Will Democrats Win the House? Maybe Not. (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

With the rampant corruption, cronyism, the failed war in Iraq, and Robin Hood in reverse economics which takes money out of our pockets to give to the filthy rich, you would be thinking Democratic landslide, right?

WRONG!!!! Dont come to conclusions so fast. Just as there is now a split in the Republican party, the Democrats seem to be pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory. The Republican ship of state may be sinking, but the Democratic one is lost at sea without a rudder (or even a paddle).

At the core of the Democratic controversy is the tugging in 2 directions - One direction, exemplified by Hillary Clinton, is the love of George Bush. At least it seems to be love, or is it just plain cowardice, the lack of the proverbial backbone that has plagued Democrats throughout the years? On the other side, we have those who want to drag America back to the left. Now, unlike the Clintonites, they may have a backbone, but they have no idea of the pulse of the nation. What they are advocating is a return to the same Liberal values which were already repudiated by the American people back in 1994.

In the end, it comes to this - What are the Democrats going to send up against the Bushneviks this fall? A failed Liberal agenda, or a timididy in standing up to one of the most corrupt administratons in US history? Either way, it is a recipe for disaster. While today's GOP may be corrupt and taking America to hell in a handbasket, they just might win it all this fall. The Democrats are a dying breed. See you in hell, folks.

 

[ShamMol]

I am a democrat and I don't want them to win back the house or the Senate. Why? Because if they do, with the leadership in position now (Pelosi), I believe that it will be a massive failure. Reid is a great guy, but he is no majority leader. So basically, I am waiting until 08 for all my hopes and dreams.

And if the Dems were a dying breed, then the Libertarians are already in the ground.

 

[jfuh]

The dems today are indeed pretty pathetic. No backbone to declare any clear agenda. Thier only cries seem to be down with the Bushneviks. We're stuck with the selection between dumb and dumber. The dems today try to appease the conservative base, how dumb can you be?

 

[hipsterdufus]

I think if the elections are held fair and square - Dems win a huge number of seats in 06.

Without election reform; paper ballot verification etc. no Dem may ever win another election.

 

[hipsterdufus]

The dems today are indeed pretty pathetic. No backbone to declare any clear agenda. Thier only cries seem to be down with the Bushneviks. We're stuck with the selection between dumb and dumber. The dems today try to appease the conservative base, how dumb can you be?

I don't disagree entirely. But there are also Dems who have a crystal clear picture of what to do and what to stop. Dems aren't the party of discrimination, record debt, corporate servitued, rampant cronyism, rendition, preemptive, illegal spying, 750+ executive signing statements war etc. etc. etc.

There is very little compararison on those aspects between the two parties right now.

Who in particular bothers you?

 

[jfuh]

I don't disagree entirely. But there are also Dems who have a crystal clear picture of what to do and what to stop. Dems aren't the party of discrimination, record debt, corporate servitued, rampant cronyism, rendition, preemptive, illegal spying, 750+ executive signing statements war etc. etc. etc.

There is very little compararison on those aspects between the two parties right now.

Who in particular bothers you?

I don't disagree. My issue is not with anyone in particular. It's with the attitude of the dems today. They're only sitting back and waiting for the GOP to implode. Sorry but waiting for someone else to do something is not stepping up and being a leader. I want someone to be able to stand out and challenge this without the typical partisan rhetoric that follows.
Right now the political atmosphere is not who's best, but either dumb or dumber. Vote for me because I'm just like you. I don't want a candidate that is just like me, I want someone that is far better then me, otherwise why not pick me as the next president?

 

[MSgt]

:roll: I say Perot is going to win it all.

 

[danarhea]

:roll: I say Perot is going to win it all.

Only if the senile Admiral is his running mate again.

 

[hipsterdufus]

....otherwise why not pick me as the next president?

jfuh in 08! Yeah brother - go for it!

 

[hipsterdufus]

Only if the senile Admiral is his running mate again.

Can dead people run? Oh yeah, forgot about Cheney...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/05/stockdale.obit/

 

[Joby]

The Dems can keep dreaming. I'm glad that you all realize that they have no plan for anything that matters.

But at least you all got your stand on gay marriage and abortion covered, just in time to drive voters back to the right.

Anyway, I'd vote for Perot lol

...and i would

 

[jfuh]

jfuh in 08! Yeah brother - go for it!

