It has been a rough month or so for Republicans in Washington. The president's job approval has now sunk below fifty percent and there seems to be little to no progress being made in persuading the American people to support Personal Savings Accounts. Not only that, but the lack of fiscal conservatism from Republicans in the Senate, the growing stink around House Majority Leader Tom Delay, and congress' mistake in stepping into the Terri Schiavo situation has put we Republicans on our collective heels. The Democrats aren't really ascending at our expense, but they have been successful so far in thwarting the GOP agenda.
The president's soft approval ratings, though nothing to panic about, are somewhat of a concern, especially considering the fact that his controversial foreign policy is resulting in historic democratic movements across the greater Middle East. There is a lot of good news at home as well, for jobless claims continue to sink, the unemployment rate is at historic lows, and the economy is growing at a more than healthy pace. The dark cloud over all this are soaring gas prices however, which are gaining more headlines and attention than all the other good news. The other factor plaguing the president is his administration's chronic communications problem. Polls have shown that public misconceptions about the president's Social Security plan are holding down support for it. Couple that with the president's highly unpopular move to allow the Federal government to intervene in the Terri Schiavo matter and it is no small wonder that he is not exceedingly popular right now.
The president and the White House do seem to go into these stretches from time to time, the last time being the period of April and May of last year when the president was getting pounded over Iraq and Abu Ghraib. To address this the communication effort within the White House needs to step it up and have the president once again giving a clear and coherent message to the American people. He needs to stop negotiating with himself and come out with a plan for Social Security and he needs to stop asserting that PSAs will do nothing to address the program's long term solvency, which they will. I'm beginning to believe that Karen Hughes should leave her State Department post and come back to the White House, where she belongs.
My biggest concern however is not with the White House but with congress. It's frustrating to see a growing Republican majority in the Senate yet no sincere effort to curb spending and rein in entitlements. The president sent to them a responsible budget which is the leanest such one in years, yet the GOP Senate rejected virtually all of his spending reductions and cuts. The GOP caucus in the Senate also seems to have no clear direction in how they are going to end Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees. I have stated before what they should do, and no matter what they do, they need to do something. There is likely to be a vacancy on the Supreme Court this spring and if Republicans don't think that Democrats will move to filibuster the president's appointments to the high court we are deceiving ourselves.
Whether this Republican slump carries over into the next elections in '06 and '08 is still up in the air, wholly dependent on what Republicans do now and in the coming months to get out of it. We need to trim both discretionary and entitlement spending, we need to come up with a plan for getting judges up or down votes, and we need a clear and unified plan for Social Security that the president and each member of congress can take to the American people. What I see now is a Republican Party that is floating without direction, and to correct this we need to regroup and reassert ourselves, sooner rather than later. It's time to accomplish what the American people elected us to accomplish, or they will find someone else to do it.
UPDATE (6:03 P.M. 4/11/05): Michael Barone, the most astute observer of American politics around, offers his insight on the current Republican slump.
Our party definatly needs to regroup, specifically congrees. Hopefully they do before it hurts us too much.
ReplyDeleteIn what way is President Bush profiting off of soaring oil prices? He hasn't been in the oil business for over at least twenty-five years, and that business for the most part failed. The soaring oil prices are a result of both increased demand from countries such as China and OPEC'S absolute monopoly over the world's oil supply. It is OPEC not the president who is profiting off of the oil price spike.
ReplyDeleteAnd it gets rather old listening to Democrats lecture Republicans about honesty and scaring voters. It was your side that tried to convince African-Americans that we were trying to supress their right to vote, it was Democrats who were claiming that the president was going to reinstate the draft, and it was Democrats who claimed that the president wanted to completely privatize Social Security.
We Republicans do have honest leadership, it is time the Democrats find some honest leadership themselves. Any party who treats character assasins like Michael Moore as honored guests is in no position to lecture anyone about honesty. For all this trash the left comes up with about the president being dishonest they never provide one shred of evidence of any actual dishonesty.
Can you explain to me how Private Savings Accounts (a.k.a. Partial Privatization) would "address" the solvency issue? Doing the math seems to indicate that "address" means "worsen." Bush is correct to say that PSAs would not "address" the solvency issue. Indeed, diverting 2/3 of the workers' contribution to the program would mean the insolvency problem becomes worse at that moment, instead of 2041 like the Trustees have projected.
