Here's a piece from a few weeks ago on voter rage.
Even newcomers swept into office in 2010 on an antigovernment tide worry that they could be just as easily swept out after only a two-year stay since they have become part of the government that much of the public seems to abhor.
I agree. The myth that the Tea Party is immune to voter outrage is effectively over with Congress's approval rating below 10 percent. In fact, one could argue that it's gotten worse. Will voters make them aware of this?
Here's one big reason why conservatives don't like Mitt Romney.
I use Mankiw quite a bit on here as sound source for fundamental economics. The fact that the Mittser is using him is one of a few reasons why I don't think he'd be a bad president. Yet the fact that he is using Glenn Hubbard certainly gives me pause. Hubbard (along with Tim Geithner) should not be allowed anywhere near our economy as they (along with many others) were responsible for the collapse of 2008. If you want to know what Hubbard's all about, check out this clip from Inside Job.
Here's something I found a while back that I thought was interesting.
Fareed Zakira has been saying the same thing on CNN for the past couple of years. I'm not sure if I agree given the issue of consumer spending and demand. If those tax cuts go away for most Americans, I think that will affect our growth without a doubt. So, Colbert's logic is a little off. But I do like this line!
America does not have a national debt problem, instead, the U.S. has a negative revenue problem.
Sing it, brother!
4 comments:
You might consider that voter anger with Congress is that the Tea Party insurgency didn't go as far as voters wanted. Of course had they touched SocSec or Medicare you can bet voters would whip them out of office. Voters are, for an awful large part, pretty damn stupid.
As for the "revenue problem" - when I asked you what would additional tax revenue from the wealthy be used for, your immediate response was more spending - not deficit reduction. So, yes we have a spending problem that even a trillion dollars of additional tax receipts would do nothing to fix.
So, what do you do when you cut spending and the economy doesn't grow? What then? I think you are discounting the symbiotic relationship between governments and markets.
So the government is one giant jobs program Mark?
Give me half the money and I could put twice as many people to work.
I think you are discounting the symbiotic relationship between governments and markets.
The word you are looking for is parasitic, not symbiotic.
You keep insisting that govt spending has some magical characteristics. It doesn't, and it comes at the expense of many people deciding what to do with their part of those billions of dollars. Now some of those decisions will be bad or unproductive, most will be neutral - but some are bound to pay off (and a few in a big way). You have way too much faith in govt, and not nearly enough skepticism. I will cop to having perhaps too much skepticism and clearly little faith. Anyway I discussed your Keynesian misconceptions in another thread.
Post a Comment