The difficult thing for the incoming TP candidates is going to be telling the American people no.  You can't cut spending, shrink governments, lower taxes, and stop healthcare without pissing off some people.  At some point, if they do what they've been elected to do, they're going to step on everyone's toes. 

There ought to be plenty of folks around willing to do this job. Term limits might be a next step. Take a few years out of your life and go kick some a$$ and have some fun - show the grandkids what America is all about even while spending a little more of their inheritance to do some good for the country.

I bothers me when the Obamas, Pelosi, Frank, and some of the other high profile Dems talk down to me as a conservative.  The lump us all into the Republican party, which is fine for talking points but not technically correct.  They talk about us as a king or monarch would - you're to dumb and uneducated to make these kind of tough decisions for yourself so we're going to make the decisions we want to make regardless of  what you think.  That kind of rhetoric is maddening. 

Exactly. This in itself is a desperation move, a last resort. That political capital has been burned. Look at Obama on the comedy show, folks are laughing at him as much as with him. But the pissed off people, even if they are in the minority, are the ones holding the money. That's why they are pissed off.

If you doubt this, compare the tone with right before the election, when Obama was lecturing America about hope and change. The patronizers were just gaining power, now they are the victims of their own self deception. ( Jobless, taxes going up, no solid plan in place to increase economic growth and create jobs). You can only drift on BS for so long.

[quote=Incredible Hulk]

[quote=BondGuy]

Past all that, a divided government will probably increase the deficit.

[/quote]

Lots of things I disagree with BG, but this makes me question your thought process on all issues.  Assume the house and senate go to a small majority Republican.  What happens to tax rates?  I assume they go up to Clinton era rates or at least they do over $250K AGI.  What happens to new spending?  I assume (or at least hope) that the republicans hold their end of the bargain and stop new spending and/or reduce existing spending. So, more money coming in (higher marginal tax rates) coupled with less money going out (less spending) yields a decreasing deficit, not increasing. 

 [/quote]

Get out your calculator: Extending the tax cuts over a ten year period will decrease tax revenues by an esitiamted 4 trillion dollars. Over the same time period repubs have estimated they will cut 700 billion in spending. Maybe it's me, but a quick pass with the calculator gives me a negative 3.3 trillion dollars. I know that the resulting tax induced job creation is supposed to cover that, but been there done that got the tax bill !!!!

As long as spending outstrips revenue the deficit goes up. Try this at home with your own budget. It's exactly the same thing and will make this concept brutally clear.

On the fed budget under the current plan the deficit is reduced by the extra revs. Though hobbled by the recession, it still reduces the deficit.

If repubs gain a majority in the house the chances of a deficit increasing extention of the Bush tax cuts increases. If they win both houses, the chances increase some more. Note, that with Obama in the White House they aren't going to get what they want without compromise. Of course, neither will Obama.

Ok got it? The extention of tax cuts combined with not enough spending cuts will increase the deficit. This is the republican agenda.

One other thing- the new TP rookies are going to give their leadership indigestion on any compromise with Obama. No compromise means nothing gets done. Nothing getting done puts a bullseye on their backs. OTOH, compromise with someone they've characterized as the devil isn't going play well on main street back in Myopia.

Obama has started a social justice/social engineering spending spree that isn't going to work in the long run and will cost taxpayers lots and lots of money.  FDR tried similar tactics in the 30's with the New Deal and the New Deal part deux.  They worked about as well as I would expect Obama's tactics to work today.  The Dems/Progressives follow him blindly into that initiative without thought for what those social engineering policies might actually do to our country. 

You'll never get someone like BG to admit what is really going on here. This has been a huge grab for power during an economic storm. Ironic that BG accuses the Repubs of being a rock in the road, while the progressives are trying to steal control of the country through nationalization of banks, car companies, home loans, student loans, energy, education, military and so on.

BG claims the conservatives have been blocking a recovery, but in fact there is reason to believe the progressives have intentionally extended the meltdown. Prove it? When almost every business person is in a funk about investing for a couple years, because things like liquidity in real estate have not been competently address, and so consumers are (still strung), you gotta wonder, is it just stupid or is it diabolical?