ReplyDeleteAnd to address the comment above...any party that has a senator (John Cornyn of Texas) who will say judges are being killed by rapist murderers because of judicial activism has no moral right to call itself honest.
Allowing for workers to invest their payroll tax instead of giving it to the government will help long-term solvency because it will reduce the amount of debt the Federal Government has to pay out to workers when they retire. Payroll tax money doesnt go into a trust fund as is the myth, but instead the government borrows it to pay benefits to current retirees. We are already borrowing money to pay for Social Security, the only difference under PSAs would be that we would be borrowing not from workers but somewhere else. In other words, we would just be refinancing our current debt, much as people do with their home mortgages.
ReplyDeleteI'm asking about the long-term solvency of Social Security, not the U.S. government. The Social Security administration has been fine on its own for 70 years, taking the dedicated tax from workers and employers and paying retirees. The only reason there is no Trust Fund is because the surplus run up by the collection of the increased FICA tax since the early 1980s has been replaced with US Treasury Bills and the money is used in the general fund. Those same Treasury Bills are being sold to foreign countries right now to cover the current federal budget deficit.
ReplyDeleteSo with 20+ years of Treasury Bills to redeem, the total is somewhere around 3 trillion dollars. That is 3 trillion dollars we need from now until 2041 when the SS system is projected to take in only 75% of what it pays.
Contrast that with the conservative estimate that it will take 2 trillion dollars in the first 5 years of PSAs just to cover the guaranteed benefits of today's retirees. The ten year estimate is 5 trillion dollars and we all learned from the Medicare bill that reliable estimates are hard to come by in this administration.
I'm still not seeing your point on PSAs "addressing" the solvency issue.
And I think it is pretty unfair to make an argument that all the FICA taxes the goverment collects are just going into a big general fund and then assert that "We are already borrowing money to pay for Social Security." If the money is all in the general fund and we are borrowing to cover the deficit, wouldn't it make sense to say we are borrowing to pay for the programs that aren't currently paying for themselves such as the missile defense program that isn't or the Medicare program that Bush "fixed" that is now facing a far worse crisis than Social Security ever will. Your statement was baseless.
You continue to miss the point Rob. Allowing for PSAs will do two things. One it will allow workers to start they're own retirement lockbox, free from government and a congress that has an insatiable thirst to spend. The proposed PSA system will be nearly identical to the Thrift Savings Plan available for Federal employees. In that plan each worker is given a choice between five retirement plans, and the average rate of return is 6.5%, far greater than the rate of return from the Social Security System in it's current form, which is 1.5%
ReplyDeletePSAs will also sharply reduce the amount of obligation the government will have for retirees in future generations. Not creating PSAs and only tinkering with the program to extend it's solvency, i.e. changing from the wage to inflation index, adjusting the retirement age, etc., will only be a short term fix and future generations will have to face the same problem we are facing now.
In this information age it seems pointless not to allow workers to choose their own retirement plans. We should not force them to pay into a government run system that will not reap anywhere near the returns long-term investment does.
Entitlement spending also is driving the need for PSAs, which will double as a portion of the federal budget with each passing decade, and in about thiry years entitlements will consume 100% of the federal budget, which will mean large cuts in benefits or huge hikes in taxes to the tune of an average $10,000 per family.
And I agree with you that the Medicare reform the president signed a couple of years ago has only made Medicare worse, for it increases the government's obligations by billions of dollars. I didn't see the point of that bill than and I see even less of a point to it now.
I'm pretty amazed at your ability to parrot RNC talking points.
ReplyDeleteBush has promised that there WILL BE NO CHANGE to the system for anyone who is 55 and older. That means someone who is 55 today will recieve the same SS benefits until they die, which conservatively would average 20-22 years based on current American life expectancy.
That means traditional SS benefits will need to be paid those folks for 20 years AT LEAST. Since the system is pay-as-you-go, today's workers pay for today's retirees.
Diverting money from the SS system NOW, i.e. PSAs, means you need to come up with the difference to pay TODAY'S retirees. This is not rocket science. If you take money out of a pay-as-you-go system, that money has to be replaced to pay-as-you-go.
The estimate for covering those transition costs is $2 Trillion in the first 10 years. The White House won't even talk about the transition costs beyond that. That is an unrealistic debt burden for any country to add to its economy. Even debt-loving Bush/Reagan-ites can understand that. Again contrast that with the 3 Trillion over 40 years needed to cover the government's obligation to the Social Security system.
