…The Democrats aren’t very good at actually governing…
And the Republicans ARE???
Mufasa
I’m a moderate libertarian. I’d vote Republican if they could manage to nominate someone reasonable, but instead they’re going to nominate a crazy person. In a race of crazy person vs. person I don’t much care for I’ll hold my nose and vote for the 2nd one.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
They clearly own the economic issues, too.
[/quote]
Nah, not the majority, no. Most average people would be quite fine with your typical GOP economic plan, assuming the particular GOP candidate could actually communicate that plan with any sort of grace, and didn’t get slaughtered by media spin.
However, even though the economy polls as a major factor, the ability to slice up and suck out babies and deny the science of biology will always win against it. Economics is thought, killing the babies is emotion.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…The Democrats aren’t very good at actually governing…
And the Republicans ARE???
Mufasa[/quote]
Generally speaking, yes.
They may not make the best choices, but that is a whole different issue.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zeb,
Economic issues continue to be top priority among voters, and what will the GOP be offering to do about them? Cut taxes? On the exhausted theory that businesses will invest in improving productivity and the economy will improve as a result? When businesses have consistently taken their gains and distributed them as dividends instead of expanding production?[/quote]
Before new production can happen investors need to find renewed interest and employees need motivation. Maybe the GOP can do a better job explaining that voters are also investors and employees and that the economy depends on these factors before the resulting production can occur.
Bigger government. They can finally start being honest about it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Before new production can happen investors need to find renewed interest and employees need motivation. Maybe the GOP can do a better job explaining that voters are also investors and employees and that the economy depends on these factors before the resulting production can occur.
[/quote]
I love the idea of citizens being investors. If you’re not invested in the company, then you no say in the company. IE. must pay income tax to vote.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…The Democrats aren’t very good at actually governing…
And the Republicans ARE???
Mufasa[/quote]
This all depends on your definition of actually governing. If the last President and what they accomplished when they had the reigns last is any indication then the Republicans are awful at governing. If the years where the Democrats have been in charge recently are any indication they are awful at governing.
Yet we keep telling people we need to elect one or the other though, that seems to really be working out for us.
The election that led up to Obama was both sides saying don’t worry we won’t be anything like the last guy. And the 2016 election is going to be the exact same. It’s just a shame the American people are so caught up in the choose a letter team concept of politics no one else can field a team.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zeb,
Economic issues continue to be top priority among voters, and what will the GOP be offering to do about them? Cut taxes? On the exhausted theory that businesses will invest in improving productivity and the economy will improve as a result? When businesses have consistently taken their gains and distributed them as dividends instead of expanding production?[/quote]
Before new production can happen investors need to find renewed interest and employees need motivation. Maybe the GOP can do a better job explaining that voters are also investors and employees and that the economy depends on these factors before the resulting production can occur.
Bigger government. They can finally start being honest about it.
[/quote]
Given your recent faceplant trying to discuss business-related issues, I’d recommend you not attempting such analogies.
In any event, the GOP must get a platform and new economic policy ideas - people are listening and expecting something different. I predict they won’t, but that isn’t exactly going out on a limb.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…The Democrats aren’t very good at actually governing…
And the Republicans ARE???
Mufasa[/quote]
This all depends on your definition of actually governing. If the last President and what they accomplished when they had the reigns last is any indication then the Republicans are awful at governing. [/quote]
No, no 43’s term was an exercise in governing. It was a masterful display of governing, and breathtaking if you actually think about it.
They just made really, really shitty choices.
However, as far as governing, it was pristine. The fact he got congressional approval to go into Iraq, and had a global coalition alone is utterly spectacular.
There is a difference between governing and making good choices while doing so.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…The Democrats aren’t very good at actually governing…
And the Republicans ARE???
Mufasa[/quote]
This all depends on your definition of actually governing. If the last President and what they accomplished when they had the reigns last is any indication then the Republicans are awful at governing. [/quote]
No, no 43’s term was an exercise in governing. It was a masterful display of governing, and breathtaking if you actually think about it.
They just made really, really shitty choices.
However, as far as governing, it was pristine. The fact he got congressional approval to go into Iraq, and had a global coalition alone is utterly spectacular.
There is a difference between governing and making good choices while doing so. [/quote]
I believe most people use good governing as another word for making good choices. Not as getting people to do what someone wants to push their fuck your freedoms agenda such as Bush 43 did. If we are just talking about getting people to do what you want then yes Bush 43 did better than Obama. Which led to him getting some of the lowest approval ratings ever and getting absolutely destroyed by Democratic waves in 06 and 08.
If using choices though both parties tend to make really shitty choices all the time according to the last 16 years of American history.
[quote]H factor wrote:
I believe most people use good governing as another word for making good choices. [/quote]
Most people would listen to Kanye West before Beethoven… So what? Appeal to popularity is a grave mistake.
Yes, governing, leading, whatever you want to call it.
[quote]thunderbolt wrote:
In any event, the GOP must get a platform and new economic policy ideas - people are listening and expecting something different. I predict they won’t, but that isn’t exactly going out on a limb.
[/quote]
Maybe they need a candidate who actually understands economics and can speak to voters honestly instead of pretending that some new policy can satisfy everyone’s values simultaneously.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt wrote:
In any event, the GOP must get a platform and new economic policy ideas - people are listening and expecting something different. I predict they won’t, but that isn’t exactly going out on a limb.
