Vote Republican

Austerity And Pessimism Won’t Win Elections

[url]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/austerity-and-pessimism-wont-win-elections/[/URL]


Using the election results in France and Greece as a starting point, Matt Lewis makes an important point that Republicans would do well to remember:
It may serve as a helpful warning to the GOP that — while responsible governance is crucial — austerity, in and of itself, is not a political winner. In fact, its abandonment helped propel Ronald Reagan to the presidency — arguably, the most important conservative electoral victory in modern American history.
Reagan, of course, ran and lost as a traditional balanced budget Republican in 1976. But by 1980, he was advocating the more optimistic supply-side economics of Jack Kemp. There is a lesson to be learned here. Even as Republicans rightly suggest trimming the fat and getting our economic house in order, they would be wise to eschew the implication that their vision for the future involves wearing cardigans and turning down the thermostat. A defeatist attitude offends the American spirit. Conservatives, of all people, ought to appreciate this.
Optimism sells — even to fiscal conservatives.
​
This is the part of Ronald Reagan’s legacy that the contemporary right seems to forget. Living as they do in their hyper-partisan world where political warfare is the rule rather than the exception, they don’t realize that Ronald Reagan succeeded not because he “sold” conservatism to America so much as it was because he reinvigorated a sense of optimism that had been beaten down after a decade of war, protests, Watergate, and a stagnant economy. Sound familiar? It should. I’m generally not one of those people who believes in the idea that history repeats itself but the similarities between the condition of America, and Americans, today and 1980 are fairly apparent. The problems are different, of course, but the sense that the nation’s best days are behind it is back again, and what Americans really want, I think, is a reason to think the future will be better.
Instead, they’re getting the Republican Party, which seems to be locked into a gospel of doom and gloom, as I observed last year on the occasion of the centennial of Reagan’s birth:
The Ronald Reagan I remember was an optimist who spoke of America as being the “shining city on the hill,” and who, even if in the depths of the Carter Malaise believed that the country’s best days were ahead of it, a sentiment that appeared throughout his major campaign speeches in 1980. One of the reasons Ronald Reagan was successful was because he brought that message of optimism at a time when the American public was becoming increasingly pessimistic.
Modern-day conservative rhetoric, especially as practiced by the Palin’s and Glenn Beck’s of the world, seems to have thrown that Reagan optimism overboard in favor of a philosophy that seems to find enemies around every corner, and conspiracies behind every event. I don’t know what you call that, but it sure as heck isn’t Ronald Reagan, which just makes the efforts by such people to claim Reagan’s legacy as their own all the more pathetic
​
Of course, the Republicans don’t really have a candidate talking optimistically about America the way Reagan did. Romney mouths the words sometimes but they really don’t seem sincere and it’s clear that the GOP audience he’s been talking to would rather hear him talk about how evil Obama is than anything else. It’s too bad, really, because an optimistic, pro-growth, message is exactly what the country needs right now.
None of this is to say that fiscal prudence isn’t important, or that we don’t need to seriously address the fiscal issues facing the nation sooner rather than later, of course. However there is a way to address those issues in a political message that doesn’t involve falling back on gloom and doom and, more importantly, many of these issues would begin to resolve themselves if we returned to an era of decent (i.e., 3.5-4.5%) economic growth rates. So in some sense, economic growth and fiscal responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Right now, though, the GOP only seems to be looking at one side of the coin and the message their sending isn’t exactly one that’s likely to win elections.
 
All the austerity straw man. Actually, it is only the Left's misrepresentation of GOP policies that argue for austerity.

Where is the austerity in Paul Ryan's budget? It cuts NO benefits for anyone 55 and older and simply gives anyone younger better options.

The real "austerity" argument is the one the Dems are implicitly making; do nothing but use these programs as means to score cheap political points until the system collapses.

Ryan's budget looks to save these programs while the Dems prefer to ignore fiscal reality and let these programs fail.

Also, using France and Greece as a starting point is laughable. We are a profoundly different culture with different values. It is comparing apples and oranges.

If you focus on the state level or lower, it is laughably ignorant to claim that austerity is a purely GOP creation. Dems at the state and local levels are reforming pensions because, unlike the Federal government, they can't avoid fiscal reality for a very long time.

Romney is trying for the positive message, but he is no Reagan to be sure. It really will be a referendum on Obama.
 
fossten said:
Listen to yourself admitting Obama has to lie his arse off to get reelected.