You need to do your homework on your talking points. The Thrift Savings Plan offers a good return...but it is IN ADDITION TO SOCIAL SECURITY. Government workers who get money from Thrift Savings ALSO get Social Security. The TSP is a nice ADD-ON to Social Security. If you want to create PSAs that truly act like the TSP, don't carve them out of Social Security.
on Medicare:
ReplyDeleteYou seem bent on removing government from any and all Social programs. What is your plan for seniors who cannot pay their medical bills because of the outrageous cost of healthcare? And please don't spit out the RNC talking points on Medical malpractice suits being the reason healthcare costs are high. That is pure BS.
I want to see your plan for ridding the government of the Medicare "burden" while maintaining protection for seniors from sky-high medical costs.
enlighten us all.
You can dismiss the facts as "RNC talking points" all you want, but it doesn't hide the fact that Social Security as it exists now is headed off a cliff. The fact that fifty-five year olds are likely to live another twenty years at minimum belies the fact that something needs to be done to address these problems. We are living in an aging society where there are less and less workers paying for more and more benefits for longer periods of time, which is why the system is unsustainable. Life expectancies are only going to get longer and the stress on the system will become too much.
ReplyDeleteTo address this the only real solution is Personal Savings Accounts. Instead of having workers just lend money to the government, let them if they so desire to put that money into their own retirement account, a real trust fund. Doing so will give them returns they could never dream to see from the current Social Security system. If you and your Democratic friends would like to stay in the current system than by all means go ahead and stay, but if a worker wants to start his own personal trustfund and secure for him and his children far greater returns than he can now he should be allowed to.
Yes there are going to be exhorbitant transition costs, but either way we go we are going to have to pay a heavy price. Either we do it now and fix Social Security permaneantly or we wait until the system has become so insolvent and entitlements have grown so large that we have to take even more drastic and painful measures. It costs a lot to act now, but it will cost far more if put off this problem.
Medical Malpractice suits can't be held responsible for all the rise in medical costs, but they are a large portion. If you believe that skyrocketing insurance premiums for medical practitionars doesn't affect the price of care than you deceiving yourself.
ReplyDeleteTo lower health care costs we have to introduce the buyer/seller dynamic that makes markets work. We should have expanded health savings accounts, we should allow consumers the option to shop across state lines for the best rates on health insurance, we should give tax credits to individuals who buy long term health insurance, and we should also allow individuals to purchase insurance in a pool. Those are just some ideas.
I don't want to get government completely out of Social programs, I just believe that the individual should have more control over their own lives. Government should always give it's citizens the resources they need to succeed and than get out of that individual's way.
As it appears by our extended debate here we disagree over this, but it is nice to debate with someone on the other side who does know what they are talking about.
Ok first off....Do any of you realize that President Bush Will never ever have to worry about social security or anything like that for himself....Do any of you know why?? BECAUSE HE IS THE PRESEIDENT!!!! He could have a surgery performed with Golden Surgical Tools if he wanted too. I don't know if any of you are economy majors in college or if anyone knows anything about true economics but the shortfall for social security would be made up if we taxed the rich like we are supposed to. Conservative or not thats really not fair. Being poor sucks in this country and I think we all need to focus on fixing that. People like president Bush who don't know what its like to be poor and live paycheck to paycheck really wouldnt understand the struggle that people feel. Im not saying I hate the President because he is rich....Some people are and some people aren't im just saying that we really need to do something to help people who are genuinely struggeling to make ends meet...not the people who collect a welfare check and pop out baby after baby. Real people like single mothers who have been abandoned by their husbands or boyfriends, women who don't have time to go to college.
ReplyDeletePenalizing the rich won't help the poor, it doesn't take an economics major to figure that out.
ReplyDeleteHere's my philisophical problem PSA's:
ReplyDeleteIn the current system the public lends 6% of its wages to the government. The other 6% is paid in by the employer, sending a total of 12% of a worker's wage to the government for SAFE keeping. The U.S. government has never defaulted. There are no Enron's in the government, There are no WorldComs in the government. A lot of people lost their pensions when Enron went bust. Now those folks will be counting on Social Security when they retire because they might not have much else. Social Security is safe. It isn't subject to market forces and corporate malfeasance. We accept a modest rate of return on Social Security on the promise that IT WILL BE THERE WHEN WE RETIRE. I know that PSAs are not going to be invested in Enron or WorldCom, but the money will still be subject to risk. I personally don't want to subject my retirement to risk. I'd like to just count on it being there, and I will add to it with my own savings/investments. That is a balanced plan. I take some risk on my own, and count on Social Security to make up the difference if my personal savings/investments don't payoff. The Bush Plan (or no plan, as he has said) doesn't give you that safety net. If something happens to your invested money, it is gone. Why would anyone introduce the potential for that scenario into their retirement plan?
