Are our Politically Parties counter-intuitive?

[rigney]

As a somewhat middle of the roader, I'm still a right leaning illiterate asking myself, what has either party done to bring our national debt under control? And at some point in the near future, will it really matter? Someone please take over the reigns since I simply don't have the capacity to equivocate an answer to such a problem.

Edited June 8, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Don't you think the debt problems we have are largely the result of the depression we're in? How does political party factor into this right now? Sure, we have some long run challenges with medicare and the elderly, but the debt issues right now are primarily because revenues are down at the same time safety net spending is up.

[D H]

Someone please take over the reigns since I simply don't have the capacity to equivocate an answer to such a problem.

For "someone to take over the reigns", we, the voters, would have to give complete control to one party or the other. We, the voters, have been quite reluctant to do that. For good reasons.

 

Each party sees an obvious solution to the budget morass: Simply cut all that worthless junk from the budget and change the tax code in a fair manner and in such a way that more revenues come in. There's a problem with this. Republicans and Democrats don't quite see eye to eye. They disagree strongly on what constitutes worthless junk, and they also disagree strongly on how to change the tax code. The only way out of this morass is for the two parties to come to consensus on what to cut ("I'll agree to cut this program that means a lot to my side if you agree to cut that program that means a lot to your side") , how much to raise taxes, and so on.

 

That's not going to happen until November, and probably not even then. The current problems will have to escalate even further to force the parties to lose their intransigence. "Compromise" will remain a four letter word until November.

Edited June 8, 2012 by D H

[Phi for All]

As a somewhat middle of the roader, I'm still a right leaning illiterate asking myself, what has either party done to bring our national debt under control? And at some point in the near future, will it really matter? Someone please take over the reigns since I simply don't have the capacity to equivocate an answer to such a problem.

As with most things, the solution is not as simple as fixing a single thing like national debt, imo. We have a problem with counter-intuitive, or rather counter-productive business models being applied to public institutions like prisons, utilities and healthcare insurance. And yet another big problem with corporate power over the political system that regulates them. And let's not forget that we haven't found markets to replace jobs lost that will let us employ more US workers at wages that reflect a thriving economy. And if we don't do something about our education system soon, we're going to end up with most of the middle class sliding downwards to a point where we can't compete any longer with better educated countries.

 

We have a big problem with two parties representing so many diverse perspectives. As D H mentions, the parties disagree on solutions on a pretty fundamental level, and the presidential election won't even let them work on the common ground they do have. I think a viable third party, one mainly concerned with smart use of resources, bringing the power back into the hands of the voters and putting us back on track economy-wise, would force more cooperation from the existing parties, mainly out of fear that this third party will drain too many constituents from the Dems or Reps.

[rigney]

As with most things, the solution is not as simple as fixing a single thing like national debt, imo. We have a problem with counter-intuitive, or rather counter-productive business models being applied to public institutions like prisons, utilities and healthcare insurance. And yet another big problem with corporate power over the political system that regulates them. And let's not forget that we haven't found markets to replace jobs lost that will let us employ more US workers at wages that reflect a thriving economy. And if we don't do something about our education system soon, we're going to end up with most of the middle class sliding downwards to a point where we can't compete any longer with better educated countries.

 

We have a big problem with two parties representing so many diverse perspectives. As D H mentions, the parties disagree on solutions on a pretty fundamental level, and the presidential election won't even let them work on the common ground they do have. I think a viable third party, one mainly concerned with smart use of resources, bringing the power back into the hands of the voters and putting us back on track economy-wise, would force more cooperation from the existing parties, mainly out of fear that this third party will drain too many constituents from the Dems or Reps.

 

Got to tell you, I'm very liberal minded in many ways even though I have voted Republican for the past 40 years. Your statement "And let's not forget that we haven't found markets to replace jobs lost that will let us employ more US workers at wages that reflect a thriving economy, makes a lot of sense. But how do we manage doing so without tearing our government to shreds and destroying the "Capital Wealth" necessary to accomplish such change? At 80, I'm at a total loss????