And I bet you'll vote for the guy despite how true or false it is.

He's not doing a good job of selling so far.

:bowrofl:
Click to expand...

"Admitting"? I never denied Obama wasn't playing the game or claimed he was politically sinless.

You'd lose that bet, I'm voting Independent again. Aren't you self-described as being good at gambling?

Meh, maybe; we'll see come the election.
 
Voting Republicon is like telling my family they don't matter to me. All of us are middle class and the Republicons are waging war on us. Thirty plus years ago the Republicans would get things done to help people but today they have the Audacity of Nope!
 
People want benefits but refuse to pay for them.
Make the rich pay for us and what we cost they say but there aren't enough rich people to make much difference.
Americans are bad at math and good at ignoring financial reality.
The Audacity of Republicans saying No to people wanting to get more something for nothing from the government.
The 150 million people in the middle class who got 3.2 trillion out of 4 trillion of the Bush tax cuts over 10 years need to suck it up, carry their own weight and pay more taxes instead of being dependant on the government as if it was their rich parents.
The middle class did fine under Clinton before the Bush tax cuts,
Once the people find they can vote themselves free money then that is what they do because of course they deserve it.
 
Omegaman said:
Voting Republicon is like telling my family they don't matter to me. All of us are middle class and the Republicons are waging war on us. Thirty plus years ago the Republicans would get things done to help people but today they have the Audacity of Nope!
Click to expand...

So...pointing out the trade-offs, destructivness and "unintended" consequences of mindless ideals mixed with an unethical ends-justify-the-means approach and a rejection of limits imposed by reality (specifically through limited resources) is "waging a war on...[the] middle class"?

Care to explain how that works?
 
Is it a "War on the Middle Class" when the government stops handing out free money and decides to cut the benefits that you want someone else to pay for?
 
What a bunch of white noise. Shag you must have took all of two minutes to post that message that means absolutely nothing and the idea the other had that because the middle class were fine under Clinton means what? The Bush tax cuts along with the trickle down mentality has taken all the wealth FROM the middle class and given it to the top 20% who have made the middle class low wage slaves and redistributed the wealth away from workers so they have none. From 1948 to 1980 most wealth was in the hands of the middle class. but since 1980 that number has flipped exactly around the other way. The top 20% now hold 87%.Those facts can be looked up. So if your honest you will. But what I see from you is a bunch of talking points prepared by right-wingers. You don't impress me nor can you bully me or even make me mad. I know facts from your shineola! I have to say though it is fun to see you rant with no real facts to back you up! And offering up Newsmax and such as proof is laughable!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh and just because you own the company doesn't mean you don't share the profits with the people who also worked to get you those profits! Funny isn't it that President Obama hasn't raised taxes and still the job creators are slow in creating jobs .... President Bush had years of job losses and now President Obama has had nearly two years of small but positive job GROWTH but that's not good enough for you....BTW I CCW and he has yet to take my guns away and he won't ....I pay more for ammo because you knuckleheads ran out to buy all the ammo to stock pile!
 
The Bush tax cuts along with the trickle down mentality has taken all the wealth FROM the middle class and given it to the top 20% who have made the middle class low wage slaves and redistributed the wealth away from workers so they have none.
Click to expand...

The middle class got 80% of the 4 trillion of the Bush tax cuts which they have mostly squandered.

The 1948 to 1980 wealth distribution to the middle class was a historic anomaly contrary to the norm of human nature brought about by the super abundance of wealth created by the WWII expansion of the US economy to 50% of world GDP in 1950.
The trickle down to workers was a torrent due to the unique pressures of the time of great wealth expansion pushed along by the building of the interstate highway system among other things.
This is finished and not to be repeated as we are less than 30% of world GDP today and things have returned to the usual historic pre WWII order.

Also other countries are willing to work harder and longer for less in order to compete for a piece of the pie.
The world is catching up while the quality of our stock of people has declined.
Obese Fat A$$ed americans with a BMI of 30 or higher are 40% of the population and climbing.
13-18 year old sloths and gluttons sitting on their butts playing video games are getting diabetes.
But nobody says "So how did you get so fat and out of shape?" which could refer to America itself.
We have the richest fattest poor people in the world.
45 million get food stamps, 3 times the number in 2001 and Obummer wants to hand out more.
500 million people mostly in India and China have been lifted out of real poverty into a middle class since 2006 to the economic level of our poor (who enjoy solid shelter, running water, cars, free tv, computers, food stamps, benefits and handouts etc)
The pampered american middle class has been outcompeted and out performed by the rest of the world which is leaner and more hungry.