People want to see that something works before they ae going to risk their retirement on it. You mentioned the TSP returning 6%. If that is true, why not start an optional program that is conpletely separate from SS that allows workers to invest 1/6 of the money that goes into SS and then let them watch it grow. If it equals their SS benefit in 30-40 years when they retire, well then you can make a case for privatization can't you. You'll have a proven track record. And 30-40 years from now is when the SS program might start having "real" problems.
Those arguing for PSAs have been careful to use glowing economic growth estimates for the stock market while simultaneously using weak growth estimates for the U.S. economy to predict the demise of Social Security. You can't have it both ways. You can't assume the U.S. economy is going to bump along at 1.5% while the markets flourish. It is not impossible, but the odds aren't very good.
Social Security is not headed off a cliff. That is a blatant exaggeration. If the Bush does not default on the Treasury Bills in the SS Trust Fund (I will not argue its existance since the FICA Tax was increased in 1983 for the sole purpose of collecting extra funds to pay for retiring baby-boomers; you can say it is a myth, but the fact is that the SS administration has Treasury Bills to return for cash), then Social Security will pay for its own until 2041, when it will only take in 75% of what it spends. Currently, the U.S. Government takes in 68% of what it spends. So, by your logic, the U.S. Government has already gone off that cliff. Those are facts and I think your statement was indicative of the hyperbole that has made Republicans so untrustworthy in this debate. The numbers are all there, and they don't point to a "crisis." Furthermore, statements like yours are usually made by those who merely want to get rid of Social Security. Maybe if Bush just came out and said he wants to ultimately get rid of Social Security because he was never in favor of it people could get a sense of his true intentions. This is a debate started by folks who've never liked Social Security despite the fact that it has offered retirement security to middle and lower class Americans for over 70 years.
Your intentions in this debate seem honest, but you need look no further than your fellow privatizers to see why Americans don't trust you.
George W. Bush, 1978: "[Social Security] will be bust in 10 years unless there are some changes ... The ideal solution would be for Social Security to be made sound and people given the chance to invest the money the way they feel."
Medical malpractice suits were proven to be a cause of increased healthcare costs among some heart patients in hospital settings. There is no statistical evidence that reduced malpractice settlements lower healthcare costs.
ReplyDeleteAgain, your talking points don't stand up to reality.
on the above comment: your use of "penalizing" is so elitist. Since when is asking more of the more capable penalizing? Do you look down on the lower class as not working hard enough? Not everyone can be on the top rung of the ladder my friend. Asking more of the wealthy in order to help the poor is a task asked of us by Jesus himself. I'd rather see my tax dollars go to help people than to a missile defense system that can't even hit the missile equivalent of Forrest Gump.
The link from that last post is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.factcheck.org/article133.html
It is from Dick Cheney's beloved factcheck.org
I understand where you are coming from, but the facts bear out that risk in investing is minimal. If the current generation which is about to retire had been allowed to invest than 98% of them would be better off with PSAs rather than the current system. On average their retirement would be 30% more secure and they would have increased retirement wealth between $41,000 and $214,000. While investing for the near term is risky, investing for the long term, i.e. over a thirty or forty year period really isn't. To ease concerns over investing however, I proposed in an earlier post that the government insure each investor's retirment. Under this plan if an investor at the time of their retirement ended up with less money than they put in the government would reimburse them for every penny lost. At worst, an investor would come out even.
ReplyDeleteI must also emphasize the point that PSAs will be voluntary, so if you don't feel comfortable investing than it will be entirely in your right to remain in the current system. I just believe that any individual who trusts themselves with their own money more than they trust the government with it should be allowed to invest.
In regards to what estimates are being used, the projections that I have read and cited are all based on current economic growth, which is around 3.5-4%. Hopefully we will pass some tax simplification in the coming years that will spur growth, and as a result push back the date that Social Security starts going into deficit. This will only postpone the inevitable however, so it is better to act now rather than later.