[D H]

Don't you think the debt problems we have are largely the result of the depression we're in?

It's the other way around. We've occasionally had some economic upswings that have masked these growing problems. The underlying problems have been there all along. Two big problems are hordes of lost jobs and a baby boom that is starting to retire.

 

Some of those lost jobs result from jobs moving to other countries, others due to increased efficiency, and yet others because whole industries have vanished. Neither punishments nor rewards will bring those jobs back. Those jobs are gone. We need to create new industries, new markets that will employ lots of people and do so acknowledging that different people have different skills. (Not everyone can learn to be a rocket scientist.) Nobody has a clue regarding how to accomplish this.

 

Regarding the baby boom, this has been a problem politicians have known about for decades. They didn't do anything about it decades ago because it wasn't their problem. It's our problem, and it's here to stay.

[iNow]

It's the other way around. We've occasionally had some economic upswings that have masked these growing problems. The underlying problems have been there all along. Two big problems are hordes of lost jobs and a baby boom that is starting to retire.

The fact that non-US countries who had incredibly low debt issues are facing the same troubles we are with high unemployment and lack of demand would tend to speak strongly against your premise.

 

If this were a US-only issue, or an issue limited to countries with high debt / GDP ratios, you might have a point.

 

Also, we both probably agree that these costs and forecasts need to be reigned in. My issue is that the middle of a depression where we're pressed against the zero bound is not that time.

 

Some of those lost jobs result from jobs moving to other countries, others due to increased efficiency, and yet others because whole industries have vanished. Neither punishments nor rewards will bring those jobs back. Those jobs are gone. We need to create new industries, new markets that will employ lots of people and do so acknowledging that different people have different skills. (Not everyone can learn to be a rocket scientist.) Nobody has a clue regarding how to accomplish this.

Despite the fact that it's so often repeated, we are not facing an issue with structural unemployment right now (that's the term used to describe what you've just suggested). More here: http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2012/06/the-skills-gap-still-trying-to-separate-myth-from-fact.html

 

Elevator version? The unemployment rate is high in all industries and job sectors, as well as all countries. That speaks very strongly against the idea that this is a problem with jobs moving elsewhere, being lost due to automation, or because of regulations or skills gaps.

 

The facts just don't support the assertion above. This is a global problem hitting people with solid balance sheets and high debts alike, and is much better explained as a lack of demand due to everyone contracting and paying down debt at the same time. Debt is something to fix, we agree. Now is not the time to do it... especially not with everyone trying to do it at the same time.

[rigney]

It's the other way around. We've occasionally had some economic upswings that have masked these growing problems. The underlying problems have been there all along. Two big problems are hordes of lost jobs and a baby boom that is starting to retire.

 

Some of those lost jobs result from jobs moving to other countries, others due to increased efficiency, and yet others because whole industries have vanished. Neither punishments nor rewards will bring those jobs back. Those jobs are gone. We need to create new industries, new markets that will employ lots of people and do so acknowledging that different people have different skills. (Not everyone can learn to be a rocket scientist.) Nobody has a clue regarding how to accomplish this.

 

Regarding the baby boom, this has been a problem politicians have known about for decades. They didn't do anything about it decades ago because it wasn't their problem. It's our problem, and it's here to stay.

 

Your statement about "Baby Boomers" brings to mind my infancy in 1932. Not that I remember that far back, but I can relate to the years following 1938. Looking out my window sometime in late summer of that year i saw a fire on the creek bank across from our house, with a bunch of people gathered around it. The fire got my attention so I ran into the kitchen and asked my Dad what was happening? He says, "Nothing Boy! Those guys are just looking to get what I already have, a job. Dad was making $.20 cents an hour digging and shoveling coal in a mine at the time and we were living "High on the Hog".

Milwaukee has hopefully brought us to our senses and perhaps our knees with this latest recall election. Without further addendum to this new set of principals, our nation will be quickly going to hell in a handbasket. But sadly it will be at another nations directive. And believe me, slavery sucks in any fashion.

