View Full Version : Is Either Party Serious About Our Problems?
USANick7
09-07-2012, 11:34
Paul Ryan is definitely serious!
What have the Democrats offered in response???
Is Either Party Serious? (http://www.culpepergop.org/2012/09/06/is-either-party-serious-about-our-fiscal-problems/)
Ryan is a 7 term Congressman including serving as Chairman of the Budget Committee, serving on Ways and Means and , the sub committee on Health ...how will being Vice President allow him do what he hasn't managed to accomplish during all those years in Congress?
USANick7
09-07-2012, 15:02
Ryan is a 7 term Congressman including serving as Chairman of the Budget Committee, serving on Ways and Means and , the sub committee on Health ...how will being Vice President allow him do what he hasn't managed to accomplish during all those years in Congress?
I think Doc answered this rather well...obviously it takes more than one person. The larger issue is the governing philosophy...
The leftist approach to government simply doesn't work, regardless if it is a Democrat or a Republican trying it.
USANick7
09-07-2012, 15:08
http://youtu.be/4nPfwVMEQco
The Democrat party has been completely co-opted by a government focused element. This isn't a new development...I would argue that it started under Wilson...I would also argue that Republicans have had their fair share of "Big Government" politicians as well. The real question is not necessarily between individual politicians but policy.
Leftist policy consistently fails, while policy which advocates individual economic liberty, protection of private property, limited government, etc. succeeds.
While politicians should be judged individually according to their effectiveness, etc. I am shocked that Democrats who should know better are still arguing for larger government, central planning, etc.
Ryan is a 7 term Congressman including serving as Chairman of the Budget Committee, serving on Ways and Means and , the sub committee on Health ...how will being Vice President allow him do what he hasn't managed to accomplish during all those years in Congress?
I think a 7 term congress critter does bring a lot to the job of VP..
from wikipedia,, a less than accurate source,, but at times fruitful..
Under the Constitution, the Vice President is President of the United States Senate.[4] In that capacity, he or she is allowed to vote in the Senate when necessary to break a tie. While Senate customs have created supermajority rules that have diminished this Constitutional power, the Vice President still retains the ability to influence legislation (e.g. the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005).[4][5][6] Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President presides over the joint session of Congress when it convenes to count the vote of the Electoral College.[2]
A "player" on Capital Hill can do a lot to get both houses in gear, get POTUS' plan to the critters that make the deals,, Get the deals done....
Joe is a BAD example..
LBJ was a good example..
Ryan should be closer to LBJ's in abilities..
:munchin
ironyoshi
09-07-2012, 20:14
The Democrat party has been completely co-opted by a government focused element. This isn't a new development...I would argue that it started under Wilson...
It definitely goes way back. Democrats love to channel the ghost of FDR, and LBJ instituted the Great Society some time ago.
I would also argue that Republicans have had their fair share of "Big Government" politicians as well. The real question is not necessarily between individual politicians but policy.
Incidentally, in the renewed interest in the Great Depression that this downturn has brought on, some conservatives are making the case that Herbert Hoover played a big role in dooming the economy with a misguided series of spending initiatives.
The Republican record before 2008 is dismal on spending. Thank goodness for the Tea Party.
VDH shares some of his observations about some of our current problems.
Roll on November.
The Terrifying New Normal
by Victor Davis Hanson
PJMedia
September 7, 2012
The World We Don’t Question
Excerpts:
I’ve witnessed two of the most radical developments in my lifetime the last four years — changes far greater than those brought on by the massive new increases in the national debt, the soaring gas costs, the radical decrease in average family income, the insolvent Medicare and Social Security trajectories, or the flat housing market.
One is the fact of less than 1% interest rates on most savings (well below the rate of inflation), and the other is an epidemic of 20-something unemployment. All that is the new normal [1].
Why Save?
The hallmark advice of retirement planning was always to scrimp, save, and put away enough money to make up for retirement’s lost salary, increasing medical bills, and the supposed good life of the “golden years.” If a couple had saved, say, $300,000 over a lifetime (again, say, putting $500 away each month for 30 years at modest compounded interest), then they might expect a so-so annual return at 5% of about $15,000 a year on their stash, or about $1,250 per month.