Just the facts.
 
Omegaman said:
Funny isn't it that President Obama hasn't raised taxes
Click to expand...

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:
Funny, considering that the Supreme Court recently ruled that Obamacare was a tax.

You can find a rather comprehensive list of Obama's tax increases at this link (along with where to confirm the information in laws, since I know you will be quick with excuses to dismiss.) Here is a sampling of some of the tax increases from Obamacare alone;
  • Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes effect in Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax...Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337
  • Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax (takes effect Jan. 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346
  • Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Tax hike of $32 bil/takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956
  • Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Tax hike of $86.8 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013)...Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93
  • Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Tax hike of $1.4 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959
  • Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Tax hike of $20 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986
  • Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399
  • Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Tax hike of $4.5 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994
  • Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/took effect immediately): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971
  • Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980
  • Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers (Tax hike of $60.1 bil/takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993
Then there is also his continued efforts to raise taxes that the Republicans are properly standing in the way of (unless you think economic reality has no place in crafting our laws).

...and still the job creators are slow in creating jobs ....
Click to expand...

NO economic argument is so simple as to say tax rate cuts AUTOMATICALLY lead to job creation. However, most EVERY economic school of thought recognizes that tax rate cuts (specifically in income taxes and corporate taxes) stimulate the economy, whether by proving disposable income and/or by incentivizing business growth via savings and investment.

There are still plenty of other factors that disincentivize business growth, like...the massive uncertainty created by Dodd-Frank and Obamacare (which also discourages small businesses, specifically, from growing because of the perverse incentive structure for businesses with 50 or more employees, lending itself to a stagnant economy) and tax uncertainty due to certain politicians looking to score cheap political points through rhetorical allusions to long discredited economic theories (Marxist Class Analysis and Obama's class warfare lies).

President Bush had years of job losses and now President Obama has had nearly two years of small but positive job GROWTH but that's not good enough for you
Click to expand...

Actually, Bush has a TREMENDOUS record on unemployment until the housing bust in 2008. Obama's record, on the other hand, has been rather dismal if you actually examine A) how the numbers are calculated, and B) why the numbers are dropping (basically, a shrinking workforce, not actual job creation).
 
Omegaman said:
Shag you must have took all of two minutes to post that message that means absolutely nothing
Click to expand...

Honestly, I didn't expect you to understand it.

I was more interested to see how you handle a counterpoint that might be a little too abstract to fit on a bumper sticker.

Rest assured, you reacted with the level of maturity I expected. ;)

The Bush tax cuts along with the trickle down mentality has taken all the wealth FROM the middle class and given it to the top 20% who have made the middle class low wage slaves and redistributed the wealth away from workers so they have none.
Click to expand...

Not really. You have to assume that the economy is a zero-sum game for that to be true; an idea that has been examined and discredited for centuries. EVERY credible economic theory rejects that laughably ignorant assumption.

One person acquiring wealth does not automatically mean they have to be taking wealth from someone else. Markets create wealth and therefore, grow the pie.

From 1948 to 1980 most wealth was in the hands of the middle class. but since 1980 that number has flipped exactly around the other way. The top 20% now hold 87%.Those facts can be looked up.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can be looked up and they stem from a highly contrived (and flawed) study by Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez. Basically, they craft an arbitrary metric (tax unit as they call it) to fit the argument they want to make instead of looking at metrics most likely to give an accurate representation of reality; they distort reality to fit their ideology. Here are a few of the problems with this "study",
  • The study looks at tax returns (instead of households (the typical measure) or the more accurate measure of individual income). Tax returns (tax units as they call them) among top income earners average two income earners while this is less true of lower incomes (especially the lowest incomes). To account for this disparity, Piketty & Saez, “apply a blanket assumption that income per tax unit is on average 28% smaller than income per household” (adding an unnecessary layer of statistical abstraction).
  • Changes in the tax code in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s lead to a shifting of business to personal tax returns. Considering the Piketty-Saez methodology, this would create an illusion of increased income concentrated in the upper income brackets.
  • tax returns do not equal income (let alone consumption). The Piketty-Saez definition of income excludes transfer payments (SS, Medicare/Medicaid), tax-free employee compensation (employer health care) and all income/capital gains put into tax-favored college/retirement accounts. Consequently, Piketty-Saez failed to include close to 40% of income in their data in 2007 and 2008 (according to Brooking Institution economist Gary Burtless).
Basically, the study which as provide the empirical basis for most of the Obama/ Dem class warfare rhetoric doesn't actually compare apples to apples when it comes to income. It compares income on tax returns while ignoring very critical distinctions like number of income earners on tax returns, changes in the tax code over the years in question, etc. When you actually correct for those partisan methodological asumptions, you essentially get this study which more or less refutes the Piketty-Saez study.

