I would describe myself as a center-right person with strong libertarian leanings. I don't want the self-righteous republicans snooping around in my bedroom (particularly not Mark Foley or Larry Craig), and I don't want the tax-and-spend democrats stealing my bank account. My impression is that the republicans want to turn us into a theocracy and the democrats want to turn us into a nanny state. What really concerns me most right now is that the infringements of civil liberties enacted by the republicans in the last eight years will be used by the democrats to impose their nanny state on us. When that starts happening is when I leave the country.
I think fiscal conservative, social liberal Bill Clinton was a better president than social conservative, fiscal spendthrift George W. Bush.
I think fiscal conservative, social moderate John McCain is probably closer to Bill Clinton than he is to George W. Bush. But I'm afraid his party is forcing him to push to the right socially.
I think Bill Clinton is probably closer to John McCain than he is to fiscal liberal, social liberal Barack Obama. But so far, Obama has gotten free rein to campaign as if that weren't true.
I think I'd rather be getting ready for Bill Clinton's fifth term than for either Barack Obama or John McCain to be taking over after two terms of George W. Bush. I KNOW I'd prefer Clinton with a republican congress to the other alternatives.
You just need to embrace Libertarianism in all its glory! It sounds like you're already there.
Been there for 30 years.
That's why I like you haha. Looking back on the Clinton era, I think I was OK with him. Sure I was 8 when he was elected but I don't remember him being all that bad. He tried to bring and end to small government. He had some issues with ladies, but hey, who doesn't?
I think fiscal conservative, social moderate John McCain is probably closer to Bill Clinton than he is to George W. Bush. But I'm afraid his party is forcing him to push to the right socially.
I think Bill Clinton is probably closer to John McCain than he is to fiscal liberal, social liberal Barack Obama. But so far, Obama has gotten free rein to campaign as if that weren't true.
See I don't know if you can call McCain a "fiscal conservative". I remember reading an article that McCain would actually increase the deficit more than Obama would. I actually liked McCain before all this election mess started. I like his maverick-like independence and willingness to reach across the aisle. Unfortunately, he has pandered to the right, understandably, to secure the nomination and shore up his base.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-...5880.story
Obama's plan -- cuts targeted to middle- and low-income Americans and increases for the wealthy -- would increase the national debt by an estimated $3.4 trillion in the next decade, the center said. Under a similar analysis, McCain's plan -- largely a continuation of Bush's tax reductions -- would add $5 trillion. The deficit is now $9.5 trillion.
This was analyzed by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, not the LA Times, by the way.
Clinton has been the best President I have experienced and have good memory of. Which is quite sad, really.
See I don't know if you can call McCain a "fiscal conservative". I remember reading an article that McCain would actually increase the deficit more than Obama would. I actually liked McCain before all this election mess started. I like his maverick-like independence and willingness to reach across the aisle. Unfortunately, he has pandered to the right, understandably, to secure the nomination and shore up his base.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-...5880.story
Obama's plan -- cuts targeted to middle- and low-income Americans and increases for the wealthy -- would increase the national debt by an estimated $3.4 trillion in the next decade, the center said. Under a similar analysis, McCain's plan -- largely a continuation of Bush's tax reductions -- would add $5 trillion. The deficit is now $9.5 trillion.
This was analyzed by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, not the LA Times, by the way.
I think McCain is a fiscal conservative, but he has had to bow down to the altar of George W. Bush in order to get the republican nomination. That s*cks as far as I'm concerned, and will keep me from voting for McCain, but it is the reality.
The Tax Policy Center may be "non-partisan," but it is a joint venture of Brookings (which is pretty much the house think tank of the democrats) and the Urban Institute (which was started by LBJ). That doesn't necessarily disqualify their work, any more than stuff favorable to republicans that comes out of Heritage or Cato should be dismissed out of hand. It does mean that the results need to be examined carefully to be certain of exactly what they do--and do not--stand for. From a cursory examination online, it would appear that only the tax effects were examined, and Obama's plans to increase spending by what I've seen estimated at $300 billion per year were not considered. That would obviously impact the results significantly.
The bigger problem that I have with these and similar analyses is that they assume static conditions. Obama's plan to increase the capital gains tax rate is assumed to produce greater revenues, since no change in the number and amount of capital gain transactions is assumed. Once the tax rate is increased, people are going to make different investment decisions to minimize their tax exposure, the volume of capital gains transactions will decrease as a result, and the tax rate increase may well produce a decrease in tax revenues. Historical experience has generally been that cuts in the capital gains rate have increased tax revenues, and increases have decreased tax revenues.