Hahahaha perhaps I should declare my platform now then lol.
Here'd be my platform
1. Practical environmental protections #1, that's right, veto ANWR
2. independence of oil - all of it not just foreign
3. Gay marriage and adoption
4. tax relief for those that need it, taxation of those that should be taxed. That 10% of ultra wealthy americans.
5. relieve the US from crazy foreign debt, it's hurting us a lot, not to mention an issue of national security.
the list goes on.

 

[jfuh]

Didn't think this'd actually be asked - but I'll take a crack at it.

lol, alright, then I have some questions then.

What're the "practical environmental protections" that you speak of? And why are you concerned about protecting a place that no one ever goes to?

Practical would be environmental goals that can actually be reached. Example, you're not going to be able to stop developement when there is a high demand for. Best method would be to develope but with as small a foot print as possible. Thus allowing for regulation and foresight of. ie prohabition was impractical thus failed.
Another example will be mentioned later with regards to oil independence.

How exactly do you propose becoming independent of oil?

The Brazilian example would be a great model to use in this case. Brazil is on the verge of complete oil independence because of it's use of ethanol.
The prospect of using hydrogen is a complete joke (hindenbergs). Per unit volume liquid fuels are the only way of compacting enough energy easily, effectively and safely.
The problem with ethanol production in the US today is that it's only made from the fruiting body of the plant, which only constitutes less then 0.1% of the plant's total biomass. This is because of the corn lobbiests, but should be easily overcome as there's technology that utilizes the plants entire biomass - cellulose, xylan, ribose and so on.
Also ethanol is small enough a molecule that it can be chugged into a fuel cell for direct chemical to electrical conversion with very little thermal loss - thus highly efficient.

How are you going to replace the jobs lost by increasing the taxes on the rich?

Taxing of the rich causes loss in jobs? Clinton and Bush Sr. Raised an abundance in taxes yet obviously did very little in loosing jobs. Perhaps you can revise your question, reason being that dropping taxes only have temporary relief towards economic strain and very little for long term success, because you'd have to tax back what you dropped out - Bush Sr. and Clinton both had to raise back all the tax cuts and then some for what Regan cut.

And with the economy declining due to the increased taxes on the rich, thus leading to decreased tax revenue, how are you going to afford to relieve us from this debt? What spending will you cut to balance the budget (which seems to be an essential part of paying off debt, not generating new debt)?

The question would be whether or not taxation of the rich would lead to job losses to begin with. I have yet to find any sources that identify tax cuts to unemployment drops or tax raises of the rich to unemployment increases.

The simplist method now would be to close tax loopholes. Tax revenue amounts to the loss in billions because of loopholes and lack of collection by the IRS. However the greatest cut would be to doing away with rediculous pork barrel spending - ie bridge to no where in Alaska. Decreasing redundent beuracracy - homeland security vs FEMA vs FBI since there is now a national intelligence zar.

 

[talloulou]

jfuh in 08! Yeah brother - go for it!

And I didn't think the libs could find someone less electable than Hilary!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

lol, alright, then I have some questions then.

What're the "practical environmental protections" that you speak of? And why are you concerned about protecting a place that no one ever goes to?

Are you saying that the value of public land is only in its visitation?

How are you going to replace the jobs lost by increasing the taxes on the rich?

There really is no empirical data to support the assertion that modest tax increases on the top bracket has any negative affect on job growth, or economic growth in general. In 1993 there was a substantial tax increase on the top bracket, 31% to 39% if I am not mistaken, and that was followed by very strong job creation through the end of the decade, and what amounted to the longest economic expansion in history.

 

[jujuman13]

I read that the Democrats are going to raise Minimum wage to just over $7 / hour over 2 years.
Now ok perhaps with rampaging inflation just around the corner (thanks to present GOP President and administration) perhaps it will be necessary to raise MW.
But if this particular piece of bribery is going to work then again if that is all the Dems can offer, I dont think they stand a snowballs chance in hell of regaining power in either house of Reps or indeed Senate.
They have nothing solid to offer the country.
Much as I regret it, I do believe that the GOP will once agin rove into being the majority in both house and Senate.
Albeit without really having to do much politicking about the (sic: fight).

 

[ALiberalModerate]

But there is reason to believe that A) increasing tax rates on the rich doesn't neccisarily increase tax revenue (since it increases the incentives to hide assets and income from the government, and also it slows the economy, thus meaning there's less income to tax), and B) it leads to fewer jobs.

