Party moving too radical?

[Ug make hammer]

It's sad when the weak minded are fooled by the devious and manipulative.

With the integration of the Tea Party into the mainstream of the Republican party, it was rather the other way around. The weak minded gained leverage over the devious and manipulative, just by offering to expand the base.

 

[code1211]

With the integration of the Tea Party into the mainstream of the Republican party, it was rather the other way around. The weak minded gained leverage over the devious and manipulative, just by offering to expand the base.

In what way does a group of folks who seek to lower taxes do anything besides adding a call t lower taxes?

TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party.

 

[Ug make hammer]

In what way does a group of folks who seek to lower taxes do anything besides adding a call t lower taxes?

TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party.

Taxes should have been raised, except in Republican terms that can only be by compromise with spending. And they didn't have the numbers or the guts to cut spending.

The TEA party never were anything but economic lightweights. Giving them lower taxes knowing that it means higher taxes in the future, is trickery.

Perhaps the best of the TEA party would be Paul Ryan. Remember the Ryan Budget which will live in infamy? Massive cuts. It was never going to happen.

 

[code1211]

Taxes should have been raised, except in Republican terms that can only be by compromise with spending. And they didn't have the numbers or the guts to cut spending.

The TEA party never were anything but economic lightweights. Giving them lower taxes knowing that it means higher taxes in the future, is trickery.

Perhaps the best of the TEA party would be Paul Ryan. Remember the Ryan Budget which will live in infamy? Massive cuts. It was never going to happen.

You are conflating various ideas and statements from unrelated sources to arrive at your odd conclusion.

The US Government is run by lying thieves. Party affiliation does not reduce or enhance the dishonesty of any of them.

If the growth of spending by the Federal Government had been restrained to only the level of inflation reflected by the Social Security COLA since 1999, our $30 Trillion debt would be a $7 Trillion surplus.

The difference, 37 Trillion dollars, is outright theft and dirty dealing.

If any other country had done to the American people what our Federal government has done to us over the last 20 years, it would be considered and act of war.

 

[Ug make hammer]

You are conflating various ideas and statements from unrelated sources to arrive at your odd conclusion.

The US Government is run by lying thieves. Party affiliation does not reduce or enhance the dishonesty of any of them.

If the growth of spending by the Federal Government had been restrained to only the level of inflation reflected by the Social Security COLA since 1999, our $30 Trillion debt would be a $7 Trillion surplus.

The difference, 37 Trillion dollars, is outright theft and dirty dealing.

If any other country had done to the American people what our Federal government has done to us over the last 20 years, it would be considered and act of war.

The one year surplus was a one-off, driven I believe by both parties' fear of Ross Perot populism. He was decades ahead of the TEA party, and more honest in his plan to balance the budget. It was politically inevitable that whoever got in next would cut taxes and spend; it turns out that was George Bush. Who pretty much lied about it, allowing the military to run deficits off the budget.

I wouldn't go any further in condemning deficits, except to say they put a burden on future Americans. "Act of war" is just hyperbole. There's still the option of a constitutional amendment and the Federal government writing off debt to foreigners, and settling with domestic creditors. For a long time after that, the US would not have access to cheap loans, but that shouldn't bother you.

 

[code1211]

The one year surplus was a one-off, driven I believe by both parties' fear of Ross Perot populism. He was decades ahead of the TEA party, and more honest in his plan to balance the budget. It was politically inevitable that whoever got in next would cut taxes and spend; it turns out that was George Bush. Who pretty much lied about it, allowing the military to run deficits off the budget.

I wouldn't go any further in condemning deficits, except to say they put a burden on future Americans. "Act of war" is just hyperbole. There's still the option of a constitutional amendment and the Federal government writing off debt to foreigners, and settling with domestic creditors. For a long time after that, the US would not have access to cheap loans, but that shouldn't bother you.

Your post ignores every way the substance of what I posted.

You seem to agree that the government is disassociated from the wishes of and the will of the people.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Your post ignores every way the substance of what I posted.

Paragraph 1: The political reason that Clinton and Gingrich balanced the budget. You don't like it because you'd prefer to pretend that IN THIS ONE CASE it was politicians doing what the people wanted.

Paragraph 2: I don't like deficits but even less do I like ridiculous rhetoric like "act of war." There are options in the future to get rid of the debt.

You seem to agree that the government is disassociated from the wishes of and the will of the people.