[iNow]

My above link is better, but there is more here:

 

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/05/The-Growing-Unemployed-A-Case-of-Benign-Neglect.aspx#page1

Republican policymakers give us all sorts of excuses for blocking further action to help the unemployed. We are told the problem is structural – there is a geographical or talent mismatch between labor availability and labor needs – and nothing can be done to help. But something can be done. We can help workers move to where the jobs are, encourage firms to locate in areas where workers are readily available, and help with job retraining. If mismatches are really the problem, why aren’t Republicans leading the charge on these policies? If they care about the unemployed rather than the tax burden of the wealthy, then why are they allowing community colleges – one of the best ways we have of providing job training for new and displaced workers – to be gutted with budget cuts?

 

We are also told that the deficit is too large already, but there’s still plenty of room to do more for the unemployed, as long as we have a plan to address the long-run debt problem. But even if the deficit is a problem, why won’t Republicans support one of the many balanced budget approaches to stimulating the economy? Could it be that these policies invariably require higher income households to give something up so that we can help the less fortunate? Tax cuts for the wealthy are always welcome among Republicans no matter how it impacts the debt, but creating job opportunities through, say, investing in infrastructure?

 

Forget it. Even though the costs of many highly beneficial infrastructure projects are as low as they get, and even though investing in infrastructure now would save us from much larger costs down the road – it’s a budget saver, not a budget buster – Republicans leaders in the House are balking at even modest attempts to provide needed job opportunities for the unemployed.

[Phi for All]

Got to tell you, I'm very liberal minded in many ways even though I have voted Republican for the past 40 years. Your statement "And let's not forget that we haven't found markets to replace jobs lost that will let us employ more US workers at wages that reflect a thriving economy, makes a lot of sense. But how do we manage doing so without tearing our government to shreds and destroying the "Capital Wealth" necessary to accomplish such change? At 80, I'm at a total loss????

I think one of the problems with our economy right now is that many established industries and their markets have become incredibly efficient. This isn't entirely due to automation as was once feared, but it is a factor. The other part of it is that much of the new technology isn't very labor intensive, or is aimed towards entertainment, which is extremely profitable but only employs a fraction of what any other type of market would.

 

Consolidation is a bit of a problem as well. Cisco and other companies have dropped products like video cameras because cell phones have consolidated so many functions into one product. Both efficiency and consolidation may actually be better in the long run, but I thought it worth mentioning as reasons why were where we are.

 

I think a smart fix would be some kind of grass roots movement towards large markets that solve problems in small ways, like tackling obesity with solutions that don't have the drawbacks that fitness centers do (not sure what those drawbacks actually are, but obviously there are many obese people who aren't members). Tie that solution in with healthcare insurance the way fitness centers can, but make it more accessible to those that need it. I'd also love to see some kind of alternative education opportunity, not to replace public education but to augment it, for kids and adults alike. Again, it would have to be tied in with something else, perhaps taxes, in order to provide an incentive for people to learn more.

 

Another fix I'd like to see is for the US citizenry to recognize that we're great because we're the Melting Pot we always used to be proud of calling ourselves. It's unbelievable to me that we aren't addressing EVERY problem by finding the country who has the best solution for that problem, and emulating them. Are we really that arrogant, to insist that our way is always the best? Our way has always been a blend of the best, so why not acknowledge that and start making some key changes in our processes?

[rigney]

We can help workers move to where the jobs are, encourage firms to locate in areas where workers are readily available, and help with job retraining. If mismatches are really the problem, why aren’t Republicans leading the charge on these policies? If they care about the unemployed rather than the tax burden of the wealthy, then why are they allowing community colleges – one of the best ways we have of providing job training for new and displaced workers – to be gutted with budget cuts?

 

Out of whose pocket will the help come? And encouraging local firms to relocate? Get real! Most people with that kind of loot could be out of here tomorrow with no one the wiser until the rest of us were at each others throats. No! the system needs fixing in its entirety, not the participants. Wealthy folks are going to remain rich. The greedy will still want something for nothing. And the needy? They will still remain needy, regardless of who steers the ship.