Of course, you have yet to provide any argument that income inequality is somehow a relevant issue to focus discussion on. How is it anything more than a statistical abstract?

The rise of the middle class and the huge increase in the standard of living over the past 200+ years are products of private businesses pursuing their self-interest, not government. Put differently, the fact that we don’t have 90% of the population (or more) living an agrarian life in absolute, crushing poverty while a very small few live in relative luxury is due to the private sector and the wealth it creates. In fact, capitalism has been so successful that poverty had to be redefined by Leftists in the 1960’s to imply “relative” poverty (an idea popularized by Michael Harrington among others) to maintain their rhetorical class warfare. This is why the rhetoric now focuses on meaningless statistical abstracts like “income inequality” instead of the effects of absolute poverty, like malnurishment and other physical needs not being met. Capitalism (and the culture that favored it) provided for basic physical needs better than any alternative economic system or Federally directed welfare program.

Statistical income inequality is a byproduct of a growing economy and is ultimately irrelevant (only if the economy is zero-sum can you argue it is relevant). In fact, to focus on abstract statistical categories instead of real world consequences is to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Down that road, totalitarianism lies.

You don't impress me nor can you bully me or even make me mad.
Click to expand...

The only one attempting to bully here is you (a pattern of behavior rather common on the political Left).
 
Shag, thanks for your diatribe and providing us with those right wing links. Because I am apparently not capable of understanding your drivel I didn't take the time to read it adnausium. Why say anything in one sentence that can be said in 20. The Affordable Health Care Act ...aka...ObamaCares.... Was passed by Congress and fashioned by them. The power to tax is not with the executive branch. President Bush did send me a letter telling me he was giving me a tax refund once though. Nice try though!
 
So... when I post a quick reply, I get this...
Omegaman said:
Shag you must have took all of two minutes to post that message that means absolutely nothing...
Click to expand...
And when I take the time to craft an argument, I get this...
Omegaman said:
Shag, thanks for your diatribe and providing us with those right wing links. Because I am apparently not capable of understanding your drivel I didn't take the time to read it adnausium. Why say anything in one sentence that can be said in 20.
Click to expand...
In short, no matter what I do, your knee jerk response is always going to be to find some quick excuse to dismiss it (typically with ad hominem attacks) while spouting mindless talking points you are clearly incapable of honestly and civilly defending. As I pointed out earlier, the only one attempting to bully here is you.

Quite a long way from the person who said this...
Omegaman said:
I don't think I will discuss politics here as I don't like the tone given nor my response to that tone. I feel lousy about how I feel after I do ....thinking that I have hurt others with my coarseness.
Click to expand...
 
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up" (1936)
US novelist (1896 - 1940)
Click to expand...

With tongue fully in cheek :p

to spice things up while holding both liberal and conservative views simultaneously and hurtling superlatives

I say that those in the top 1% who already pretty well pay for everything at a 45-50% combined state and federal tax rate are tired of being scapegoated (Jon Lovitz example) and hearing the middle class delusionally whining about its own self induced shortcomings.


Go F off or start a business and do something to produce your own wealth instead of demanding more of mine.
I'm not responsible for your predicament.
I do not owe you a living.
My getting rich did not come from taking money away from you.
Winning and losing is what is fair, to each based on their own accomplishments.
Income inequality is what is fair because
we live in a competitive society and competition produces winners.
(and losers)

Successful people in this world are those who get up and look for circumstances they want. If they can't find them, they make them. George Bernard Shaw
Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 - 1950)
Click to expand...


It is not fair to take from the winners and give to the losers.

It's really the top .1% that mostly pay low taxes not the junior millionaires like contractors and small business owners.

