This thread discusses the Content article: GUEST OPINION: Republicans need to start learning quickly

These writers can not see that deregulation I.E. "less govt." has led to the worst financial crisis since the 30s in the mortgage arena.

Fewer taxes during a war means that the citizens do not feel the need to sacrifice the least and therefore why not continue the wars! Of course the loaned money for the wars from foreign countries will need to be repaid in the future plus interest. But what the heck, let our grandkids suffer not us.

Strong defense would be nice but Bush has decided a strong offense is the way to succeed. No money or troops left for defensive measures.

Immigration issues have long been swept under the table by the old majority. Drilling will not ease the energy crisis, renewables will but of course the old majority is run by oil companies so the propaganda continues.

No mention of global warming but that is not a surprise. Try outliving mother nature, won't happen.

Don't talk to countries we disagree with? Makes no sense, again!

I guess they have made the best case for the new Democratic majority that can be made!!

This article is so bad, so loopy, the Daily Herald should be ashamed to have printed it. I guess they have no shame.

Which conservative principles need greater emphasis? They are quite simple and resonate with all voters -- strong economic policies that stress less government, fewer taxes, and the entrepreneurial spirit of the individual; a strong national defense; enforcement of immigration laws; and a willingness to fight environmentalists to allow drilling on American soil.
Let's look at a few of these so called wonderful conservative principles that need greater emphasis, according to the authors.

policies that stress less government.
Less regulation. Great idea. Let's let the bank and mortgage industry do what they want. If they want to give 100% loans to folks with shaky credit, no problem. Right? Checked the papers lately?

Let's let speculators control our oil markets. Let's deregulate the oil futures trading market and let the speculators have free reign. Let's let them bid up oil futures so a barrel of oil can change hands 6 or 7 times before it ever gets to a refinery. After all, speculation is just "free enterprise", who cares if gas is $4 a gallon...we have speculators exercising their right to make money, unemcumbered. The American way. No problem, right? Bought any gas lately?

Environmental regulations? Who needs them. They get in the way of profit. The world is ours to rape. Ann Coulter, the high priestess of neo-conservative crapola, actually once said that. Her exact comment was "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

After throwing up, let's move on.

fewer taxes.
To run a government, income needs to equal outgo, just like it does in your family budget. If your outgo exceeds income for a long period of time, you have to declare bankruptcy. Uncle Sam can delay the day of reckoning a lot longer than a family can, but the day of reckoning will eventually come. Seen the deficit lately? Here, let me help.



Supply side economics is based on the premise that if you give rich folks lots of tax breaks, they invest it all and it trickles down to the masses. They don't, and it doesn't.

It's almost not news any more. The rich have been getting richer, and the middle class and poor are finding life more difficult economically.

The latest study of income inequality in the United States, released last week, confirms that trend. It finds that since the late 1990s, despite several years of reasonable economic growth, the bottom 20 percent of families actually lost 2.5 percent in their average income by 2005, while the top 20 percent of American households enjoyed a 9 percent rise. Those in the middle fifth got a 1 percent hike in inflation-adjusted incomes...

...Another study, by the Congressional Budget Office, using tax data, calculates the share of national after-tax income going to the top 1 percent of households more than doubled, from 7.5 percent in 1979 to 15.6 percent in 2005. In 2005 alone, the $180,000 average income gain for these rich households was more than three times the average middle-income household’s total income.

An academic look at increasing income polarization, written by economists Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, found that average incomes of the highest-earning 1 percent grew 11 percent year-over-year between 2002 and 2006. The bottom 99 percent saw their incomes grow on average just 0.9 percent annually.

Rich getting richer faster

That's the Bush tax cuts at work.....working for the wealthy.

and a willingness to fight environmentalists to allow drilling on American soil.
More drilling is not the answer to our energy problems, especially offshore drilling and drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, which is what these authors are alluding to. Don't believe me? Perhaps you might believe T. Boone Pickens, a man who made billions in oil.

http://www.pickensplan.com/

Watch the video. A well spent 5 minutes. Compare his plan to the plan of Bush and McCain, which is "Let's drill more." You may disagree with Pickens plan, but at least it is a plan. "Let's drill more" is not. It's just more of the same, hoping to reduce the cost of gas by 10 or 15 cents a gallon in 10 or 15 years, and to just delay the final day of reckoning for our progeny. Some plan.