[/quote]
Maybe they need a candidate who actually understands economics and can speak to voters honestly instead of pretending that some new policy can satisfy everyone’s values simultaneously.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure Mitt Romney understands economics.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt wrote:
In any event, the GOP must get a platform and new economic policy ideas - people are listening and expecting something different. I predict they won’t, but that isn’t exactly going out on a limb.
[/quote]
Maybe they need a candidate who actually understands economics and can speak to voters honestly instead of pretending that some new policy can satisfy everyone’s values simultaneously.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure Mitt Romney understands economics. [/quote]
While I disagree with TB’s assessment of “trickle down” (who[s definition he’s using I’m not totally sure) I do agree the messaging of the GOP’s economics certainly needs a vast upgrade.
But, when they turn around and do the opposite while in office they promise on the trail, that becomes hard to do.
Romney’s record in MA wasn’t too shitty, outside romneycare and the AWB. Two things that make me cringe.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt wrote:
In any event, the GOP must get a platform and new economic policy ideas - people are listening and expecting something different. I predict they won’t, but that isn’t exactly going out on a limb.
[/quote]
Maybe they need a candidate who actually understands economics and can speak to voters honestly instead of pretending that some new policy can satisfy everyone’s values simultaneously.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure Mitt Romney understands economics. [/quote]
While I disagree with TB’s assessment of “trickle down” (who[s definition he’s using I’m not totally sure) I do agree the messaging of the GOP’s economics certainly needs a vast upgrade.
But, when they turn around and do the opposite while in office they promise on the trail, that becomes hard to do.
Romney’s record in MA wasn’t too shitty, outside romneycare and the AWB. Two things that make me cringe. [/quote]
I agree that the GOP’s message is often lost in translation.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt wrote:
In any event, the GOP must get a platform and new economic policy ideas - people are listening and expecting something different. I predict they won’t, but that isn’t exactly going out on a limb.
[/quote]
Maybe they need a candidate who actually understands economics and can speak to voters honestly instead of pretending that some new policy can satisfy everyone’s values simultaneously.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure Mitt Romney understands economics. [/quote]
While I disagree with TB’s assessment of “trickle down” (who[s definition he’s using I’m not totally sure) I do agree the messaging of the GOP’s economics certainly needs a vast upgrade.
But, when they turn around and do the opposite while in office they promise on the trail, that becomes hard to do.
Romney’s record in MA wasn’t too shitty, outside romneycare and the AWB. Two things that make me cringe. [/quote]
I’m using the GOP’s standard supply-side pitch - that tax cuts are inherently and always stimulating to business production and expansion, and such cuts always boost GDP growth and therefore givernment deficits are self-liquidating (because the boosted growth will produce additional revenue that will gallop past government spending). Ergo, tax cuts are an economic panacea as well as a cure to the ill effects of deficits.
Doesn’t work that way in practice - deficits continue to soar, and the “trickle down” effects aren’t materializing
But that is the GOP economic platform (with little else involved), and it has been since Reagan.
It ain’t fiscal conservatism, and never has been. And until the GOP tries something new, blind adherence to this doctrine will hold them back.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
that tax cuts are inherently and always stimulating to business production and expansion, [/quote]
They generally do, and have shown to actually result in an increase in inflows.
I mean, that is utter nonsense, agree. It would require a slowing in spending too.
Based on what measures though? We’re the wealthiest of wealthiest nations in the world, and the lives of even the working poor have improved in every material sense since the 1980’s.
Even poor neighborhoods have 2 and 3 AC units in every window, cars with 100k or less miles and 3k worth of rims on them. Playstations, smart phones, big screen TVs and multiple facebook machines. Things my parents struggled to own when I was a kid, and we weren’t the poorest people around.
Wages are flat? Well, are fringe benefits included in that figure?
Assuming they don’t adopt the “we can just tax 1%” economically illiterate mantra of the left, what is the other option?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
While I disagree with TB’s assessment of “trickle down” (who[s definition he’s using I’m not totally sure) I do agree the messaging of the GOP’s economics certainly needs a vast upgrade. [/quote]
I’m using the GOP’s standard supply-side pitch - that tax cuts are inherently and always stimulating to business production and expansion, and such cuts always boost GDP growth and therefore givernment deficits are self-liquidating (because the boosted growth will produce additional revenue that will gallop past government spending). Ergo, tax cuts are an economic panacea as well as a cure to the ill effects of deficits.
Doesn’t work that way in practice - deficits continue to soar, and the “trickle down” effects aren’t materializing
But that is the GOP economic platform (with little else involved), and it has been since Reagan.
It ain’t fiscal conservatism, and never has been. And until the GOP tries something new, blind adherence to this doctrine will hold them back.[/quote]
It may have had some validity in a world of partitioned economies. In a globalized economy the approach doesn’t appear to hold up well.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt wrote:
In any event, the GOP must get a platform and new economic policy ideas - people are listening and expecting something different. I predict they won’t, but that isn’t exactly going out on a limb.
[/quote]
Maybe they need a candidate who actually understands economics and can speak to voters honestly instead of pretending that some new policy can satisfy everyone’s values simultaneously.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure Mitt Romney understands economics. [/quote]
I would prefer someone that wasn’t from the financial sector or a lawyer…yes I realize that narrows the field to almost zero.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
In a globalized economy the approach doesn’t appear to hold up well.
[/quote]
Based on what measure?
Assuming I agree that it doesn’t magically cut deficits, because it doesn’t. Other than that, in what way does it not hold up?