In looking at the distribution effects, I have this concern. As a society, we consume more and save less than any other nation in the world. Consuming more while investing less inevitably leads to demand exceeding domestic supply for any number of goods and services, so the balance of trade goes negative. The Obama plan will raise taxes on investment income and distribute the money to people who are expected (surely correctly) to spend the money on consumption. Less investment can only lead to fewer jobs and further worsening of the balance of trade, which will in turn lead to a weaker dollar. This seems to me to be a prescription for hyperinflationary depression. I really wish someone could explain how Obama expects to achieve a different result from this approach.
If OBama is elected, he will have a huge majority in both the house and the senate to push his agenda. If Democrats get 60 in the Senate, it will be game, set and match as the Republicans can't filabuster anything the Democrats want.
The results of giving the Democrats unchecked power will lead to them picking ultra-liberal judges. Gay marriages, gun control, and elimination of capital punishment are likely to happen. The tax system will be revamped and you will get massive tax increases on the middle and upper classes. The Democrats defined rich as anything over 35,000 a year the last time they had total control. Clinton told us he would raise taxes on the middle class, he lied. Democrats get greedy everytime and they will push for nationalized healthcare and....salvery reparations....yep.....this will be in form of massive goverment handouts to the poor in the form of rebate checks to stimulate the economy, increased afirmative action, education spending and healthcare benefits. This will be a multi-trillion dollar stickup by the Democrats.
I feel the same way in that I agree fiscal responsibility is absolutely essential. We cannot continue our deficit habits.
Where I suppose we veer from one another is that I believe Barack Obama is the better option towards correcting this problem. I agree with the solutions he's listed on his website, (Reinstating PAYGO Rules, Reversing the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Slashing Earmarks to 2001 levels, Eliminating No-bid contracts, Addressing wasted spending, Plugging holes in tax revenue drains) and am encouraged by his voting record on such matters. I also find Obama more likely to find a sooner cessation of the dollar drain in Iraq, and less likely to lead the US into a similar money pit, in, say, Iran.
The praise, or perhaps just tolerance of Bill Clinton, suggests we don't veer too much, however, since one of the first major pieces of legislation Clinton signed raised taxes on the higher income brackets, raised corporate taxes, raised transportation taxes, operated with capital gains tax rates significantly higher than they are now, and implemented spending restraints--- measures that are similar to Obama's plan (somewhat different in that Obama's planned tax levels for capital gains, dividends, and middle-class families will be lower than Clinton's).
Clinton's plan is very different from Obama's in one key aspect that is escaping attention thus far, at least on this side of the pond.
After Ronald Reagan lowered tax rates twice, we had pretty much the lowest marginal tax rates in the world. Even after modest increases in rates under Bush I and Bill Clinton, we still had pretty much the lowest marginal tax rates in the world. The prolonged period of economic growth during the Clinton years was proof that Reaganomics works. We had the lowest tax rates, we had the strongest economy, and we had sufficient economic growth that tax revenues increased, exactly as the supply-siders had predicted.
Unfortunately for the republicans, they were too dumb to realize this. Instead of taking credit for an economy that was driven by what were essentially republican ideas (low tax rates, balancing the budget, welfare reform, cutting spending), they only wanted to bash Clinton for "the largest tax increase in history" (it was really just a correction to the Reagan tax rate cuts) and for Monicagate.
Even if the republicans didn't figure this out, the rest of the world did. The other industrialized nations took notice and began slashing their tax rates in the hope of chasing the same economic growth. Look at OECD statistics, and over the last 10-20 years there is a significant downward trend in marginal income, dividend, and capital gains tax rates in the rest of the developed world. The result today is that we have the second highest marginal corporate income tax rate in the world, and our taxes on capital gains and the double tax on dividends are among the highest in the world, too. This is currently driving investment away from the US and costing us jobs.
If Obama raises those taxes further, we will become even more uncompetitive and that will drive away more investment and more jobs. Even if he simply restores tax rates to Clintonian levels, the impact will be vastly different because what the competition is doing has changed. Ross Perot understood this, and I think Bill Clinton did, but I don't believe that any presidential candidate since has understood it. If you can get your hands on some of the little books that Perot wrote back in the early 90s, read them again and you can see that he understood what I'm talking about. You will also be struck by how little we've done to address the very real issues that Perot addressed.