But then again, McCain has already admitted he knows little about economics. He got that right.

So if the rich doesn't invest their money, just what do they do with it? Bill Gates is rich.

ThomasK wrote:
So if the rich doesn't invest their money, just what do they do with it? Bill Gates is rich.
Gates, for example, gives a bundle to charity via his foundation. Noble, to be sure, but it does not do our budget deficit any good, does it? He pays fewer taxes under the Bush tax plan, which means less money (a lot less) from Bill to the United States Treasury. And the same goes for the rest of the wealthy.

Now, you may say that it is their money, they made it, and they should get to keep it. Fair enough...let's just shut the Government down. Closed, due to insufficient funding. If trickle down economics really worked, you'd see a black line in the Reagan-Bush1 era, and a black line in the current Bush era. What color do you see?

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
So if the rich doesn't invest their money, just what do they do with it? Bill Gates is rich.
Gates, for example, gives a bundle to charity via his foundation. Noble, to be sure, but it does not do our budget deficit any good, does it? He pays fewer taxes under the Bush tax plan, which means less money (a lot less) from Bill to the United States Treasury. And the same goes for the rest of the wealthy.

Now, you may say that it is their money, they made it, and they should get to keep it. Fair enough...let's just shut the Government down. Closed, due to insufficient funding. If trickle down economics really worked, you'd see a black line in the Reagan-Bush1 era, and a black line in the current Bush era. What color do you see?

Money in the private sector is driven by market forces. Supply and demand dictate where it goes. Productivity drives the bottom line. Profit is the motive.
In government none of these are in play. The more costly, the higher the budget is needed to cover costs.

You are right, insufficient funding in government is THE problem. You have three choices; none of them are driven by market forces. Decrease spending, increase funding, or borrow. My vote is for the first choice. More money left in the private sector is used more efficiently and provides greater opportunity.

You know what I see? A congress unwilling to do what it takes. And who ever is President next will get the blame. And I won't find solace in telling you, I told you so.

ThomasK wrote:
Money in the private sector is driven by market forces. Supply and demand dictate where it goes. Productivity drives the bottom line. Profit is the motive.
Your statement is too simplistic and extremely myopic. So what was driving the banks and mortgage companies to give no down payment loans to those with no or shaky credit? Profit, of course...short term profit. What drives speculators in the now deregulated oil markets to drive up the cost of oil? Profit. And what drives business to destroy the environment? Profit. If you own a steel mill or a coal fired power plant, and there are no government regulations against pollution, what drives you to install pollution equipment, equipment that costs money and makes no profit? As you watch the olympics from China in a few weeks, look at the air, and listen to the commentators talk about how bad it is. What will cause Chinese businesses, new to capitalism, to install pollution control equipment if not the government? The profit motive? Surely you jest.

You are right, insufficient funding in government is THE problem. You have three choices; none of them are driven by market forces. Decrease spending, increase funding, or borrow. My vote is for the first choice. More money left in the private sector is used more efficiently and provides greater opportunity.
What you have espoused is, of course, the typical conservative line. And you left out what costs you would cut. First up on the list would be social programs, no doubt. You would never want to cut defense, would you? On a more local level, what would you prefer to cut to make your property taxes go down? Public schools? Fire protection? Police protection? Road construction? Which one?

I loved one of the comments made by Obama yesterday on his trip. He said General Patraeus is correct to worry specifically about Iraq and what troop withdrawls might do, because that is his mission. Iraq. He said if he was in the Generals shoes, he'd do the same thing. The President, however, needs to worry about that and other things as well, not the least of which is the U.S. economy, as well as the situation in Afghanistan.

I've never once heard McCain mention the cost of the Iraq war, money and lives, as a factor in our getting out sooner rather than later. Have you?

Bottom Line: Congress is never realistically going to control spending. Democratic or Republican, makes no difference. The Republicans have spent every bit as much as drunken sailors in the Bush era as the Democrats ever did. Every bit as much, if not more. Look at the graph above. The only difference between the two is what it gets spent on.

So, in order to avoid financial disaster, revenue must increase. Trickle down, supply side economics doesn't do it. You did not answer my question from above, and it is a simple question...don't be scared of it. It won't bite...too much. In the chart, what color do you see in the Regan-Bush1 area and in the current Bush era. Black or red?