Election Perspectives

My opinion of Google has turned 180 degrees. I think they are a douche-bag of an American company, right up there with the oil companies. Here's why:

1. Google is one of the most profitable American companies, yet they used an offshore tax scheme to pay a tax rate of less than 2% last year. Google is ducking a responsibility to contribute at a fair rate to the country that made its existence possible. Google can afford to pay and our country is hurting economically, which makes it all the more despicable to me.

2. Google squashes entrepreneurial companies. If an area of technology looks interesting, Google will dabble in it and release a 'free' version of whatever the technology is. The Google version is usually lousy, but it's free so it devalues the market for everyone else, putting many companies out of business. Google doesn't need to make money on anything but search ads, so they don't care. It would be like Exxon giving away free shitty oil filters, killing off companies who could make our oil last longer.

Google has outgrown their 'do no evil' mantra. Even Microsoft always paid their taxes. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Well, FUCK! An opinion based on fact. L4L, what the hell is wrong with you?

The deficit reduction panel may be the most interesting political development in the past twenty years at this rate. Their recommendations are dead on arrival, I suspect. But even before they arrive, they are forcing a certain seriousness and a degree of reality to the budget conversation that it's never had. Today, Sen. Bernie Sanders, for whom I have great respect, said that he, in cooperation with other progressives, is going to come up with a liberal alternative that does that same thing but spares the poor and SS recipients the sorts of cuts that the Budget Panel proposes. That's great news. It will force one of the real intellectual heavy weights on the left to try to meet the same goals by the different means.

Then, when the Republicans start talking about what's wrong with all the new taxes, too much of this, not enough of that with the proposal, there is a great built in reply. "OK, what's your plan?" And that's the question they have been trying and trying not to answer since 1992. Because they know that 1) they don't have a plan; and 2) any plan that they hard right Republican will like will have about 0.5% support with swing voters. I suspect they will continue to dissemble and evade the issue of what is their plan because they don't have one that will make the numbers work (except Rep. Paul Ryan, and they're running away from his plan as fast as they can). But they will start looking sillier and sillier as more honest brokers come forward with plans.

Today, Sen. Bernie Sanders, for whom I have great respect, said that he, in cooperation with other progressives, is going to come up with a liberal alternative that does that same thing but spares the poor and SS recipients the sorts of cuts that the Budget Panel proposes. That's great news. It will force one of the real intellectual heavy weights on the left to try to meet the same goals by the different means. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Bernie Sanders is the only "self-described socialist" in the Senate. That's really just about all you need to know about him. (I think it's really more accurate to refer to him as one of the leading proponents of European-style social democracy rather than as a pure "socialist"; carrying with it the implication that one believes in government ownership of virtually all means of production.)

Check this blog from The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/156427...vert-austerity

Does anyone seriously believe that the three suggestions listed are really going to do very much to reduce the deficit? They're no more than nibbling around the edges.

If you want to advocate keeping all entitlement and spending programs as they are, fine. But you need to say how you're going to pay for them. Sanders has never done any such thing, even though he's long championed expanded social and health care programs.

He seems to believe that rescinding the 2003 tax cuts for the "rich" will solve much of the problem, even though that would land well short of even covering a nickel of every deficit dollar.

In other words, Sanders' proposals aren't likely to come even remotely close to meeting "the same goals by different means."

...I suspect they will continue to dissemble and evade the issue of what is their plan because they don't have one that will make the numbers work (except Rep. Paul Ryan, and they're running away from his plan as fast as they can)... Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I agree with you here.

Recently I read that all but about a dozen House Republicans eagerly tried to distance themselves as much as possible from Ryan's relatively modest proposals.

The deficit reduction panel may be the most interesting political development in the past twenty years at this rate. Their recommendations are dead on arrival, I suspect. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Once again, I agree.

Both sides are likely to dig in and refuse any meaningful compromise. Trying to reach near-balance on the spending side would require taking a meat axe to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Pentagon budget. It's difficult enough to get anyone to talk about making small slices with a scalpel.

A tax-side solution would involve a huge tax increase on the middle class, probably a VAT. But that's likely to be about as much of a political non-starter as one could imagine. Earlier this year, even though no one had yet proposed a VAT, the Senate took a vote on the idea's acceptability. It was shot down something like 85-13.

So I don't believe for a minute that anybody's going to do anything meaningful to confront the problem. In my opinion, we're headed for a real fiscal train wreck.

In the meantime, the Federal Reserve has announced a new round of quantitative easing (QE2). The Fed plans to take down about $600 billion of net new Treasury issuance over the next 8 months -- with newly printed money -- in order to keep interest rates on the long end of the curve very low. Most of us believe that openly monetizing debt is fraught with great risks. It's clearly not a sound, sustainable way of financing runaway fiscal deficits.

Policymakers obviously fear that an undersubscribed Treasury auction would create a panic that the fragile system would not be able to handle well at this time. Everyone knows that world demand for new issuance is not unlimited, but there's wide disagreement on just where that limit is. No one wants to find out the hard way.

We are in uncharted and very dangerous territory.

Both parties have been playing it fast and loose with spending (duh! - there's a real revelation) and the bill will come due sometime. Sooooo, what we are going to see in Congress (and have been seeing at a rather slow speed) is a game of "Chicken" whereby both parties are going to see whether the other one will swerve and put their chariot in a ditch. It's a helluva way to run a railroad, but it's what's been going on for several years.