(As an aside, I disagree with Perot only on NAFTA. Perot's opposed NAFTA not because it would hurt the US economy, but because he had just spent millions to develop an economic develoment zone north of Fort Worth, and had called in numerous political favors to get it designated as a duty-free zone, only to realize that NAFTA would remove a considerable part of the economic advantage that the duty-free status conferred. He stirred up a lot of controversy by raising false fears about something that he opposed because he thought it would take money out of his pocket.)
We have a $400 billion federal budget deficit and an $800 billion foreign trade deficit. We are borrowing out the @$$ to fund both. That's over $1 trillion per year added to our total national debt (government and private sector). That debt will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren, and will eat severely into whatever economic success they can achieve. At some point, we are apt to p*$$ off one of our creditor nations (China?) sufficiently that they choose to dump our debt on the world market. At that point, your dollars become worth about 10 cents each. Overnight.
The picture under McCain is not pretty. It's just not as ugly as the picture under Obama. Under McCain, I would expect both deficits to continue at present levels. Under Obama I would expect the federal budget deficit to continue at about the same level, as his tax increases just about offset his spending increases, but I would expect the trade deficit to increase exponentially. The inevitable result would seem to be hyperinflation followed by depression. If some economist can explain how we can get a different outcome, I'm all ears. But I have enough education and experience in economics to be extremely pessimistic.
I've seen projections that the Obama economic policy could cost us up to 2%/year in economic growth. That's huge in terms of these sorts of things, essentially the difference between recession/depression and thriving. These have come from conservative/libertarian think tanks, but that doesn't disqualify them out of hand. If someone comes up with a different answer, we could compare them to see which one seems more likely, but so far I've not seen anything from Brookings or anyone else to suggest a different result. The think tanks on the left seem universally to be focusing entirely on income distribution and not on economic growth, or at least from what I've seen.
This is not a debate about whether high taxes or other factors such as low third-world wages cost us more jobs; both cost us jobs. One is pretty much uncontrollable (wages) if we are to maintain our standard of living, so we have to live with those job losses. Structuring our tax code to minimize the losses from high taxes is the one step we can take to prevent the preventable job losses. Other developed countries have been able to lower their marginal income tax rates, and reduce or eliminate capital gains and dividends taxes, becuase they have relied more and more on consumption taxes for revenues. We should do the same.
I would describe myself as a center-right person with strong libertarian leanings. I don't want the self-righteous republicans snooping around in my bedroom (particularly not Mark Foley or Larry Craig), and I don't want the tax-and-spend democrats stealing my bank account. My impression is that the republicans want to turn us into a theocracy and the democrats want to turn us into a nanny state. What really concerns me most right now is that the infringements of civil liberties enacted by the republicans in the last eight years will be used by the democrats to impose their nanny state on us. When that starts happening is when I leave the country.
I think fiscal conservative, social liberal Bill Clinton was a better president than social conservative, fiscal spendthrift George W. Bush.
I think fiscal conservative, social moderate John McCain is probably closer to Bill Clinton than he is to George W. Bush. But I'm afraid his party is forcing him to push to the right socially.
I think Bill Clinton is probably closer to John McCain than he is to fiscal liberal, social liberal Barack Obama. But so far, Obama has gotten free rein to campaign as if that weren't true.
I think I'd rather be getting ready for Bill Clinton's fifth term than for either Barack Obama or John McCain to be taking over after two terms of George W. Bush. I KNOW I'd prefer Clinton with a republican congress to the other alternatives.
Not sure what the problem with being a social conservative is? There are only two issues most Evangelicals don't want, same sex marriage and abortion. If it wasn't these issues, something else would divide the political parties. Right now the Republicans have a gift of most of the 20% of the electorate that call themselves evangelicals. This gives Republicans huge advantages in the south and most of the mid west. Look at the electoral map, it's only the north east and west coast that are a lock for the Democrats. the 90%+ support of African Americans in these areas for Democrats won't change if the Republicans change party views on Social issues.