In other words, perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Retiree could find enough with Social Security to live okay and pass on the principal to their kids. But well aside from the fact that many Americans have been laid off, taken pay cuts, lost home equity, had their 401(k)s pruned, or had to take care of out-of-work relatives, there is no 5% any more on anything, not even 2% or in most cases 1%. Saving money means nothing really in terms of return, only the realization that inflation eats away the principal each year.
To earn a decent return, the retiree has had to wade into bonds, stocks, and real estate buying and selling, with all their attendant risks that loom larger after 65. The old American idea of receiving a fair so-so interest on a little money in the savings account vanished. And no one seems to care.
The Federal Reserve perhaps had its reasons to keep interest rates low, given the massive spending, 2008 collapse, and the anemic “recovery,” but whatever the purported aims, the policy is not working. Yet cheap money proves to be no stimulus, even at rock-bottom interest rates. Firms don’t seem to think that near-zero interest (and the banks now have a rather scandalous margin between what they charge for ordinary loans and what they pay in interest) balances out the new anxiety over tax hikes, more regulations, and spiking energy costs. (Did Obama believe that employers simply existed to pay ever more taxes for his growing technocracy to redistribute?)
In classical Roman Republican terms, near-zero interest (and calls for “cancellation of debt and redistribution of property”) represented a vast transfer of wealth from those who saved to those who owe.
The Really Lost Generation
Few seem to note that those who receive nothing on their retirement savings don’t retire so easily. And when they don’t retire, jobs don’t open up — which brings us to my next observation: the lost generation [2] of those between 21 and 30, who at various ages and periods came into the workplace the last four years. Many have 8% plus student loans. I doubt half of those will ever be paid off, given the epidemic of unemployment in this cohort.
Unemployment rates of those 16-24 are now officially over 50%. Even the cohort between 16 and 29 suffers from 45% unemployment. In short, in four years*we have become Europeanized [3]: young people with no jobs who are living at home and putting off marriage and child raising — a “lost” generation in “limbo,” etc. etc. They may have a car, borrow their parents’ nicer car for special occasions, watch their parents’ big screen TV, and have pocket change for a cell phone and laptop by enjoying free rent, food, and laundry, but beneath that thinning technological veneer there is really little hope that they will ever be able to maintain that lifestyle on their own in this present day and age. Meanwhile, just like some Middle East tribal society, “contacts,” “networking,” and “pull” are the new gospel, as parents rely on quid pro quos to offer their indebted, unemployed (and aging) children some sort of inside one-upmanship in the cutthroat job market.
Note that as a poor substitute for a job, we institutionalized something called the “internship.” The best I can tell (I get weekly barrages of inquiries from young people wanting to “intern”), you would enjoy the work of free workers who in exchange for their uncompensated labor gather skills and influence that translate at some nebulous date into real work. How odd that the government that fines an employer who does not duly pay proper overtime wages is not interested in the tens of millions of youth who are working largely as Spartan helots.
These new realities fall heavily on the young male. Traditionally, he was in charge of taking charge — working two jobs to acquire enough to seed a marriage and family or buy a house, striving to be the protector of the household, and accruing experience in his late twenties that would translate into needed promotions in his thirties that would later on pay for braces, kids’ camp, and college tuitions.
No more. We have become emasculated Italians, our economy ossified and socialized to such an extent that few are taking risks to open new businesses in Illinois, build a pipeline across Nebraska, plant a 600-acre irrigated field, or open a timber mill or mine in California. Only so many of the unemployed can land a government job monitoring delta smelt populations or suing to shut down another power plant. In other words, I don’t think Barack Obama at the convention this week is going to be bragging too much about “millions of new green jobs,” more subsidies to Solyndra clones, another stimulus, keeping the deficit at $1 trillion plus, another federal takeover, more juicy details about Obamacare, higher taxes on the greedy, another gas lease denied, or yet more pipelines tabled. He may wish to continue all that [4], but he surely won’t wish to tell us so.
The new model for the next generation is to cobble part-time work together, intern, occasionally draw on unemployment, send out resumes hourly, and hope for something to turn up (preferably in government, state or federal). We all witness the reality behind these statistics firsthand. When we travel we see more and more older people at work, often well into their 70s. I know 50 or so young offspring of friends, relatives, and associates who are desperately trying to find work.
