America in 2012: Same Old Crap, Wonderful Democracy

[August1991]

I'm astonished with the post-election analysis.

I think Mark Steyn (and his letter writers) have predicted a collapse of the best People's Republic on Earth.

Others (Leftish MSM) have decided that American demographics make the Republicans moribund.

My take? A sitting US president was re-elected, the federal Senate and House stayed the same, a few governors changed hands and a few state referenda attracted national attention. (It may be legal to smoke weed.)

IOW, business as usual.

[America is a wonderful democracy and if I had a wish, it would be that American voters should dip their finger in permanent purple ink when they vote. A purple finger, held aloft, would be the finger of democracy. It would be the signal of a civilized State around the world, a Roman purple.]

-----

Steyn? Obamacare is not a socialist health system. The "State" is not nationalizing 20% of the US economy. IMV, people don't buy health care the way they buy gasoline or even dental services. The State has a role to play in the health care market. (I would prefer the Canadian system of a provincial, not federal, role but whatever... )

Steyn II? The US federal government is not in debt. The US Federal Treasury has printed trillions, and millions of Americans are holding them. Taxes, bonds, US dollars - what's the difference? (Steyn may be a good geopolitical strategist but he's a neophyte in economics, and demographics.)

American demographics? Obama is not leading the American people. He apparently won fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008. (Wikipedia: 69 million vs 61 million)

Leftist MSM meme II? "The Democrats now own the Hispanic vote because the Republicans are WASPs." Huh? Bush Jnr did better among Hispanics than Kerry. Hispanics are Catholic, and believe in family. They work and pay taxes.

========

America 2016? God knows. I would predict now a President Christie, President Bush or even a President Rodham. As I say, God knows.

America, what a country! China, Europe, Africa or Russia could hope as much. America is a continent of people where no one knows who holds the federal State's power because it is decided "randomly".

Imagine!

Edited November 9, 2012 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

America, what a country! China, Europe, Africa or Russia could hope as much. America is a continent of people where no one knows who holds the federal State's power because it is decided "randomly".

Imagine!

Those countries should have the luxury of having people constantly predicting its doom... for how many generations now ? Is that a measure of success ? Perhaps it is. If it were a serious threat, then I doubt it would be constantly and casually brought up.

Resetting tax rates to Reagan era levels (!) would fix a lot of this. Just sayin'.

[CPCFTW]

Resetting tax rates to Reagan era levels (!) would fix a lot of this. Just sayin'.

No it wouldn't. It would crash the economy... Just sayin'

[bush_cheney2004]

....Steyn? Obamacare is not a socialist health system. The "State" is not nationalizing 20% of the US economy. IMV, people don't buy health care the way they buy gasoline or even dental services. The State has a role to play in the health care market. (I would prefer the Canadian system of a provincial, not federal, role but whatever... )

No, many Americans do buy health care the same way they buy gasoline and dental services. In front of me is my annual benefits opener documentation, with which I will make a myriad of consumer based choices for health care insurance, deductibles, health care provider, hospitalization, diagnostics, pharma, etc. These are just products and services same as anything else, and in our household of healthy individuals, it is dental services that take the fore.

[Michael Hardner]

No it wouldn't. It would crash the economy... Just sayin'

How so ? It would solve the deficit problems without taking more money out of circulation by cutting disbursements. It's not like there are tons of jobs out there that would be cut - companies are sitting on piles of cash. I'm sure they would still operate if they were making a little less.

[CPCFTW]

How so ? It would solve the deficit problems without taking more money out of circulation by cutting disbursements. It's not like there are tons of jobs out there that would be cut - companies are sitting on piles of cash. I'm sure they would still operate if they were making a little less.

Aggregate demand would decrease. Corporate revenues would decrease. Companies would need to cut costs. Jobs would be lost. Expenditures to support the unemployed would rise. Hello recession.

The fact that you think raising taxes to cover a deficit would not take money out of circulation (vs the alternative of borrowing money), shows that you really don't understand the economy.

The thing about the hoards of cash that corporations hold is that the banks lend out 5 times that money to consumers. So yes, taking cash from corporations to reduce the deficit will indeed reduce money in circulation.

Edited November 9, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Michael Hardner]

The fact that you think raising taxes to cover a deficit would not take money out of circulation (vs the alternative of borrowing money), shows that you really don't understand the economy.

I don't think they would cut costs that much.

The thing about the hoards of cash that corporations hold is that the banks lend out 5 times that money to consumers. So yes, taking cash from corporations to reduce the deficit will indeed reduce money in circulation.

Ok - so if consumer spending starts going up can we raise taxes then ? When can we raise taxes ? When ?

[Black Dog]

I don't think they would cut costs that much.

Ok - so if consumer spending starts going up can we raise taxes then ? When can we raise taxes ? When ?

Never. You can't do anything that would invite the wrath of our new gods.

If anything, we must take more action to please them. Burnt offerings, virgin sacrifices and the like.

[Michael Hardner]

Never. You can't do anything that would invite the wrath of our new gods.

If anything, we must take more action to please them. Burnt offerings, virgin sacrifices and the like.

What would happen if we increased taxes and the economy didn't tank ? Wait.. that would be impossible to happen. Never mind.

[Michael Hardner]

[CPCFTW]

I don't think they would cut costs that much.

Ok - so if consumer spending starts going up can we raise taxes then ? When can we raise taxes ? When ?

The US should raise consumption taxes IMO. They should also remove tax deductions for home ownership (ie. property taxes and mortgage interest).