I don't want a theocracy, but I also don't want to rationalize radical social changes in the US because France or some other wacko European country is doing something. If things are so great in Europe, don't force their lifestyle and government policies on the US, just move there (this statement is not directed at you rather those particularly in the media that always hold Europe out as a standard we should be measured by).
Not sure what the problem with being a social conservative is? There are only two issues most Evangelicals don't want, same sex marriage and abortion.
Right now the Republicans have a gift of most of the 20% of the electorate that call themselves evangelicals. This gives Republicans huge advantages in the south and most of the mid west.
From a practical standpoint, it's a very expensive 20% because they are pretty much uncompromising and that means that in catering to the 20% you always risk offending the other 80%. The 90% of African-American voters, and other liberals who vote for democrats, will vote for a democrat just because he's a democrat, as long as he's 1% more liberal than his opponent. The evangelicals will sit on the sidelines unless you are 100% on the same page with them. It seems to me that the inevitable result in a democracy or a republic (your choice as to which you want to call the US) must surely be that the agenda tilts slowly but inevitably toward the liberal/democrat side, and that appears to me to be what is happening.
I heard a brief snippet of Rush Limbaugh the other day, and he was quoting a group of evangelicals in the midwest who had been asked, if they had a choice of McCain winning with pro-choice VP or losing with a pro-live VP, and had responded overwhelmingly that they'd prefer to lose with a pro-life VP. As long as that's the thinking, the tide will run against them. If Barack Obama is elected, and if he gets to appoint four supreme court justices, it will take 50 years to get the court back to the point that the evangelical social agenda has a chance.
On both gay rights and abortion, polls show farly consistently that about 25% of Americans favor gay marriage and abortion on demand, 25% oppose all abortions and any legal recognition for gay relationships, and a fairly solid 50% favor abortion with limitations and gay civil unions but not marriage. With the democrats steadfastly aligned with the most liberal 25% on both, if the republicans adopted the postion of the middle 50%, they'd be closer to 75% of the population on both issues. The evangelical base would not be as solid, but they're still going to appeal more to them than the democrats. And instead of having an advantage with 25% of the voters, they'd have an advantage with 75%. If the evangelicals worked like the liberals, they'd accept those positions for starters, and then work to move the bar slowly to the right. Over 40 or 50 years, restrictions on abortion and gay rights would come to pass. But the "my way or the highway" approach turns off too many potential voters.
Republicans have held the presidency for 23 of the 35 years since Roe v. Wade was decided. Of the 12 years when the democrats held the white house, republicans controlled both houses of congress for 6. Democrats have controlled the white house and both houses of congress for 6 years, republicans have controlled the white house and both houses of congress for 4.5 years, and republicans have controlled the presidency and one house of congress for 3.5 years. Seven of the nine supreme court justices were appointed by republicans. How are the evangelicals doing on getting Roe v. Wade overturned? Where is the gay rights movement today compared to where it was in 1973? If evangelicals are losing under those conditions, what does it take for them to prevail?
It will take either (1) a constitutional amendment or two, or (2) a president who will appoint only supreme court justices who pass the litmus test, 51+ senators to confirm the justice, 60+ senators to overturn filibusters, with all those conditions continuing long enough to appoint a majority of the court and no changes of heart by justices once appointed. You're not going to elect 60 republican senators by insisting that every one of them be absolutely pure on the abortion and gay rights issues. Just ain't gonna happen. So maybe, just maybe, this is not the basket where the republicans should be putting all their eggs.
From a practical standpoint, it's a very expensive 20% because they are pretty much uncompromising and that means that in catering to the 20% you always risk offending the other 80%. The 90% of African-American voters, and other liberals who vote for democrats, will vote for a democrat just because he's a democrat, as long as he's 1% more liberal than his opponent. The evangelicals will sit on the sidelines unless you are 100% on the same page with them. It seems to me that the inevitable result in a democracy or a republic (your choice as to which you want to call the US) must surely be that the agenda tilts slowly but inevitably toward the liberal/democrat side, and that appears to me to be what is happening.
I heard a brief snippet of Rush Limbaugh the other day, and he was quoting a group of evangelicals in the midwest who had been asked, if they had a choice of McCain winning with pro-choice VP or losing with a pro-live VP, and had responded overwhelmingly that they'd prefer to lose with a pro-life VP. As long as that's the thinking, the tide will run against them. If Barack Obama is elected, and if he gets to appoint four supreme court justices, it will take 50 years to get the court back to the point that the evangelical social agenda has a chance.