And as to the underclass:
people who demand the government to totally pay for them
and their existence basically are a negative drag on society and have no business being alive :eek:
 
Actually Shag I didn't get to feeling too bad as I was not really too coarse nor did I bully you with a bunch of talking points. However it seems you might be admitting the haste in which you assembled one of your messages and frankly it showed. As for crafting arguments I fail to see how taking talking points from the Internet is in anyway crafting an argument. For instance on one of your other message threads you seemed to imply you had first hand knowledge that President Obama was trying to take away second amendment rights along with pictures and a list of slights and grievances. What real first hand proof do you have of such things? As I suggested then maybe you should contact Darrl Issa and give him the much needed evidence he admits he is lacking. I don't ask you to spoon feed me facts as I can look them up myself so providing links is just that. But stating your case with facts is not your long suit. You seem to think everything you and everyone else have achieved is something that none of us as citizens have help you with in any way! There was a time when men realized that they were part of something bigger than themselves and they acted in ways that not only helped themselves but others...much like what Christ would do..... And yes I do at times get upset with myself for reaching down into the muck that you and your ilk wallow in....I don't like to... But when I see such disregard for truth and hyperbole I find myself there right along with you. You seem to think it sport to use words in tremendous number to distort so that any kernel of truth becomes a lie .... And if you want a great quote " a lie told often enough and loud enough tends to be believed" now look that one up and get back to me!
 
Very nice STCLS, You get an A+ for looking up quotes. As for who is responsible for your getting rich...... Who knows that you are or cares but I can tell you this you only got rich with the help of others. And this baloney about how " I did it all myself" is you just stroking your ego. This great country and yes even the poor people are what afforded you the opportunity to get wealthy ....if indeed you are..... Lots of people work hard everyday to help you without you seeming to recognize the fact. Your worship of greed is very short sighted as Henry Ford figured out if you can't pay your workers to live and buy your products then just who will buy them? Maybe you are counting on Communist China to fill that void? BTW are you having difficulty breathing? I know Shag is probably a bit uncomfortable!
 
Omegaman said:
Very nice STCLS, You get an A+ for looking up quotes. As for who is responsible for your getting rich...... Who knows that you are or cares but I can tell you this you only got rich with the help of others. And this baloney about how " I did it all myself" is you just stroking your ego. This great country and yes even the poor people are what afforded you the opportunity to get wealthy ....if indeed you are..... Lots of people work hard everyday to help you without you seeming to recognize the fact. Your worship of greed is very short sighted as Henry Ford figured out if you can't pay your workers to live and buy your products then just who will buy them? Maybe you are counting on Communist China to fill that void? BTW are you having difficulty breathing? I know Shag is probably a bit uncomfortable!
Click to expand...

Life is complicated and contradictory.
My parents were frugal middle class pharmacists who had their own drug store from 1951 to 1972 they started from nothing and as a kid I saw that in this world it is much better to have other people work for you and make you money than just have a job.
Working long hours my father was sharp and though he only had 3 or 4 employees plus my mother, made enough money in 21 years to retire a millionaire at 45 and get a few degrees and be a journalist and writer for 35 years.
Today my payroll roughly equals my profits so you could say I make as much money off a worker as I pay him.
I have surrounded myself with talented competent people, both workers and associates.
I use money to pay my officers generous bonuses so they work very hard with the right attitude.
I'm not pound foolish by being penny wise.
The production workers are on piecework which is self disciplining and motivates them to make great money for their otherwise Wayne's World minimum wage qualifications working only 6 hr shifts or 30 hrs a week.
This makes me more money than I pay out by a wide margin.
As an example of my contradiction the products I make are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA, a socialist feel good piece of legislation, and are not a consumer driven item.
However an opportunity to make money on a new product with the bonus "noble" side benefit of helping the disabled presented itself in 1992 and we siezed upon it.
This was my 4th pursuit of my life's goal of getting rich, having experienced failure the previous 3 times over 20 years.

It is a combination of contradictory attitudes that leads to success and not just one earnest seemingly obvious opinion.
 
Your possible yet cynical story is but proof you have little idea of what harm you are doing to others with your " boot strap" mentality. I feel very sorry for you because a person with so little understanding can hardly be blamed for his/her ignorance. How you describe those Wayne's world workers with seeming contempt or the idea of the disabled needing the ADA as some socialist plot is really pathetic. I guess your frugal middle class parents either are or were an embarrassment or they just didn't teach you any compassion for others!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 341 (members: 0, guests: 341)
Back
Top