[John Cuthber]

As a somewhat middle of the roader, I'm still a right leaning illiterate asking myself, what has either party done to bring our national debt under control? And at some point in the near future, will it really matter? Someone please take over the reigns since I simply don't have the capacity to equivocate an answer to such a problem.

By "middle of the road" do you mean quite clearly right wing by the standards of the rest of the Western world?

[D H]

My above link is better, but there is more here:

 

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/05/The-Growing-Unemployed-A-Case-of-Benign-Neglect.aspx#page1

Both are bad left wing propaganda pieces. I don't want to play that game other than to comment on this gem from the article referenced above:

 

But even if the deficit is a problem, why won’t Republicans support one of the many balanced budget approaches to stimulating the economy?

Oh please.

 

The exact same thing can be asked about the Democrats lack of support for any one of the many balanced budget approaches the Republicans have offered. The answer is simple: The proposals made by the Democrats were intentionally laced with arsenic, as were the proposals made by the Republicans. Neither party wants a real solution. Both instead want to score political points by making the other party look bad. And that is the heart of the problem. Right now, compromise is a four letter word to both Democrats and Republicans.

 

 

Maybe after November this current recipe for disaster will change. I sincerely hope that the result of the November elections is an even closer House and Senate than we have now, and a squeaker for the Presidency. No mandate for either party, please. I want a mandate for solving the dang problems instead. My biggest fears are that the elections will result in a clean sweep (Presidency, Senate, and House) for one party or the other. I don't know which clean sweep would be worse.

 

Right now now it looks like the Senate could easily flip to Republican due to the large number of Democratic seats up for re-election, the House could easily flip to Democrat due to the large number of Tea Party Republican wins in 2010. The Presidency? It will come down to hanging chad yet again.

[rigney]

By "middle of the road" do you mean quite clearly right wing by the standards of the rest of the Western world?

 

Believe what ever you wish, but my grand-father, father and myself were very active in union movement. Both were presidents of their local U.M.W.A. Unions, while I never quite made it that far. So believe me when I say that I'm not against unions, only against those using them to advance their own agenda, (money!). Unions were organally organized to protect workers rights and safety. Today it's a matter of how much money can be extracted at the business owners expense. Yes! Everyone should be employed to earn a living, but not to grease a greedy palm.

[iNow]

Both are bad left wing propaganda pieces.

Uhhm... No. Executive vice president and research director at the Atlanta Fed wrote that, and his research remains both robust and unrefuted. Would you like to try again?

 

The latter of the two... the one I conceded was less good... was written by a macroeconomist and time-series econometrician at the University of Oregon who focuses on the effects of monetary policy and who happens to be a fellow at The Century Foundation.

 

I'm not appealing to authority here. I'm rebutting your blind dismissal of their work as "bad left wing propaganda." If you're unable to address their methodology or their conclusions directly, that's fine, but don't do the bullshit "nuh uh" response we see so often from ignorant people. I know for a fact you're an ignorant man, so stop acting like it with your arguments.

 

Here it is again: http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2012/06/the-skills-gap-still-trying-to-separate-myth-from-fact.html

 

And a similar conclusion was reached by the Chicago Fed: http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2012/cfljuly2012_300.pdf

 

There is a quickly growing consensus among economists that this is not an issue with structural unemployment, yet that's what you argued above and specifically what I'm showing to be inaccurate.

Edited June 9, 2012 by iNow

[Phi for All]

Maybe after November this current recipe for disaster will change.

I'm hoping the depressed/recessed voters will be so repulsed by the billions of dollars spent on the campaign that they'll rise up and call for new less special-interest-oriented cooks in the kitchen.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Phi for All
strikeout

[John Cuthber]

Believe what ever you wish, but my grand-father, father and myself were very active in union movement. Both were presidents of their local U.M.W.A. Unions, while I never quite made it that far. So believe me when I say that I'm not against unions, only against those using them to advance their own agenda, (money!). Unions were organally organized to protect workers rights and safety. Today it's a matter of how much money can be extracted at the business owners expense. Yes! Everyone should be employed to earn a living, but not to grease a greedy palm.

What I believe doesn't enter into it.