The only way out of this dilemma is for everyone but the poorest to experience some pain which will, hopefully, be spread around half-assed equitably. We can neither completely tax our way to prosperity nor can we totally cut spending. Realistically, it will take some of both and the conversation is going to about whose ox is going to be gored. Both groups will have to take their medicine and eventually do what it takes to turn this around. To do this, they will have to stop the posturing and speaking in "bumper stickers," bear down and get after it. Right now, neither side has collective balls the size of bb's.

The only real political problem with finding a solution is making sure that the middle class is relatively satisfied that it isn't bearing the brunt with the top and bottom ends of the earnings scale getting off easy. It may be the only one, but it's a big one...

Sooooo, what we are going to see in Congress (and have been seeing at a rather slow speed) is a game of "Chicken" whereby both parties are going to see whether the other one will swerve and put their chariot in a ditch. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Exactly.

Anyone remember this crazy 1950s song?

"Chicken!"

I just hope the post-fiscal crisis economy doesn't bear resemblance to the wreckage created by an unfortunate outcome of the insane game described in the song.

The only real political problem with finding a solution is making sure that the middle class is relatively satisfied that it isn't bearing the brunt with the top and bottom ends of the earnings scale getting off easy. It may be the only one, but it's a big one... Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Indeed!

That's why I'm skeptical that anything meaningful will be done until there's a widespread perception that a severe crisis is upon us. The cold, hard truth is that there's no way to get anywhere near balance without a massive tax increase on the middle class or massive cuts in entitlements.

"Solutions" that involve nibbling around the edges may postpone the crisis for a bit, but I doubt very seriously that they'll mitigate its severity.

Well, the middle class electorate isn't going to tolerate much of either an increase in taxes or a decrease is some services unless it sees one hell of a lot of financial system reform. Their "attitude" is based more on the idea that those who tanked the economy got off scot-free and are still in position to do it again. And, since the bulk of middle class income has remained stagnate during the time the Bush tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy, they are a hard sell on anything that they don't believe will increase their ability to earn more money. Plus, the retired folks sure aren't going to look kindly on Social Security and Medicare cuts, either. The idea that Medicare cuts were part of health care reform is at the heart of their dissatisfaction with the law as it stands.

I think Randy makes some good points. My perspective on the elections is that the agenda of the federal government was misguided and trying to spend their way to social reform while the economy was mired in stagnation. The message...go back to basics...we are tired of government bullshit!

Well, the middle class electorate isn't going to tolerate much of either an increase in taxes or a decrease is some services unless it sees one hell of a lot of financial system reform. Their "attitude" is based more on the idea that those who tanked the economy got off scot-free and are still in position to do it again. And, since the bulk of middle class income has remained stagnate during the time the Bush tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy, they are a hard sell on anything that they don't believe will increase their ability to earn more money. Plus, the retired folks sure aren't going to look kindly on Social Security and Medicare cuts, either. The idea that Medicare cuts were part of health care reform is at the heart of their dissatisfaction with the law as it stands. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

I don't disagree with anything you said. FinReg really fixed very little. TBTF remains. In fact, most of the TBTF banks are even bigger than ever! And they can, for the most part, still play high-stakes "heads we win, tails taypayers lose" games with other people's money.

It's just that the only way you can raise enough revenue to significantly reduce the deficit is by means of a very large tax increase on the middle class, such as a VAT. That's why I don't hold out much hope that our political "leaders" are going to do very much.

Making unsustainable, irresponsible political promises is so much more fun!

My perspective on the elections is that the agenda of the federal government was misguided and trying to spend their way to social reform while the economy was mired in stagnation. Originally Posted by cookie man

Exactly.

They had to use Enron-style accounting to get the 10-year cost estimate of the health care "reform" plan below a trillion bucks!

And the $860 billion "stimulus" package passed in early 2009 was designed to be a political stimulus package, not an economic one.

It was mostly devoted to government growth, public sector union subsidization, entitlement expansion, and political payoffs. Unfortunately, very little of it was devoted to badly needed infrastruture development or maintenance.

Anyone who supported that epic failure deserved to be voted out of office.

A very interesting, albeit limited, interactive feature on the NYTimes, from a few days ago. It lets you play with a number of popular proposals that have been bandied about to try to balance the budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...s-graphic.html

Here's my solution, although the cuts in some areas aren't as great as I'd like.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=grx009qv

Not a dime cut from Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

I vote Green.

Not that this NY Times piece is accurate but I say cut cut cut cut cut.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=zzqph010

The only tax "increase" I suggested was tax reform. I believe a flat tax or some combination of reducing or eliminating income tax while adding a consumption tax would accomplish this same goal. The government does NOT need more of our money. TTH, if YOU want to give it to them by all means go ahead.

As for military cuts I did not suggest eliminating troops on the ground as an expected cut. That must come from Generals not politicians. I think everything else is subject to cuts. I also did not cut in R&D. I think we can cut levels, fleets, etc. but R&D must remain high. Advanced weaponary can replace humans to reduce casualties.

Not that this NY Times piece is accurate . . . . Originally Posted by Boltfan

What facts to you have to suggest it is not accurate?

Did you balance the budget? If so, let's see your work?

What facts to you have to suggest it is not accurate?

Did you balance the budget? If so, let's see your work? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Exactly. "What would you do?" should be the response to every critic. In other words, "put up or shut up".

L4L

Do you guys not understand how to use hyperlinks? My link is in the damn post.

Here's mine.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=45l8n5qm