Bush was right in 1978. If the president and congress hadn't made changes in '83 than the program would have gone bust.
There is a difference between asking the wealthy to help out the needy and forcing them to do so. When you raise taxes on the rich they don't end up paying for it, the costs get passed down to the average worker and the consumer.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to medical malpractice suits, all you have to do is look at doctors who are leaving the practice because they can't afford their premiums anymore. Again, the costs end up getting passed down to those who can least afford it, the patient.
I want to help out the needy just as much as you do, the difference being that I understand that government programs do more harm than good.
And an elitist is someone who doesn't trust an individual to run their retirement better than the government can. Higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations discourage them from setting up business here and thus creating more jobs. You get rid of the income tax and you will see offshore and foreign corporations coming to America because it is profitable to do so. And when they come over they will create more jobs, which is the best form of welfare out there.
Over-regulation and over-taxation end up hurting those they are intended to help.
Oh god...
ReplyDeleteYou want to help out the needy as much as I do, the difference is you'd rather have tax cuts than "entitlement programs"
Please don't patronize intelligent readers. If you had a choice between more tax cuts and effective reforms in the welfare system you'd take the tax cuts.
Its the Republican way, not a big surprise to hear it here:
Program has a broken finger, euthanize the program.
A perfect example was the bankruptcy bill. The statistics showed maybe 3% of filers were abusing the system. A bill that would have made it easier to exclude that 3% would have been fine, but instead Credit Card companies got a freebie and those Americans you really want to help take it in the shorts if their medical bills drive them to bankruptcy.
So if you are REALLY interested in helping Americans, you're in the wrong company. Not that Dems are golden, but actions speak louder than rhetoric.
Business isn't set up here because free trade and offshore tax shelters allow them unlimited access to low-cost labor overseas. Don't tell me it's taxes when someone in India can do the same job without penalty to the American company for 1/3 of the price. Please spare me the "poor corporations" violin act. That is just not true.
And if you could point me to some statistics on those doctors leaving private practice, by all means do so. I'd like to see it for myself. I wonder what Terry Schiavo's treatment would have been like had she been limited to just $250,000 in her medical malpractice suit. Everyone can't have the kind of care she got for free like she did. It costs money.
When you raise taxes on the rich they don't end up paying for it, the costs get passed down to the average worker and the consumer
You mean to tell me that if I stopped taking your tax money, you'd be able to provide for needy folks with the same ability that the U.S. government does now? Give me a break...I imagine you'd be no different than the average American, lowest per capita donations of any first world country.
This has been fun, but I've got to step away. I appreciate your intellectual arguments and you mostly stay away from the FOX-esque partisan BS. But your tone is awash with indifference and I would venture to guess you don't know too many folks on the lower rungs you so desperately think are being abused by the shortcomings of the welfare system and Social Security.
Its been a ball
Rob
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly sure how you expect "entitlement" programs (which do absolutely nothing to help anyone) to encourage prosperity in America (or anywhere else). I've read through the entire string here, and Geoff has buried you on every point.
In fact, the most effective reform for any welfare system (thanks for being honest in your analysis of healthcare and socialist security as "welfare') is to simply do away with it. The more you take from productive people, the more you discourage productivity. Next thing you know, EVERYONE is on welfare.
I't not really practical to take your positions apart point-by-point, because you are basically an idiot and have no idea how money and taxes work. You, like every other moonbat liberal out there, figure that the only way to help anyone is to have the government take what people have and give it to those whom you are trying to help. Who will help the American taxpayer, who is being raped year after year by the IRS? Face it. If people would simply take responsibility for themselves and their families, there would be no need for Socialist Security or welfare, or any other socialist program. Should the rest of America be penalized for these people's idiocy (or for yours, for that matter)?
Think that one over for a bit.
RWR
I'm not exactly sure how you expect "entitlement" programs (which do absolutely nothing to help anyone) to encourage prosperity in America (or anywhere else).
ReplyDeleteThat's hilarious. Why do we have these programs? They're aren't helping anyone? It must be just me and my idiot liberal allies in Washington perpetuating social programs that help absolutely no one.
Why don't you hop in your right wing tour bus and head down to that county in Alabama that has a 19% unemployment rate and ask them about welfare, unemployment compensation, and "socialist" security. I'm sure they'd be happy to tell you how much those programs aren't helping anyone.