I understand what you are saying. If one looks to history as a guide, there is no empirical evidence at all to suggest that marginal cuts in taxes lead to increased growth and marginal increases lead to decreased growth. Historically, its been about the same decade by decade either way. I would simply argue that:

1. There is so much wealth concentrated at the top that marginal tax increases are easily absorbed.

2. There is a large middle class investor class today.

3. Consumption is the strongest incentive to invest. A strong middle class means strong consumption.

4. Gross income used to pay employees is deducted.

5. In the end, it doesn't matter if a rich man spends a dollar, the government spends a dollar, or a welfare recipient spends a dollar, either way its economic activity and either way, its consumption.

Of course, who knows, the economy is so large and complicated that its really hard to say.

 

[jfuh]

I definately see what you're saying, and there's a lot of merit in it. Economies are so interconnected between their parts that it could be argued that it doesn't matter who you're giving the tax cuts to, cause eventually those dollars are gonna end up with the top 1% of earners anyways.

But that being said, looking for a direct relationship between unemployment and tax cuts for the rich, and expecting to see one, is unrealistic. I haven't found any of these numbers (and it's possible that they'd be impossible to get), but if you compared these tax changes against the overall strength of the economy adjusted for all other factors (thus why it might be impossible) to see if there is any effect, and if so, how much.

The Philip's Curve is the argument that as inflation rates increase, unemployment decreases (there are certain situations in which this doesn't apply, but I'd have to dig up my old Principles of Macroeconomics notebook to remember when, but I'm assuming it's when inflation is no longer representative of the strength of an economy). Anywho, the point from that is that, as the economy get's stronger, unemployment goes down (seems reasonable), and so the main argument would be if tax hikes for the rich, cetis paribus (and I'm just waiting for Kelzie to come and correct me on how to spell that), make the economy weaker, then it's reasonable to believe that increasing taxes for the rich will lead to greater unemployment.

There's just as little evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy leads to unemployment. That is obviously a combination of other factors. However, it has also been shown that tax cuts for the wealthy does little to actually stimulate the economy's overall performance. What it has proven is that those cuts lead to less budgetary revenue and congress just borrows more into the deficit - 0 fisical restraint of any kind. Leaving budgetary problems for the next generation to handle as well as putting the economy within the hands and control of foreign powers.
That is unacceptable.

 

[jfuh]

I'd like to see that evidence that you speak of.

I said there's little evidence of any such. Those that I have seen that suggest so thus far are pretty weak arguments.

 

[LogicalReason]

cetis paribus (and I'm just waiting for Kelzie to come and correct me on how to spell that)

Since shockingly Kelzie hasn't corrected you yet :lol:

ceteris paribus

 

[jfuh]

that part.

The economy has been remarkably strong under W, and I've seen papers that say there's a way of maximizing revenue, and at some points that involves cutting tax rates.

So once again, I'd like to see that evidence that you speak of.

Oh, this
Here you go
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4 - Though this one is a bit out dated
Bottom line, even though the current budget deficit is a mere 2.1% of GDP, however should the economy turn down into another nosedive with a recession, and make no mistake this will happen, the burden and impact will be far greater than it has been in the past.
In essence - such short term "gains" (with a pinch of salt) are far from enough to offset the greater future burden.

 

[hipsterdufus]

And I didn't think the libs could find someone less electable than Hilary!

Come on.One of the Dems greatest strengths is finding unelectable candidates.

Look at Kerry.

After listening to him speak for two minutes, I knew I didn't have enough bread crumbs to find my way home.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Source 2 shows empirically that Bush's tax cuts are working well, so I was kind of lost on what exactly you were trying to prove, perhaps you could enlighten me.

Actually, it would seem as though it might, but I would argue that it doesn't. For Supply Side Economic theory to actually work as designed: The economy would have to grow a higher rate than it would have absent the tax cuts, and that rate of growth would have to be proportionate to make up for the lost revenue. So if a massive tax cut lead to only slightly increased economic economic growth, then that growth could not hope to make up for the lost revenue. Moreover, if the public sector is say 25% of GDP, then one would expect public sector obligations to grow along with GDP.