They also need to stop allowing people to deduct state income taxes from their federal taxes. This has a similar effect as Canada's transfer payments to Quebec. The funny thing is that the states with the highest state tax rates are the "blue" states. So the "blue" states are able to pay less to federal coffers, and redirect that revenue to the state level, then they complain that there isn't enough federal revenue and that "we all need to pay our fair share".

Maybe when that kind of stuff is fixed, we can start talking about raising federal income tax rates slightly in conjunction with heavy cuts to entitlements.

[CPCFTW]

Neat image. Where on reddit did you find it?

Now plot average disposable income (PPP) on it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey, at this rate, President Obama is going to wish he lost the election. Be careful what you wish for !

[bush_cheney2004]

Neat image. Where on reddit did you find it?

Now plot average disposable income (PPP) on it.

Right...those who post that graph never post the actual income levels and cutoffs. Isn't politics fun ?

[-TSS-]

The Republicans are in a difficult situation as they must think hard what to do to change in order to become electable again in the presidential elections. Like it or not but the USA is fast becoming a more and more secular country, so religious nutjobbery no longer appeals to the electorate at large.

[Guest American Woman]

The Republicans are in a difficult situation as they must think hard what to do to change in order to become electable again in the presidential elections. Like it or not but the USA is fast becoming a more and more secular country, so religious nutjobbery no longer appeals to the electorate at large.

"Religious nutjobbery" never "appeal[ed] to the electorate at large."

Edited November 10, 2012 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

"Religious nutjobbery" never "appeal[ed] to the electorate at large."

Indeed, as escaping "religious nutjobbery" was one of the reasons the American Colonies and United States was founded in the first place.

[August1991]

No, many Americans do buy health care the same way they buy gasoline and dental services. In front of me is my annual benefits opener documentation, with which I will make a myriad of consumer based choices for health care insurance, deductibles, health care provider, hospitalization, diagnostics, pharma, etc. These are just products and services same as anything else, and in our household of healthy individuals, it is dental services that take the fore.

Uh, do you examine so many forms before filling up at the local gas station? And let's not even go to a situation where you face a critical health emergency which, in a car example, might at best be equivalent to having a tranny die while on summer vacation.

About the only similarity between gasoline/cars and health care is that the average American spends about the same on both.

Aggregate demand would decrease. Corporate revenues would decrease. Companies would need to cut costs. Jobs would be lost. Expenditures to support the unemployed would rise. Hello recession.

Clinton balanced the federal budget. When the economy picks up again, and with a modest increase in taxes, the US federal budget will once again be balanced.

The US should raise consumption taxes IMO. They should also remove tax deductions for home ownership (ie. property taxes and mortgage interest).

I agree.

But if Obama imposes a federal sales tax or eliminates the property tax deduction, it will kill the Democrats for an election cycle or two. Look what the GST/VAT did to the Conservatives in Canada and the LDP in Japan.

The Republicans are in a difficult situation as they must think hard what to do to change in order to become electable again in the presidential elections. Like it or not but the USA is fast becoming a more and more secular country, so religious nutjobbery no longer appeals to the electorate at large.

Think again, TSS. According to the MSM, Latinos are the big new demographic and they tend to be religious (Catholic) and traditional - apparently (again according to the MSM), one reason they chose Bush Jnr over Kerry in 2004 was that they thought Kerry was a wimp.

-----

The US federal deficit may not be sustainable (to use a word now in vogue) but the US federal State is. The founders wrote a good Constitution.

The modern US was at greater risk in 1964 and 1972 when the vote was so lopsided. When elections are decided by "swing states", then a country IMHO is civilized. Or how about the 1850s when the term "swing state" had a different meaning, and the survival (sustainability) of the US republic was in greater jeopardy.

Edited November 11, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

"Religious nutjobbery" never "appeal[ed] to the electorate at large."

Define "religious nutjobbery". Every US president, save one, has been a Protestant. According to your logic AW, anyone who is not a Protestant is a "nutjob" - because so few (1) get elected.

Indeed, as escaping "religious nutjobbery" was one of the reasons the American Colonies and United States was founded in the first place.

On the contrary, it was the "nutjobs" (Methodists, crazy Lutherans, Quakers) who ran away to America. Edited November 11, 2012 by August1991

[Shady]

According to the MSM, Latinos are the big new demographic and they tend to be religious (Catholic) and traditional - apparently (again according to the MSM), one reason they chose Bush Jnr over Kerry in 2004 was that they thought Kerry was a wimp.

Yep, Bush won a large precentage of Latinos. Which is why it's pretty certain that a Latino will be on the GOP ticket come 2016. With Rubio possibly headlining. He would be tough for the Democrats to run against. He's not overly religious. He's not rich. He's not White. He's not old.

[bush_cheney2004]

...On the contrary, it was the "nutjobs" (Methodists, crazy Lutherans, Quakers) who ran away to America.

But the religious conflicts only survived officially in Canada...to this day.

Edited November 11, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

All religious people are nut jobs if they actually take it seriously.

[bush_cheney2004]

All religious people are nut jobs if they actually take it seriously.

So billions of people are "nutjobs" ?

[Smallc]

yes, clueless nutjobs. They aren't thinking. I used to be one of those people.

[bush_cheney2004]

yes, clueless nutjobs. They aren't thinking. I used to be one of those people.

Sounds like a personal issue....doesn't mean all the others are "nutjobs".