If the people really wanted balanced budgets, they would have voted Bush 43 back out.

The people tell pollsters (by about half) that they want deficit reduced, but then they vote for tax cuts and higher spending. The people do not have the strength of their beliefs.

 

[code1211]

Paragraph 1: The political reason that Clinton and Gingrich balanced the budget. You don't like it because you'd prefer to pretend that IN THIS ONE CASE it was politicians doing what the people wanted.

Paragraph 2: I don't like deficits but even less do I like ridiculous rhetoric like "act of war." There are options in the future to get rid of the debt.



If the people really wanted balanced budgets, they would have voted Bush 43 back out.

The people tell pollsters (by about half) that they want deficit reduced, but then they vote for tax cuts and higher spending. The people do not have the strength of their beliefs.

You STILL ignore what I posted. do you REALLY not understand that the government is increasing spending every year at a rate that is outrageous?

 

[Ug make hammer]

You STILL ignore what I posted. do you REALLY not understand that the government is increasing spending every year at a rate that is outrageous?

I deny that's a problem. In real dollars its about the same as in 2010. St Louis Fed.

 

[Gatsby]

Both parties have radicalized on some issues and moderated on others.

Republicans are much more moderate on economic issues today than they were in 2012 when they ran on cutting entitlements, and they are much more receptive to LGB rights than a decade ago. But they've gone off the deep end when it comes to immigration and basic respect for democracy.

Democrats are much more moderate on gun rights than they were in the mid-2000s...but they've taken a hard left turn on the woke "social justice" stuff and certain economic issues. Let's keep in mind that the Build Back Better bill was a question as to whether the most conservative Democrat would sign on to at least $1.7 trillion in extra spending...compare that to Obama's stimulus bill in 2009/2010 which was kept under $1 trillion despite much larger Democratic majorities and much more dire economic conditions, because anything more than that was viewed as too radical.

I'm not sure it makes sense to measure the parties on a left/right scale like that, because the obvious question is "Compared to what?" We are in a political environment where our elections tend to be close, and where Democrats and Republicans tend to each win and lose about half the time. That seems to be strong evidence that neither party is all that extreme overall, relative to where the voters are. When they go off the deep end, they tend to suffer an electoral penalty and course-correct for the next election.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Both parties have radicalized on some issues and moderated on others.

Republicans are much more moderate on economic issues today than they were in 2012 when they ran on cutting entitlements, and they are much more receptive to LGB rights than a decade ago. But they've gone off the deep end when it comes to immigration and basic respect for democracy.

Democrats are much more moderate on gun rights than they were in the mid-2000s...but they've taken a hard left turn on the woke "social justice" stuff and certain economic issues. Let's keep in mind that the Build Back Better bill was a question as to whether the most conservative Democrat would sign on to at least $1.7 trillion in extra spending...compare that to Obama's stimulus bill in 2009/2010 which was kept under $1 trillion despite much larger Democratic majorities and much more dire economic conditions, because anything more than that was viewed as too radical.

I'm not sure it makes sense to measure the parties on a left/right scale like that, because the obvious question is "Compared to what?" We are in a political environment where our elections tend to be close, and where Democrats and Republicans tend to each win and lose about half the time. That seems to be strong evidence that neither party is all that extreme overall, relative to where the voters are. When they go off the deep end, they tend to suffer an electoral penalty and course-correct for the next election.

DW-NOMINATE is actually a two dimensional graph, though it's more commonly used in just one dimension (post #1) because putting social issues on a scale is dubious. How do you rank a strict immigration policy against a drug-legalization policy, and put numbers on that? There's also interaction between public opinion and politics, see for instance the Republicans moderating on same-sex marriage because they essentially had no choice.

 

[code1211]

I deny that's a problem. In real dollars its about the same as in 2010. St Louis Fed.

If tax revenues were unchanged since 1999 and spending since 1999 had increased by only the rate of the Social Security COLA, this is what would have happened:

The actual $30 Trillion debt would be a $7 Trillion dollar surplus today.

The difference, $37 Trillion, is the amount that has been stolen by the lying thieves over the intervening years.

 

[Ug make hammer]

If tax revenues were unchanged since 1999 and spending since 1999 had increased by only the rate of the Social Security COLA, this is what would have happened:

The actual $30 Trillion debt would be a $7 Trillion dollar surplus today.

Where did you get that?