Some other symptoms: There is a new backlash at colleges [5], which habitually lie to students about the value of their degrees and care more that their offices of diversity are staffed well and their vice provosts for external relations are hitting all the necessary conferences — at least far more than they worry that their tuition increases have yearly soared well beyond the rates of inflation. The federal government, of course, has masked such excess with subsidized loan-sharking. I asked some young people recently what their various (and all had confusing loan “packages”) “subsidized” student loan interest rates were. Most said between 6 and 9% (as their parents get .25% of their own savings).
I don’t know where this all leads. The aging baby boomers are not going to have the retirements that they envisioned, and their children are not going to have the good jobs their baby-boomer parents enjoyed.
But these days, the game has changed somewhat — or rather been downscaled: the PhD is not being hired for anything other than part-time teaching; the JD is reduced to the law library gofer; the freshly minted MD is the equivalent of a salaried, high-paid nurse; the credentialed high-school teacher is subbing; the engineer is a draftsman; the carpenter is cobbling together home repair mini-jobs. The new plum job [6]? Landing one of those federal or state regulatorships, inspectorships, or clerkships, which are paid for with borrowed money,*produce little, and grow as those they audit and fine shrink.
In other words, we are seeing the proverbial chickens coming home to roost in an economy that has run up $16 trillion in debt, regulated its way into paralysis [7], hounded the private sector, and demonized profit-making. The strange thing about the 2008 disaster was not just that hand-in-glove with Wall Street banks Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae created a huge real estate bubble and then watched it pop (one inflated through private speculation and government-backed sub-prime loans), but that the blame went not to the intrusive, incompetent federal government or even to a Goldman-Sachs-like bundler (a firm from whom Obama got more campaign money [8] than did any other prior presidential candidate), but to the vague “private sector” — as if the well-driller or timber man had somehow collapsed the economy. The result was that Obama’s medicine from 2009 onward was*worse than the original disease*[9].
Oh, one other thing. We don’t see any more of those funny, though obnoxious, bumper stickers with the words “We are spending our children’s inheritance” on huge Winnebagos as they zoom by. Perhaps that’s because there are not so many inheritances any more or the children (now in their late 20s) are inside the Winnebago on vacation with their parents. Or maybe the parents sold the Winnebago and are working at Starbucks.
Finally, where does all this lead? To a great deal of pressure and expectations upon a Mitt Romney, whom a growing number of people seem willing to entrust with the remedy to Obama’s Hellenic malady. The more Obama tsk-tsks saving the Utah Winter Olympics or creating a Bain Capital, the more the strapped public may say “bring it on.” [10]
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson090712B.html
GratefulCitizen
09-08-2012, 19:06
Entire post.
Peak spending occurs, on average, in the late 40s.
After that, spending declines.
Every year for some time, increasing numbers of individuals entered their late 40s, more than offsetting those who exited that age range.
Until the late part of the last decade.
Add to this a housing bubble.
Also add to this the low savings rate which has a nasty rebound effect when those in their 50s try to make up for lost time.
Add to this a large debt and voters who want both benefits and a low tax burden.
So, the tax burden gets disguised in the form of financial repression (artificially low interest rates for gov't debt).
This demographic group will likely continue working and saving, with no place to find yield in investments (due in no small part to financial repression).
The number of people entering their late 40s will continue to decrease for the next decade.
This is a recipe for economic stagnation and, without intervention, deflation.
Expect anemic growth at best, with stagflation a likely possibility.
This too, shall pass.
...Starting around 2021-2023 after the demographic trough passes their late 40s.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html
Entire post.
Interesting observations. Perhaps, the deepest trough that we face is the current lack of effective, ethical, leadership at some of our very highest political levels.
IMO, a solid step to getting this nation back on track might be for our leaders to acknowledge and address the fact that we as a nation have a government spending problem. A debt crisis is essentially bi-partisan - it hurts most all Americans. Let's hope, unforeseen emergencies excepted, that federal and state government peak spending ends around January 2013. We, as a nation made history in 2008 - let's make it again in 2013.
Next, MOO, both a legislative and executive branch commitment to the maximization of all American energy production might go a long way to addressing our problems and easing the pains of the demographic trough that you have kindly pointed out. The ensuing energy boom (and second and third order effects) should go a long way to enhancing our revenue needs.