I believe government in this country (local, state and federal) is approaching 50%. These guys have been  having drinks in the White House and visualizing a scenario where the conservatives never regain power. We'll see what happens on Tuesday!

Ok got it? The extention of tax cuts combined with not enough spending cuts will increase the deficit. This is the republican agenda.

So what. With extension of the Bush tax cuts, the deficit increases, and the value of the dollar decreases. Exports increase.

Social Security benefits are not cut because you won't be in office if you make people work longer. Health care is rolled back to Medicare and privitization.

The only reason you are worried about the deficit is to support your social programs. Military, SS and Medicare, these are untouchable. The rest is history. Watch what happens. State services severely cut in most cases.

Interest rates go up. Capital flows in from overseas. More government services cuts. Maybe pension cuts if some state go broke. This is going to be interesting.

On the fed budget under the current plan the deficit is reduced by the extra revs. Though hobbled by the recession, it still reduces the deficit.

Total BS. The current plan is the same as the Republicans, increase the debt until the dollar is devalued and interest rates go up, investment capital comes to America and the debt itself is devalued.

Difference is, the Repubs will cut individual taxes (extended cuts) and even corporate taxes, and hurry up the process. As long as you can print money to extend liquidity, the cycle will continue. This will be the case, since the alternative is social unrest in China and starvation in Europe.

Poverty and wealth in America will reach new lows and highs. This is the only logical outcome of the actions of either party, the Repubs are just accelerating the process and bringing liquidity to the markets faster. Did you think you could just keep printing and selling bonds forever, or are you just trying to slow down the market long enough to make a few more bucks for yourself?

Yes you can keep printing money, no you can't keep printing bonds. Accelerating the meltdown of the American middle class is the most humane action at this point.

The alternative vision requires higher social cooperation and honesty. Your pal Obama will go down in history as being the fellow who sold out that utopian vision of Americans living in economic unision gracefully in a post-industrial society. Missed window of opportunity, but the alternative capitalist reality fits with where we are coming from and is the most reasonable outcome at this point.

The really funny thing, which BG kind of points out is - with gridlock, everything stays in motion.

There's no progressive majority to throw up trade quotas and tariffs, or borrow more money. With high unemployment and low consumer demand, state governments are free to melt down and start throwing more workers onto the labor market.

Demand may decrease even more, governmnent revenues are down, debt increases, interest rates go up, private  innovation begins.

Who would want to be a politician who was promising anything? Better to go to Washington with the idea that you'll be unpopular with the masses.

The result of progressive do gooder meddling is the same as Reagan's "vote with your feet". If you don't like how we screwed up the economy by promising everyone home ownership and a better quality of life by exporting your job to China, you can move to a warm climate and pick fruit (probably no unions there).

BG - go rent the movie " Planet of the Apes". (Original version). The Chinese are the guys on horses. This all started with trying to lift all boats in the world. A very humane notion, with unintended consequences. Keep your insurance license so you can keep making sales.

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

The difficult thing for the incoming TP candidates is going to be telling the American people no.  You can't cut spending, shrink governments, lower taxes, and stop healthcare without pissing off some people.  At some point, if they do what they've been elected to do, they're going to step on everyone's toes. 

Actually, no, TP rookies are going to get in line or get stepped on themselves. The TP faction of the repub party will not be in a leadership role. They will do what the old repub hacks tell them to do, or else! As i said in the other post, compromise. They will have to first compromise within their own ranks and then compromise with the dems or at least Obama. Regardless, little of the TP agenda will get done. I doubt any will survive in it's unadulterated form. That's not to say the messege is lost. it's not. Just don't expect too much.

The problem is that the average American is way too short sighted and selfish to understand that sometimes you have to be told no, or at least told to figure it out for yourself, for the betterment, no survival, of the country going forward.  Seniors are already upset that they're not getting a raise in their SS checks.  Just wait until you tell them that they aren't going to have this service or that service that Federal dollars used to pay for.  We're all OK with cutting benefits and services that don't affect us.  We're not OK when we get told no. 

It's hands off entitlemments. A politican that doesn't get this is dead man walking.