The difference, $37 Trillion, is the amount that has been stolen by the lying thieves over the intervening years.

I'm really not interested in emotive rhetoric. Borrowing is not stealing.

 

[code1211]

Where did you get that?



I'm really not interested in emotive rhetoric. Borrowing is not stealing.

Simple math. Out of curiosity, are you seriously defending the outrageous theft and waste of the Federal Government?

Here's a short hand comparison to show in broad terms what the incompetent mismanagement and out right theft has cost us:

The Average Social Security Check the Year You Were Born

The truth is, the Social Security checks your great grandparents might have been receiving in the 1950s were much smaller.

finance.yahoo.com

<snip>

1999​

• Average monthly Social Security payment that year: $804.30
• Average monthly Social Security payment in 2020 dollars: $1,250.12

<snip>

Federal outlays in 1999 = $1701.8 Trillion
Federal outlays in 2001 = $7249.5

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in dollars and as a percent of GDP from 1940 to 2027.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

Social Security payment increases were based on inflation. In 1999, annual average amount was $9,651.60. In 2022 annual average amount was $15,001.44. Amount of the increase was from 1999 to 2021 was about 1.53 times.

Federal Spending increases are based on the greed and theft of the lying thieves. In 1999 Federal Spending was $1701.8 Trillion. In 2001, Federal spending was $7249.5 Trillion. An increase of 4.26 times.

The difference between actual spending and inflation is the amount that the lying thieves have stolen by actual theft and mismanagement.

The Federal Government SHOWS us what they feel inflation is by adjusting the COLA for Social Security. They also SHOIW us that they are lying thieves as they steal so much more than inflation.

Here is a table showing what the COLA called for by the Feds in every year including those years from 1999 to 2021.

History of Social Security COLA increases by year

Beneficiaries have received cost-of-living adjustments almost every year since 1975

www.aarp.org

 

[Ug make hammer]

Simple math. Out of curiosity, are you seriously defending the outrageous theft and waste of the Federal Government?

Here's a short hand comparison to show in broad terms what the incompetent mismanagement and out right theft has cost us:

The Average Social Security Check the Year You Were Born

The truth is, the Social Security checks your great grandparents might have been receiving in the 1950s were much smaller.

finance.yahoo.com

<snip>

1999​

• Average monthly Social Security payment that year: $804.30
• Average monthly Social Security payment in 2020 dollars: $1,250.12

<snip>

Federal outlays in 1999 = $1701.8 Trillion
Federal outlays in 2001 = $7249.5

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in dollars and as a percent of GDP from 1940 to 2027.

www.taxpolicycenter.org

Social Security payment increases were based on inflation. In 1999, annual average amount was $9,651.60. In 2022 annual average amount was $15,001.44. Amount of the increase was from 1999 to 2021 was about 1.53 times.

Federal Spending increases are based on the greed and theft of the lying thieves. In 1999 Federal Spending was $1701.8 Trillion. In 2001, Federal spending was $7249.5 Trillion. An increase of 4.26 times.

You mean 2021, and it's an estimate. 2020 which is known, was 6.6 trillion.

Over a trillion dollars of that is transfers (with Paycheck Protection being the largest). Basically the government is borrowing at very low rates, and giving the money to individuals and businesses who can't borrow at anything like the same low rate.

The difference between actual spending and inflation is the amount that the lying thieves have stolen by actual theft and mismanagement.

So borrowing is theft?

Maybe you should take it up with businesses and households, who have just as much debt but at worse rates. Try persuading them that borrowing in good faith is "theft".

The Federal Government SHOWS us what they feel inflation is by adjusting the COLA for Social Security. They also SHOIW us that they are lying thieves as they steal so much more than inflation.

Here is a table showing what the COLA called for by the Feds in every year including those years from 1999 to 2021.

History of Social Security COLA increases by year

Beneficiaries have received cost-of-living adjustments almost every year since 1975

www.aarp.org

I wouldn't mind cutting the average Social Security payment, but I wouldn't do it across the board. I'd stop subsidizing those elders who are rich.

 

[code1211]

You mean 2021, and it's an estimate. 2020 which is known, was 6.6 trillion.

Over a trillion dollars of that is transfers (with Paycheck Protection being the largest). Basically the government is borrowing at very low rates, and giving the money to individuals and businesses who can't borrow at anything like the same low rate.



So borrowing is theft?

