LikeTheDew.com

Brenden says:

Since you asked, my two cents. Don’t overthink Keynesian economics. The bottom line is that expenditure from whatever source should go toward productive investment. You also rightly point out that corrupt (mostly Democrat) politicans redistribute wealth in staggaringly unproductive ways: Amtrak, Fannie & Fred, and God forbid that a Democrat utter a serious thought about making Medicare and Social Security solvent.

The other perspective is cutting taxes. Under this theory, we presume that corporations and individuals left to keep the wealth they create will be more likely to invest that wealth productively. Obviously they could not possibly invest it any less productively than the gov’t. I know Democrats cannot possibly believe this, but Bush ran this experiment after he was elected — resulting in a net increase in federal tax revenue from economic growth in an investement friendly climate. Of course he pissed our money away on a laundry list of other misadventures and leftist accomodations.

Mike you talk about the Democrat base: what do they believe exactly? I keep hearing things about no wars and universal welfare: medical care, guaranteed retirement income, restrained trade, organized labor protections and wealth redistribution. I hope you understand that all of the above will catastrophically ruin the economy — because you don’t offer a way to pay for any of it! You eliminate any possible means of paying by these compounding self-defeating objectives. But maybe there’s other stuff you all believe that I don’t know about. Oh yeah: controling the weather.

Oh yeah, I forgot the longest pole in the Democrat tent! The Democrat left is dedicated to the proposition that the greatest threat to national security is a cabal of GOP racists drinking the Klan-aid out of their Fox News coffee cups. Democrats employ this tactic to spread fear (read: gain votes) among minorities to convince them they need the protection of the Democrat party. A theory which, ironically, insists upon minorities’ racial inferiority as a predicate to the necessity of the Democrats’ protection. A proposition which, by definition, is racist. The worst outcome for the Democrat party would be truly race-neutral society where achievement and opportunity defined success. Which is why I also ask, stupid or evil or both?

This statement is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, known slaveholder, but I believe it has the benefit of being true: “A gov’t big enough to supply you with everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.”

Such is the stated objective of Rahm “Never waste a crisis” Emmanuel and his boss. They’re trying to convince the American public that we desperately need them to supply us with everything we want in order to gain control of everything we have. It’s obviously difficult to offer a ringing endorsement to the GOP but the fact is they are the only party who has ever seriously attempted to rein the destructive forces of Fannie and Freddie, insolvent welfare (kudos to Clinton, too, for moving the ball there) and they’re defintely more serious about the real threat of Islamist terrorism. At least they’re not giving known foreign terrorists expensive Constitutional protections and due process, an absolute effing outrage.

I agree that the solution to too-big-to-fail is too-small-to-care. You plunder your shareholders, that’s their problem. You made crappy loans, you’re problem. George points out that left to the market, assets will be repriced according to their value and the risk-takers can book the losses. Unwind the banks from the gov’t (but do keep the central bank). It’s not right that the taxpayers pay for politicians’ corruption but we give them the power to do so, especially Democrats, hence the fault lies not our stars….

That was cathartic.

T M Copeland says:

Brenden,

Good to hear from you.

First, it is grossly unfair to accuse me of over thinking anything. I assure you that has never happened and never will. Be the subject Keysian economics or the Easter Bunny, I will not over think it.

Second, though I am not a Democrat and am loath to have to defend their honor, a person would have to be completely delusional to believe that, on a per capita basis, there are more corrupt Democrats than there are corrupt Republicans. Indeed, I assume the per capita ratio of scum to good guys is more or less even in the parties.

Granted there are, for the moment, one hell of a lot more elected Democrats than Republicans and, therefore, likely greater absolute numbers of Democratic scum than Republican scum. Do not forget, however, the blatant corruption of the Republicans during the heyday of Cheney/Abramoff, not to mention all the current AIG mess, was mostly Republican in origin.

That said, your central point, of there being lots and lots of creepy, crawly Democrats to go around, is valid.

Third, though pretty much a leftist, I am not a Democrat and cannot illuminate for you what they may believe in. My response to Mike Cox was aimed at diagnosing the basic functional problem with the Democratic Party and how, when the supposed party of the left cowers in a corner, albeit a corner crowded with a super majority, and fails to come forward with any agenda for governing the country, it allows the worst excesses of the nutty right to prevail.

I have heard it said that prior to Bush the lesser, the politicians in Israel counted on the United States to impose moderation on them. When Bush/Cheney freed the Israeli politicians from external governance the Israelis continued to espouse the most heinous and ridiculous policies and programs but now had no one to restrain them. I do not know if that theory is correct as I know very little about that nation and its issues. However, as a metaphor the failure of the left in this country to restrain the insane flights of draconian, far right BS that is now routinely afflicted upon this nation is the source of all our problems.

There is no left of center political force in the United States. Time after time the majority of the electorate picks progressive candidates only to see them peter out into RIABN (Republicans In All But Name) piss ants. I believe the majority of Americans are consistently progressive/liberal/leftist in their political preferences. Unfortunately, Democrats lack the required spine to lead from and to the left.

Fourth, you and I share a propensity to express opinions as if they are truths to be universally acknowledged. (Thank you Jane Austen) It simply is not universally true that “no wars, and universal welfare: medical care, guaranteed retirement income, restrained trade, organized labor protections, and wealth distribution…. will catastrophically ruin the economy.” Depending upon the situation, any and all of these things could well lead us into a new era of prosperity and cultural expansion. In other circumstances any and all of them may well have a deleterious effect. Regardless if it is those on the left or those on the right who slavishly kowtow to a “philosophy” of one economic dogma or another, it is a simple minded way of looking at the world. As I know you are not simple minded and I suspect you are no slave, I assume you are an advocate pushing until you get pushed back. The fact that the Democratic Party has no will to push back pretty much sums up the current mess.

Fifth, I have never called anybody a racist, even people I know to be, by their own admission, racist. I do not do it as I do not presume to look into the heart of another man. I can’t even see clearly into my own. I certainly hope no one has accused you of that particular stupidity.

Fifth, your assertion that investment in “government,” by that I assume you mean public service programs and social service programs (should be of a mind to make that distinction), is always, more or less, throwing money down a rat hole, is demonstrably false. Public service programs and social service programs have, from the beginning of political entities, been very useful and ‘profitable’ investments for societies to make.

If, as the political scientists say, there are five forms of polities, clan/family, tribe, city state, empire and nation state (some political scientists add a sixth, the multi national corporation, of which the following statement is equally true),* there are examples aplenty of how these political units used investment in government to enhance wealth, power and cultural growth for both the political entity and the citizens of the entity. Indeed, an argument can be made that the natural evolution of these polities has resulted, in large part, due to each succeeding polity’s advantages in making just such investments over the type of polity it supplanted.

Before you hyperventilate, allow me to add that there are plenty of examples, for each type polity, of misguided “investments” in government that led to ruin and damnation. That being so, it is the wisdom of the investment being made, or failing to be made, that is important, not some hard an fast philosophical bench mark that must be obeyed or destruction ensues.

The brilliance of our political system is supposed to be that competing ideas of what these investments should be clash in the political “marketplace.” The result of this clash is supposed to be something like wise decisions. Unfortunately, when one side, in the current case the left, bends over and says, “Yes sir, please do me again.” to an obliging right wing bugger, the country gets screwed.

I hope you find this helpful.

* I have listed these polities in the order of their generally accepted appearance upon the planet.