I find it enormously frustrating that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, people still believe in supply side, trickle down, etc.
>Of course, the Obama haters all think they are just doing the same thing that was done with President Bush but it's not even in the same ball park.
That's why I keep reading Mark. The notion that he is some sort of neutral observer of presidential hate is laughable, but he actually seems to believe he is! Must be all that reflectin he does. Larry says its morbid curiosity and I have to agree - how do you manage to get such a undeservedly high opinion of your own judgement?
They have to confront the revenue question seriously.
Okay, tell us how to raise taxes such that you get 20+% of GDP (at a minimum and that still requires cutting spending). Mind you, even when the top income tax rate was 91%, total federal revenue was around 18% of GDP.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
See Table 1.3
Spending on the other hand only exceeded the current percent of GDP during WWII. You think that is what should pass for normal?
But we aren't in a normal time, juris. In many ways, this situation is comparable to WWII and it was largely brought on by the mistakes made from 2003-2007. Initially, taxes should return to their pre Bush tax cut levels for the top earners. So my answer would 39.5 percent. The cap gains break should be torpedoed as well. As the economy recovers, we should start to see some more revenue. Of course, for that to happen, the middle class needs to be the engine again. That can't happen as long as we continue to move towards plutocracy.
All of this is in addition to spending cuts which I have said repeatedly I have no problem with at all. If it was up to me, I would embrace the Bowles-Simpson recommendations fully and move forward.
Hap, I'm not a neutral observer. I'm well aware of my bias. But I'm also a reflective enough guy to understand that there is a world of difference between protesting a war in which people were being killed and being outraged over spending or health care. People were upset with Bush for actual problems and mistakes that he made. The people that are upset at Obama have slipped into delusion.
>People were upset with Bush for actual problems and mistakes that he made. The people that are upset at Obama have slipped into delusion.
Once again, you vastly overestimate the value of your own judgement: "The things I agree with were real, important, and valid. The things I disagree with are delusion." Why on earth would you think that represents a rebuttal, or even a response, to anything?
We should start to see more revenue? Who is We? You and the government?
I guess actual anger at the white house nowadays just can't happen.
You protested more than the war...you used to be against things that Obama has continued...wiretaps, gitmo, the patriot act, etc.
I read this blog for the great examples provided by M and his cohort every day! It is almost like having a liberal zoo!
"Hey, look! There is projection defined. Over there, a common economic illiterate. Oh, and there is the bright plumage of a liberal hypocrite in it's native habitat."
Very interesting indeed.
But we aren't in a normal time, juris.
And we aren't on track to return to normalcy either. This is why I have asked you "how much govt is too much" - a question you never answer. I think we can all see why.
The 39.5% tax will not generate the 5 or 6% of GDP in tax revenue needed to get up to 20%. Spending is near 25%. You haven't closed the gap - not even close. Instead you, like the Administration and other dumbass progressives, believe that growth (which isn't promoted by raising capital gains taxes - remember how much you want more innovation) will bail your sorry asses out.
And even if you get revenue up to 20%, you are still running huge fucking deficits without cutting spending. That's why a lot of people are harping on the spending side. The other brutal irony that should be penetrating your skull is that the more govt there is, the more crony capitalism you get (because govt is doling out money driven by political agendas - and not always ones you agree with).
People were upset with Bush for actual problems and mistakes that he made. The people that are upset at Obama have slipped into delusion.
Go TEAM BLUE, GO! Yay TEAM!
"But I'm also a reflective enough guy"
Reflected on those responses? Not that you have to address any specific point that was brought forward... but did you listen to any of it?
Let me go out on a limb here and say that economics drives a lot of things.
The WI ballot boxing fiasco is absolutely ridiculous. This country's voting system sucks.
I predict Beck is starting up his own cable network. So watch out. He's not going away, he's just getting started. The advertisers he gets on board with will know EXACTLY what they're getting into, boycotts won't work.
Post in this thread while you can because I'm fucking all kinds of people over with my mutual fund fees of .26 from the other thread from April 3.
Haplo, could you do that last sentence in the voice of the croc hunter?
Largely brought on by the mistakes from 2003-2007? 2007 was 4 years ago and team red will gain more seats if you run against GWB's policies in 2012.
Jurisistence, what part of Mark supporting the WB spending cuts did you miss? I'd have no problem with their recommendations.
They miss this kind of stuff all the time, Serial. It's going to take spending cuts, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, reforming cap gains, and a whole host of other things to get the job done. WB is the path we should be taking, not Paul Ryan. Ryan wants to cut taxes even more. It simply will make things worse.
I understand he supported some spending cuts - but he turned around and made the argument that more revenue was needed. I merely want to know how you plan to collect more than what has been the post WWII average. Sorry if that is asking too much.
Collecting more taxes won't be enough...you are right about that. It's a touch balancing act between the right tax or too much. My comment above was simply in reference to a return to the pre tax rates of Clinton. That's it. They hyper focus on spending has become ridiculous.
M, let's assume that a 39.5% top rate gets tax receipts up to 20% of GDP (which is a highly debatable assumption, but what the heck). Spending is another 4 to 5% of GDP above that.
Now if the plan is to somehow balance spending with income, you either have to radically raise taxes - like a helluva lot more than Clinton era rates - or you have to pretty significantly cut spending. That the focus is on spending cuts is actually a good thing, because THAT is the part of the budget that is most out of whack with historical norms. That liberals/progressives are howling about this is absurd - just as absurd as Repubs demanding to defund Planned Parenthood (and presumably not their cherished abstinence bullshit).
There you go using math again j.i.
You republicans love to use third-grade math, undeniable facts, and historical evidence whenever it suits your purposes.
Don't fall for it Mark! If you admit that any of his facts are true, he'll insist on making you answer his questions!
Again, juris, I'm not disagreeing with you on spending. WB is the way to go and I really don't care what liberals/progressives think about spending. I care as little about that as I do about what conservatives think about taxes and the defense budget. Complete ignorance of revenue combined with "waste, fraud, and abuse" is what I'm saying is ridiculous.
Anon, what historical evidence?
"Collecting more taxes won't be enough"
Your historical evidence, Mark. I assumed you were saying that you knew the past well enough to know that spending 101+% of your income cannot be sustainable.
Isn't that what you just said?
spending 101+% of your income cannot be sustainable.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
1945-117.5
1946-121.7
1947-110.3
Are we still here?
Looking at debt to GDP alone is not sufficient to form an accurate picture of the future. Projections for the future do show just over 100 percent of debt to GDP but the deficit for those same time periods shrinks down to -3 percent.
Are we still here?
So if you can do something for a couple of years, maybe even a couple of decades - that makes it sustainable?
Gosh, I guess we will never run out of fossil fuels by that standard.
So because we are still here, we always will be. Got it. Kinda like Donald Trump. He goes bankrupt but can still find idiots to lend him money. Like the US still has China...
And, of course, the US Dollar is the world's reserve currency and that cannot ever change.
You don't like GDP/debt comparisons? Good. Let's compare income to expense. At what point will government income exceed expenses (including interest on debt) and solve the problem?
Next year?
Next decade?
Next century?
Throw me some of your new 'I Love Math' learnings.
Post a Comment