My god what a joke...I was kind of enjoying going back and forth with Geoff on some of these things, because he was reasonable. I figured it was only a matter of time before one of you people showed up and played Sean Hannity. Those of us who REALLY love our country are trying to make it better not divided. Haven't you got an Ann Coulter book to color?
If welfare, unemployment compensation, and social security are really helping them, than why is unemployment at 19%?
ReplyDeleteDon't be so naive...look, this grand point that you keep trying to make that if only these programs didn't exist, everyone would be fine is pure fiction. You are under the impression that if only the poor government would not be so burdened with these programs, we'd have a booming economy and there be more jobs than people.
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to want to address the loss of jobs due to free trade and subsequent outsourcing to other countries of manufacturing jobs. But it is playing a significant role in those one-factory towns in the south and states like Michigan. And your only answer is remove the only crutch those folks have. Are you going to employ them? No, but you don't mind taking away the only support they have until they can get another foothold. I know at 17 you think you've got the world figured out and it all fits into one nice, tidy conservative ideology, but like most conservatives, you suffer from a gross inability to put yourself in others' shoes. You've got no compassion, just a great memory for RNC talking points. Not every welfare mother is popping out children left and right. And not every Social Security recipient is sitting on a fat bank account of their own. Indeed 1/3 of current Social Security beneficiaries is a dependent family member of someone who died. I was one of those kids. My family survived 4 years during the early 90's on the money we received from Social Security after my mother died from cancer. My dad couldn't get work for 4 years. He collected unemployment for 13 months and then we were on our own. It was a crutch during a difficult time. Now my family is on two feet again. We didn't milk the systems, we needed them.
Reading back over these posts has been enlightening...hiding behind some rhetorical banner of fiscal responsibility, you'd rather put this country another 2-5 trillion dollars in debt over the next 2 decades, than make small tweaks in the SS system and keep it easily going into the next century. Why don't you just say all conservatives won't say, you want to get rid of all of it. Say it outloud...
There, now you know why:
1. Americans don't trust your beloved "party of me" when it comes to taking care of seniors and the non-elite.
2. Bush's poll numbers are the worst second term numbers of any president since WWII, even though things are looking better in Iraq.
By the way, you guys might want to do something about Tom Delay, he's definitely stinking up the place.
You claiming that I'm trying to argue that the elimination of these programs would solve all our problems is pure fiction. The point I have tried to make are these programs need to be reformed so they do work and so they do help those who need help. I believe welfare is a good thing, as long as it helps recepients get a job or move towards self-sufficiency. This is what the Republican congress and the Democratic president did in the Welfare Reform of '96, and it's worked. Since that reform was inacted employment among disadvantaged single mothers has doubled.
ReplyDeleteYes there have been jobs lost because of NAFTA, but there have been many more jobs created as a result. Since the ratification of NAFTA U.S. exports have accounted for 25% of our economic growth and resulted in the creation of 12 million new jobs. If it weren't for NAFTA we would have lost the one out of the five factory jobs which depend on free trade. We would also be hurting the average farmer, who sends 1/3 of his crop abroad and gets 25% of his gross income from those exports.
If you cut off free trade you take the jobs of the 6.4 million American workers who are employed by foreign companies. Destroying free trade when 95% of potential consumers for American products live abroad doesn't make any sense.
In terms of being able to live in someone else's shoes, I am currently in a very similar situation that you and your family went through. My mom is a single mother supporting three children who was unemployed for over two years, so don't tell me that I am unable to put myself in other people's shoes. I'm glad your family is on it's feet again, and that should be the purpose of welfare and similar programs, getting recepients back on their feet.
I'm willing to assume some more debt now so we don't have to add more debt in the future.
And honestly, if Americans didn't trust the Republican party than why have we won all but two presidential elections since 1980? Why have we won increased majorities in congress the last two elections? Why do we hold a majority of the nation's governorships and state legislatures?
I will refer you to my earlier post regarding Tom Delay.
And finally, for the multiple times you have simply dismissed away facts as RNC talking points you can sure recite verbatum the same arguments I hear Teddy Kennedy make on a regular basis better than any liberal I've debated with in awhile. Good job.
I can always tell when the response will be filled with figures because it takes longer...
ReplyDeleteMy problem with the figures is you NEVER cite references. I have a degree in biology. Scientists aren't allowed to publish a paper without backing up their asertions. As I have said before, if you want me to take your economic figures seriously, tell me where you got them, so I can take a look for myself.