Third, simply our tax structure, lower rates, eliminate loopholes and broaden the tax base.
These are three very simple steps that could move the country forward, improve revenues, create jobs, reduce the debt. There are many others. Obama drew some tough cards, but his focus and policies have exacerbated not minimized those problems.
After watching the Ryan videos in the OP, I do get a sense that R&R are serious about taking on the taxing and spending problems facing our nation.
Interesting observations. Perhaps, the deepest trough that we face is the current lack of effective, ethical, leadership at some of our very highest political levels.
Stratfor had an interesting article on character vs. policy with regards to leadership, specifically with selecting presidents. IMO: Unfortunately, many people spend too much time focusing on what was said, and how they said it, versus the substance of who said it. The character of a leader can generally speak past what they will and won't say to get re-elected.
My .002
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/character-policy-and-selection-leaders
The end of Labor Day weekend in the United States traditionally has represented the beginning of U.S. presidential campaigns, though these days the campaign appears to be perpetual. In any case, Americans will be called on to vote for president in about two months, and the question is on what basis they ought to choose.
Many observers want to see intense debate over the issues, with matters of personality pushed to the background. But personality can also be viewed as character, and in some ways character is more important than policy in choosing a country's leadership.
snip
GratefulCitizen
09-10-2012, 20:31
Interesting observations. Perhaps, the deepest trough that we face is the current lack of effective, ethical, leadership at some of our very highest political levels.
IMO, a solid step to getting this nation back on track might be for our leaders to acknowledge and address the fact that we as a nation have a government spending problem. A debt crisis is essentially bi-partisan - it hurts most all Americans. Let's hope, unforeseen emergencies excepted, that federal and state government peak spending ends around January 2013. We, as a nation made history in 2008 - let's make it again in 2013.
The federal battle is lost; too many are dependent.
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-business-of-federal-government-is.html
The state battle is being won...in some of the nation.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Notice the which way the debt is moving for state and local gov'ts.
Next, MOO, both a legislative and executive branch commitment to the maximization of all American energy production might go a long way to addressing our problems and easing the pains of the demographic trough that you have kindly pointed out. The ensuing energy boom (and second and third order effects) should go a long way to enhancing our revenue needs.
Third, simply our tax structure, lower rates, eliminate loopholes and broaden the tax base.
These are three very simple steps that could move the country forward, improve revenues, create jobs, reduce the debt. There are many others. Obama drew some tough cards, but his focus and policies have exacerbated not minimized those problems.
After watching the Ryan videos in the OP, I do get a sense that R&R are serious about taking on the taxing and spending problems facing our nation.
Agree with your points, but not holding my breath on meaningful tax reform.
The big fix will have to come from energy, i.e. the private sector.
GDP is strongly correlated with energy consumption.
Grow energy, grow GDP, and grow our way out of the mess.
The states also need to step up and resist federal bullying.
Differences among the states will create places for the productive to flee and force solutions (compare Texas and California).
Badger52
09-11-2012, 07:30
The states also need to step up and resist federal bullying.
Differences among the states will create places for the productive to flee and force solutions (compare Texas and California).Agree; and that includes not accepting the unfunded support-tail to the "gift" program from Big G. It's about weaning, not whining.
Dreadnought
09-11-2012, 22:08
I have little to no faith in both the "Big 2" candidates and their parties. In order to not sacrifice my values this voting session, I will have to vote for a third party candidate
Cool Breeze
09-12-2012, 09:02
I am a conservative Republican as most of us are but I am pretty down on both parties. We have strayed so far from what this country was set up to be. The founding fathers specifically did not want to set up a system that created entitlement for public servants and did not want to set them up as "royalty".
The plan was that they serve their time, then go back to their "real jobs" and let another take their place.
Both parties say what they need to get elected and for the most part, do only what they need to do to stay in office. Why wouldn't they? Lifetime salary better than most people make, no taxes, and lifetime health coverage.
I believe the only way to fix things is to establish term limits for every elected official all the way down to dog catcher.
I also think we should remove the "benefits" and force these elected officials to get a "real job" when they leave office.
How did we get to the point where the law makers create laws for citizens that don't apply to them?