No left wing politician in the US is taken seriously. You have a choice of two right wing groups.

[rigney]

What I believe doesn't enter into it.

No left wing politician in the US is taken seriously. You have a choice of two right wing groups.

 

You would dare refer to Obama as a "Right Wing" conservative?

 

The following is a thing I saw on Google

 

We all want the same things in life. Freedom; a chance at prosperity; as few people suffering as possible; healthy children and crime-free streets. The argument is how to achieve these goals?

 

LIBERALS – believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of government to alleviate social ills, protect civil liberties of individual human rights. Believe the role of government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for "The government to solve problems".

 

CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values, a strong national defense and a government serving as "referee only", to assure people the freedom to pursue their goals. Conservatives generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems, not the Federal Government acting as; Big Brother.

Edited June 9, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

No, but he's only Left wing compared to other conservatives.

Here in the UK he would probably be thought of as moderately right wing and in quite a lot of Europe he would be thought of as definitely right wing.

[mississippichem]

No, but he's only Left wing compared to other conservatives.

Here in the UK he would probably be thought of as moderately right wing and in quite a lot of Europe he would be thought of as definitely right wing.

 

If Obama were to hypothetically be a member of a UK political party do you think he would be in with the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats?

 

I imagine he is not left enough to be in the Labour Party.

[rigney]

If Obama were to hypothetically be a member of a UK political party do you think he would be in with the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats?

 

I imagine he is not left enough to be in the Labour Party.

 

Well, he's sure left enough to my way of thinking, and I consider myself a middle of the road moderate, what ever that means?

[John Cuthber]

It's difficult to say because there is some overlap but I think he would probably be Tory from a financial point of view but his stance on some other things like gay marriage would put him with the lib dems. On the other hand Mr Cameron isn't that troubled by gay marriage - he points out that marriage is a symbol of commitment and he's happy to accept that commitment has value to society, whoever is showing it.

 

It's also entirely possible that he is actually a lot further to the left that he seems, but he doesn't waste time trying to enact policies that the population are not likely to accept.

[iNow]

Well, he's sure left enough to my way of thinking

Many people who have been exposed to few facts and much propaganda think the same way. Compared to the rest of the civilized world Obama is right of center, and yet all we hear about is how he's a secret marxist socialist mustlim kenyan who wants to destroy capitalism and who hates the United States. Fair and balanced reporting, after all.

[rigney]

Many people who have been exposed to few facts and much propaganda think the same way. Compared to the rest of the civilized world Obama is right of center, and yet all we hear about is how he's a secret marxist socialist mustlim kenyan who wants to destroy capitalism and who hates the United States. Fair and balanced reporting, after all.

 

There is a remote possibility that you could be right, but I doubt it. Granted, I like many others are not the sharpest nails it the keg; but it doesn't take any of us long to inspect a hot horseshoe, especially if we are holding it in our hand. Sadly, you can see the "heat" in Obama, you don't have to touch it. Is he a Commie? i don't think so. But he would turn our world upside down if we give him 4 more years in office.

[iNow]

What does that even mean... "Turn our world upside down?"

 

The stock market is up almost 60% since Obama took office. There has been positive private sector job growth for 27 straight months under Obama. Corporate profits are higher than they've EVER been. Government spending is down more than it's been since the Korean war drawdown, he's spending less than Reagan did at this same time in his presidency, and size of government is shrinking overall. He's lowered taxes for 95% of americans. He's killed more terrorists than Bush did, including Bin Laden. He ended the war in Iraq and has been bringing troops home from Afghanistan, but he didn't close Guantanamo, he didn't implement single payer healthcare, and has more than doubled spending on border enforcement and has deported record numbers of undocumented immigrants (more than 1.2 million in his first 3 years in office, which is more than Bush2 did in both terms).

 

I mean, seriously... At what point will people realize that their narrative is patently false when even briefly compared to reality and facts?

 

So, I ask again... What does that even mean that Obama will "turn our world upside down?" It sure looks like he's doing exactly what the Republicans claim to admire and support, and yet that's the response?