On both gay rights and abortion, polls show farly consistently that about 25% of Americans favor gay marriage and abortion on demand, 25% oppose all abortions and any legal recognition for gay relationships, and a fairly solid 50% favor abortion with limitations and gay civil unions but not marriage. With the democrats steadfastly aligned with the most liberal 25% on both, if the republicans adopted the postion of the middle 50%, they'd be closer to 75% of the population on both issues. The evangelical base would not be as solid, but they're still going to appeal more to them than the democrats. And instead of having an advantage with 25% of the voters, they'd have an advantage with 75%. If the evangelicals worked like the liberals, they'd accept those positions for starters, and then work to move the bar slowly to the right. Over 40 or 50 years, restrictions on abortion and gay rights would come to pass. But the "my way or the highway" approach turns off too many potential voters.
Republicans have held the presidency for 23 of the 35 years since Roe v. Wade was decided. Of the 12 years when the democrats held the white house, republicans controlled both houses of congress for 6. Democrats have controlled the white house and both houses of congress for 6 years, republicans have controlled the white house and both houses of congress for 4.5 years, and republicans have controlled the presidency and one house of congress for 3.5 years. Seven of the nine supreme court justices were appointed by republicans. How are the evangelicals doing on getting Roe v. Wade overturned? Where is the gay rights movement today compared to where it was in 1973? If evangelicals are losing under those conditions, what does it take for them to prevail?
It will take either (1) a constitutional amendment or two, or (2) a president who will appoint only supreme court justices who pass the litmus test, 51+ senators to confirm the justice, 60+ senators to overturn filibusters, with all those conditions continuing long enough to appoint a majority of the court and no changes of heart by justices once appointed. You're not going to elect 60 republican senators by insisting that every one of them be absolutely pure on the abortion and gay rights issues. Just ain't gonna happen. So maybe, just maybe, this is not the basket where the republicans should be putting all their eggs.
Not sure I agree 100%, I am an evangelical and who is a realist. I know that gays are going to get some sort of legal status so I do think NO same sex marriage, but allow not as a federal matter, but a individual states choice same sex civil unions. Abortion with limitations is also something that can be worked out. Rape, Incest and physical danger to the mothers life are all valid reasons.
Side with Same Sex Marriage proponents and you risk losing 75% of voters. I don't think the 25% in favor of same sex marriage are very flexible on this issue either. I would guess that typically the more politically active pro-abortion, and pro-same sex marriage crowd are left leaning on all subject, economic, environmental, taxes, etc. Not real sure enough would ever be gained to offset the loss of evangelicals.
From a practical standpoint, it's a very expensive 20% because they are pretty much uncompromising and that means that in catering to the 20% you always risk offending the other 80%.
Not sure I agree 100%, I am an evangelical and who is a realist. I know that gays are going to get some sort of legal status so I do think NO same sex marriage, but allow not as a federal matter, but a individual states choice same sex civil unions. Abortion with limitations is also something that can be worked out. Rape, Incest and physical danger to the mothers life are all valid reasons.
Side with Same Sex Marriage proponents and you risk losing 75% of voters. I don't think the 25% in favor of same sex marriage are very flexible on this issue either. I would guess that typically the more politically active pro-abortion, and pro-same sex marriage crowd are left leaning on all subject, economic, environmental, taxes, etc. Not real sure enough would ever be gained to offset the loss of evangelicals.
I'm not saying side with same sex marriage proponents. The democrats are in bed with them and with the abortion on demand people. The republicans wouldn't get their votes if they did side with them. What I see happening are situations where the republicans have let democrats paint them into a corner by convincing main street America that republicans are out of touch zealots on these issues. If they continue to do so, the demographics say that republicans are fighting a losing proposition over the next thirty years. And that certainly won't be good for the evangelical cause.
I believe that with a more centrist position the republicans could broaden their appeal without huge losses of evagelicals. If the republicans move to the center and the democrats stay where they are, what are evangelicals going to do?
There are lots of people I know who are very conflicted about this election. They don't want the nanny state, but they also don't buy the religious right agenda. They started thinking in 2006 that maybe we could stand a little tilt toward the nanny state in order to get the government to pay more attention to the economy than to what goes on in Iraq or my bedroom. Those people are going to vote for Obama in 2008, and there are probably enough of them that he's going to win.