Especially in cases such as this where you have so many complex interfaces. Just saying NAFTA has created 12 million jobs unless you've got a GAO study that backs it up. And it seems even more dubious when the U.S. trade deficit is high, and the manufacturing sector has been hit the hardest since before Bush took office. This report by the Economic Policy Institute contradicts some of your statements. It'd be nice to know who you're quoting.
Americans do not trust Republicans to protect the solvency of Social Security. That was my point and you can find the most recent polls at pollingreport.com.
As for winning elections, I don't really want to get into a strategy debate, but when fear-mongering and homophobia motivates your base, it's not surprising that gay-marriage bans were on the ballot in most of the important swing states and the theme of the Republican convention was terrorist attacks.
As for Ted Kennedy, I'm not a big fan. I don't believe in reflexive politics and Ted is pretty good at that. Plus he signed The "No Child Left Untested"
Act, which I'm not a fan of. Since progressives don't have their own 24 hour opinionated news channel, and I don't frequent the DNC site, moveon.org or any of those, I don't know where I'd get talking points from. I read alot of news from a lot of places (Drudge is one of them) and formulate an opinion. The only thing I'm concerned with is the truth. I'll even read Ann Coulter from time to time just to find out what the latest nasty words are for my political views. But no one reads Ann for the truth, you read Ann purely for entertainment value.
When it takes longer for a response it means that I unfortunately have other things to do and I am unable to blog as much as I would like to. In terms of citing where I got these figures, they come from government statistics accumulated over the last four or five years that I have read and heard from multiple different sources.
ReplyDeleteAnalysis of free trade numbers are here:
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-019.pdf
and here:
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/FTBs/FTB-010.html, to name a few.
But the bottom line is that we can both recite difference sets of numbers that will seem to both prove our point and disprove the other’s points here. No matter how many studies or statistics we give each other it is not going to convince the other one to change their opposite philosophies. I believe that inevitably jobs are going to be lost or move to other countries when you open up your markets, but I also believe that as time moves on older jobs are going to inevitably be replaced with newer ones regardless of a country’s trade policies or it’s economic situation. I also believe that if we commit ourselves to economic isolationism than we will shut ourselves off from many foreign markets and that will inevitably lead to even more job losses. With that said I understand where you are coming from and the concerns that not only you but many Americans have, and I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
In regards to Americans trusting Bush with Social Security, I believe their apprehension is based not in a distrust of him or Republicans, but rather in a misunderstanding of what exactly the president wants to do with Social Security. The public believes both that seniors’ benefits will go down under his plan and that PSAs will be mandatory for all workers under 55. Most of this is the president’s own fault, for he has not come out with a clear and concise plan and as a result the public isn’t getting any clear indication of where he wants to go. I have worked in his campaign and I spend hours reviewing his actions and statements, and if I can’t really discern a clear message from him on Social Security than there is no way many others will be able to either.
On election strategy, while no one is without blood on their hands, the Democrats are guilty of their fair share of fear-mongering. Once again, it was Democrats who were trying to propagate rumors that Republicans were trying to suppress the minority vote and that President Bush was secretly planning to reintroduce the draft after the election.
And finally, progressives have more than their fair share of opinionated networks, all they need to do is turn the dial to CNN or MSNBC, they also have Air America on the radio. FOX News’ success is based completely on the fact that all the other networks were saturated with liberal bias. I’m not going to argue that FOX News doesn’t have a conservative slant, because it obviously does, but compared to it’s other cable sisters and the three major news networks, not to mention The New York Times and Hollywood, FOX News provides the most accurate reporting available. With that said I only watch FOX a couple hours a week, if I am watching political coverage it is usually on C-SPAN, where I can get news straight from the source without any type of filter. Most of my other news sources are from web sites, predominantly the FOX, CNN, and MSNBC sites, and political magazines such as The Weekly Standard and The New Republic.
Also, I have to give you credit for reading Ann Coulter from time to time, for that is more than I can stomach. I can’t stand the woman, and reading her pieces or listening to her on t.v. is enough to make me want to tear my hair out. All she seems interested in is attacking liberals, taking honest disagreements and turning them into a bitter ideological war. I can’t remember the last time she actually provided a good idea, her one and only concern is to slander the left.
Something that crosses all politcal lines: Ann Coulter is a nut.
ReplyDeleteagreed.
After all this debate it is nice to see we can finally agree on something Rob.
ReplyDelete