Bond - I don't disagree with you that some of the dems that voted for the bailouts didn't get the recognition they deserve.  But the problem you have with that argument is that one good decision does not a great politician make.  Sure, that was the right decision at the right time.  It's the many, many issues that followed that really concerns us.  Obama has started a social justice/social engineering spending spree that isn't going to work in the long run and will cost taxpayers lots and lots of money.  FDR tried similar tactics in the 30's with the New Deal and the New Deal part deux.  They worked about as well as I would expect Obama's tactics to work today.  The Dems/Progressives follow him blindly into that initiative without thought for what those social engineering policies might actually do to our country. 

Clue me in here. I admit I'm not up on neo conservative economic spin. What budget programs are you characterizing as  social engineering spending sprees?

One good decision? Ah, that one good decision saved your butt from the unemployment line as well as the soup line!  Not good enough?

I bothers me when the Obamas, Pelosi, Frank, and some of the other high profile Dems talk down to me as a conservative.  The lump us all into the Republican party, which is fine for talking points but not technically correct.  They talk about us as a king or monarch would - you're to dumb and uneducated to make these kind of tough decisions for yourself so we're going to make the decisions we want to make regardless of  what you think.  That kind of rhetoric is maddening. 

Yet, it doesn't bother you that your own party leaders treat you the same way? Even if i agreed with you that obama and company are talking down to conservatives, nothing they could have done compares to the the repubs playing their faithful for rubes by lying about the need and effect of the bailouts and stimulus. So worst case, obama may talk to you like you are too stupid to think for yourself, but, your own party leaders have absolutely assumed it! They've  engineered an election plan that is counting on stupidity, people unable to think for themselves, to bring them into power. That is unless i've got it wrong and all the bailout and stim ads are right? That is, not only did thebailouts not work, they got us into this mess. I'll take the guys that talk to me like i'm stupid over the guys counting on  it with million dollar campaign ads.

I too don't like Pelosi. Won't be sorry to see her go. I like frank even though i don't always agreewith him. Most conservatives don't like him thus don't understand him. Many hate him, and not for his politics.

So, this next election, I'm going to excercise the most powerful right I have in this country - the right to vote.  You and I will most certainly vote differently.  That's OK.  The sun will still come up on Nov. 3.   Maybe then we can have a discussion not about donkeys or elephants, but rather about floating rate funds vs short duration funds. 

Yeah, me too. Actually, i'm voting for a repub in my district. He's more or less centered. More important, he's honest. He hasn't run one bailout stim ad. As long as he doesn't, I'll vote for him. BTW, the dem incumbent didn't vote for the bailouts. He wasn't in office then. If he had, i'd have to vote for him. That kind of political bravery deserves to be rewarded. It was, most likely, a once in a lifetime happening.

I'm not a fan of either type of fund, but that's another topic.

[/quote]

Bond Guy, could we agree to this: if you take the (current) income and property tax rate of most areas in the U.S. as a ratio to income, you can see that we are screwed.

This creates an increasing separation of rich and poor, destruction of the middle class.

Since the U.S. is dependent on imports of certain key items, stopping globalization is not an option

What has really caused the meltdown ( which was accelerated but symptoms delayed by the securitization of mortgages) is free trade, devaluation of American labor.

( You could argue that the leveraging of mortgages to buy imported stuff from China is temporary, but we still spend money for oil and now there is compounding interest on the increasing debt.)

The last two years have stabilized the economy, the real debate has been about control over public resources, or public control over private resources.

Since the ratio of income to expenses is increasingly unfavorable, the ratio of poverty to wealth increases (regardless of politics).

With regard to the macro economy, the outcome of the policies of right and left will be similar in the long term. ( Even with trade protection, short term wealth might increase but long term wealth might decrease or be the same.)

With regard to progressive politics, it's about wealth redistribution. For conservatives, it's about the rights of the individual. Some folks would say this is a spiritual notion.

So when you say people are stupid for wanting to look out for themselves, you're saying it's smart to look out for the poor. This could be a spiritual idea.

I don't see you making any arguement for progressivism increasing the overall wealth of the nation.

Would you admit that you just want redistribute wealth from rich to poor?

This strategy did not seem to work very well in post revolutionary China. I don't see it playing in India or Brasil, or any other growing economy. Do you want us to look more like France?