Desipio Message Board

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 10, 2008, 04:28:57 PM

Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.

Unless that excess funds goes to retire debt which has several positive effects:

1) It reduces the need for future taxes by reducing interest paid in future years on the national debt.
2) It reduces interest rates as the government does not compete for investment dollars with private corporations
3) It reduces the amount of debt held overseas.  This does two positive things in a) lessening our dependence on foreign investment to maintain spending; and b) reduces the transfer of wealth overseas in the form of interest paid to foreign owners of debt.

Budget surplusses after years of deficits can be a positive and do not "hurt everyone."

If there are surplusses and no deficit to retire, then, yes.  Everyone is hurt if taxes are not lowered.

Just to be clear, when you say "retire debt", you mean pay it off, right?

Overall, I agree. I'm a fan of smaller government, so obviously I would prefer cutting spending to raising taxes, but that's an obsolete idea.

Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 04:25:45 PM

Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 04:04:53 PM

Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM

Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Up for debate. Some more detail:

http://www.slate.com/id/1037/

Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.

The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.

If 'everyone getting hurt' = the Clinton era, well... come on, baby, make it hurt so good.

The Clinton era was balanced by the Republicans controlling Congress the final six years. That's why so much got done. I'm not knocking Clinton on this point, just saying it's not as simple as saying him being president is why the economy ran well in the 1990s, nor was it just because of Reagan that the 80s went well.

Quote from: RV on November 10, 2008, 03:55:03 PM

Quote from: Bonk on November 10, 2008, 03:44:07 PM
Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Up for debate. Some more detail:

http://www.slate.com/id/1037/

Good piece. I'd have to say that even though Dole proposed that tax increase, the Democrats controlled Congress and then Reagan approved it, that falls on them and not Dole.

The "most of the 1993 taxes fell on the affluent (paraphrased)" is too much of a generalization. If more of their money goes to the government and they can't spend it, then that hurts everyone.

Well, I do remember 1993, the last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. We had the biggest tax increase in American history.

Quote from: Thrillho on November 10, 2008, 10:59:31 AM

Quote from: Zed on November 10, 2008, 09:56:19 AM

Quote from: GNM on November 10, 2008, 12:36:07 AM

Quote from: Zed on November 09, 2008, 03:48:10 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1

P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...

I remain unconvinced that the Right is dead for the foreseeable future.  My generation is unfamiliar with Reagan's America and even more unfamiliar with the role of socialism in the Twentieth century.  We have grown up in a Centrist America and never seen the results of empowering one side of the political spectrum.  You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift.  Obama may well be an eight year president, as the basic fluctuations in the economy virtually assure that he will preside over an economic upturn.  But, don't expect the Left to be in power for ever.

Sooner or later, all the youth the voted for Obama will graduate from college, get jobs, and find themselves in the nations upper tax brackets.  Once they are the ones paying for it, the notion of a greater role for government won't be nearly as popular.  Sooner or later, all those idealists will see that involving the feds in healthcare and social welfare will work about as well as involving them in education and energy has. 

This too shall pass.

I really, really hope you're correct on this.

While I remain of the opinion that the Obama administration will prove far more pragmatic than ideological, the Right should already have plenty of opportunity to get its hackles up within the next few months when the Obama stimulus package winds up being more about infrastructure spending than captial gains relief.

That said, and disastrous "Leftist paradigm shift" or no, I'm not sure how you expect them to be taken seriously by anyone who is able to remember the last 8 years.

It's not just the GOP's massive failure at governance (though, to be fair, it's mostly that).

It's also conservatives' simple failure at living up to their own rhetoric.

So, when the GOP predictably cries "balanced budgets" or "tax and spend", we'll remember who presided over the magic disappearing budget surplus/$400-billion-plus deficit.

When the GOP warns of the manifest danger to personal liberty posed by an encroaching Federal government, we'll still remember them as the party of shitting all over habeas corpus and wiping with the 4th Amendment.

And, when the GOP urges "caution" in all matters progressive and chants a mantra of "social engineering," we'll also remember that, when faced with one of the most un-Burkean adventures in memory (the neo-con dream of "transforming the Middle East" via a democratic domino effect), the self-proclaimed intellectual heirs of Burke stood athwart history yelling "Let's roll."

Not that I totally disagree, but to be fair, the Senate was mostly 50-50 until 2006 (including a stretch of 2001-02 in which they Republicans briefly lost power entirely), and the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and haven't done a thing. Except let their approval rating drop to 10 percent.

Congress has as much to do with an administration's outcome as the Commander in Chief.

Quote from: ~Apex on August 27, 2008, 02:12:06 PM

Quote from: The Paul Popovich Experience on August 27, 2008, 02:05:47 PM
Marquis is overpaid for what he brings, but maybe he should be viewed in context. The guy is a 500 pitcher, 190 IP, high 4's ERA, double digit wins year in and year out. For a #5 pitcher, that's pretty damn acceptable. I don't like his smirky attitude, and sure, I'd rather have a Johan Santana as my 5th starter than a Marquis de Suck. But objectively, he's probably one of the top 5 #5 pitchers in baseball. Nothing wrong with that. And he will never start a post-season game barring injuries, so he can't hurt the team when it counts in October.

He kind of looks like Mark Cuban a bit, too, just noticed that.

He can also hit, run, bunt and fields his position better than any other guy on the staff. He just isn't the balls and considering that the other four starters are capable of delivering a masterpiece any given start, the fact that we have to brace ourselves and hope he keeps the team in it when he starts is such a letdown that we may be harder on him than he deserves. The lousy son of a bitch.

Yes to what you two said. Having four studs in the rotation spoils us.

9-7-4.52 from the five spot is still pretty damned good.