Maybe you should take it up with businesses and households, who have just as much debt but at worse rates. Try persuading them that borrowing in good faith is "theft".



I wouldn't mind cutting the average Social Security payment, but I wouldn't do it across the board. I'd stop subsidizing those elders who are rich.

Your arguments are offered to justify theft, stupidity and mismanagement.

Why are you arguing in favor of these things?

 

[Cope]

Where did you get that?



I'm really not interested in emotive rhetoric. Borrowing is not stealing.

When your brother borrows it with the ability to pay it back, you're right, it is not stealing.

When some entity who doesn't know you, nor do they know they can pay it back, it sure sounds like stealing to me.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Your arguments are offered to justify theft, stupidity and mismanagement.

Why are you arguing in favor of these things?

I like government better than I like the financiers who government borrowed from.

Are YOU personally invested in US bonds? No? Then why should you care either.

 

[Ug make hammer]

When your brother borrows it with the ability to pay it back, you're right, it is not stealing.

When some entity who doesn't know you, nor do they know they can pay it back, it sure sounds like stealing to me.

Did you know, borrowers actually bid down the rate of US securities. So not only does the government borrow with consent, it even lets the lender set the rate. If they had any doubts about the US being unable to repay, they wouldn't bid it down so low.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

We could mint a $50 trillion coin and repay all the debts in US Dollars, then establish the Thaler as the new currency. We'd need a new currency due to the one off hyper-inflation. We should probably give our allies a heads-up too, so they're not holding US dollars.

 

[Blue Dog]

The Democratic Party is not too radical for me.

That being said note my moniker…

 

[Gateman_Wen]

I could be wrong but seems like it started with Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
Here's an eye-opener >>>
.
View attachment 67379952

You aren't wrong

 

[Gateman_Wen]

These are all very interesting charts.

The Koch brothers love the poorly educated because they can ride all their ignorance and prejudice to go anywhere they want- free ride. Who can say no to that?

Look! Squirrel! They want to take your guns and Bibles and pickup trucks away! Quick! Vote to cut my taxes some more and I’ll protect you!

That's the cycle. Democrats in office, things improve, incomes go up, racial tensions ease, and so on. Republicans pick a couple of issues and harp on them. Guns, abortion, "they took our jobs", and so forth. They hammer on it until they've riled up enough folks to get elected. Then they proceed to dismantle freedoms for regular folk and cut taxes for wealthy people while running the economy into the ground but without addressing what it was they got people fired up about in the first place. Suddenly things really are bad again and the people elect democrats to fix it.

lather rinse repeat.

 

[Simpletruther]

I"ve seen the typical republican bot talk when a newbie con drops in here and say, "I used to be a democrat but the party moved too radical..." blah blah blah. Pew kind of cleared that bullshit up.

​

You fail to consider the Overton window.

The only reason we can say conservatives have drifted more to the right is because the center is constantly over time moving leftward.

It's why many conservstives today hold what was considered left ideas years ago, like homosexual right to freedom and non discrimination for jobs and such (though not yet marriage). Many other things, interracial marriage etc etc have moved leftward.

Here is a link from your beloved WP confirming my point which should be obvious to all:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/28/democratic-party-has-moved-left-so-has-us-this-explains-how-why/

 

[justoneman]

I could be wrong but seems like it started with Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
Here's an eye-opener >>>
.
View attachment 67379952

Why would it be good for the top 1% to have the poorest income growth? I would think we would want the top 1% to be earning high. This makes me think that this chart has sectioned off a period of time with some bad economic down turns. I know that just after WW2 we went into a bad economic period. The mid to late 70s also bad.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Why would it be good for the top 1% to have the poorest income growth? I would think we would want the top 1% to be earning high.

Marginal utility. Doubling the income of a worker makes them much happier, whereas doubling the income of a CEO makes very little difference to them.

This makes me think that this chart has sectioned off a period of time with some bad economic down turns. I know that just after WW2 we went into a bad economic period. The mid to late 70s also bad.

Yet "bad" times are good for smart investors. The inflation of the 70's barely affected high income earners at all, because (a) marginal utility, and (b) much less of their income has to be spent on the commodities which were inflating.

Neither extreme in the graph is ideal. I'd let high income earners have slightly less than average growth, but if I had to choose between much less and much more, it would be much less. The top ten percent of wealthy people in the US own 70% of everything, and reducing that should be a priority for new taxes.