Just the same, even if it did work as designed in that regard, the Feds for fear of inflation would curb the growth in the economy that would be necessary to make up for the lost revenue.
The fact is, for us to halve the deficit in 3 years, we are going to have to have 3 years of very strong economic growth. The Fed's are raising interests rates right now because of inflation fears. There is no way they are going to let the economy grow at the rate it will need to grow at to meet Bush's goals.

Also, notice the following quote from Source 2 (an editorial): "Those making over $200,000 now pay 46.6% of total income taxes, presidential adviser Karl Rove recently said. That's up from 40.5% — despite Bush's tax cuts."

Consider that source.

 

[jfuh]

Alright, I appreciate the effort, but come on.

Source 1 does the entire study on the effect on tax revenue based on percentage of GDP. Of course it will lead to getting a lower percentage of GDP, that's what a tax cut is BY DEFINITION.

Source 2 shows empirically that Bush's tax cuts are working well, so I was kind of lost on what exactly you were trying to prove, perhaps you could enlighten me.

Source 3 I couldn't read from, cause my computer can't get PDF's, but in the summary of points that it showed in HTML it seemed to be just about entirely theoretical, which doesn't neccisarily mean it's worthless, but there are theoretical arguments from brilliant enonomists on both sides of this debate, so it certainly doesn't prove anything.

Source 4 is outdated, as you said. There is no way that you could assess the effectiveness of his tax cuts that early, especially after the shock to the system that was 9/11.


So yeah, how about that evidence? :2razz:

The bottom line is that, if you actually focus on how business is going, the tax cuts are working. That being said, it hasn't been proven to my satisfaction, that it was essential for these tax cuts to be on the rich. There is a strong theoretical argument, rooted in the idea that the lower income you are, the more honest you are about your taxes. In source 2 it showed that despite the tax cuts, the real tax rate for the rich has actually increased. This is because this decreased the cost in declaring your income, and thus cut down in the benefit of hiding income from the IRS. So, not only do these tax cuts mean we're actually getting more out of people, who are also in turn making more, but also with a rich person, if his income increases $1, the federal government get's $0.41 of it. Thus, the benefit in terms of revenue for the IRS in tax cuts stimulating the wealthy's wage is substantially more than stimulation of the less wealthy.

But I don't know. I haven't studied nearly enough economics to understand everything that's going on, and, basing this off of the quality of evidence you showed me in attempt to prove your point, I'm assuming neither do you.

Here's the drive home point that you should've gotten from source 2

While economic growth is producing impressive tax revenue gains, budget experts say they won't be enough to wipe out deficits, especially as baby boomers retire. Englund thinks the deficit could hit $150 billion if the expansion lasts two or three more years. "When we go into a downturn, the numbers reverse," he said. Long-term growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid "threaten to force either European-style tax increases, unprecedented spending cuts or unprecedented debt," said Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl. "There's no growing out of the long-term budget problems."
Heritage sees an $800 billion deficit in 2016, assuming tax cuts are extended and spending stays on its present course. If the economy and tax receipts continue to outperform, the deficit would still be at least $600 billion, Riedl said.

Being that while the short term fix of tax cuts are working to "boost" the economy. It is nevertheless a short term fix that ignores the big issue of long term budgeting. Not to mention as per the sources (just exclude source 4, I don't think it's a good source), the growth of the economy has not offset the revenue lost from the tax cuts, thus the net effect is still in the red for the tax cuts.
So while the tax cuts do thier effect in boosting the economy, however it furthers the revenue gap and increases deficiet spending which is what the gov is using as of now, and it has not been a sufficient boost to offset lost revenue. China and Japan are the ones paying our bills but then we'd have to pay them back with high interest later on. That's the problem.
The tax cuts have mainly benefited only but a few within the nation as a whole while doing nearly nothing in assistance with those in the middle and on down of the social ladder. Yet social security and medicare is prominently used by these ppl and without more capital per capita, that means the finances are going to be further strained, resulting in further national debt.
Which is the exact point that I'm hitting across.

As in the case of Source 1, yes I know that's the definition of tax cuts, but again, you're loosing revenue being made and that revenue needs to be made up some how because spending has not decreased but contrarily increased. Right now making that up is from borrowing more from foreign nations -> China.

 

[taxedout]

I think if the elections are held fair and square - Dems win a huge number of seats in 06.

Without election reform; paper ballot verification etc. no Dem may ever win another election.

Always somebody else's fault isn't it ?
Have you been talking to my seven year old ?