The Punning Pundit

From Will Saletan:

Go back to being the party of responsibility.

I'm not talking about scolding people. I'm talking about rewarding them. Be the party that rewards ordinary people who do what they're supposed to do —- and protects them from those who don't.

First, I applaud this effort. It's necessary and vital.

However.

I don't beleive you're entirely correct when you state that America doesn't know who you are.

To be accurate, it's 51% of America that doesn't know who you are. And the exit polls (when used as they were _meant_ to be used) prove that wrong.

Look at: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Look at the vote by party ID section. 11% of registered Democrats voted republican, vs. 6% of republicans. Independants, those who usually tip the scales one way or the other, and are as a whole the group most likely to vote on fact and non-bias, were almost split even. (Slight Kerry favor) This helps show that had both party's voters voted down the line, it would have been a slight Kerry win.

With party slippage, it usually means not that the party isn't getting it's message through, but that the party is internally conflicted.

Next look at the income statistics. more than 1/2 of 55% of the voting population ($50,000 or better) voted for Bush. The middle class spoke out. You can speculate as to why, but in the end, they didn't trust the Democratic party. If you look at the break down of income by brackets, you'll note that the higher the income, the more likely the individual would vote Republican. And we're not talking about the rich. Granted, the more well off the more vote for Bush, but $50K for a family is _not_ living large. And we're not talking about the >$200K crowd either. Between 50 and 200 K, the middle class, and the lower upper class, don't trust the Democratic party. These are your educated (for the most part) people, those with spare time to read and learn about the political parties. The ones with enough to worry about protecting and nuturing what they have. Ones likely to use public schooling, but who may have the option for private. Ones who were effected by the Tax cut, and most likely to notice it. (Let's face it, $1000 is alot of money to a $50K income family, where the same amount is pocket change to the $200K and above.)

Further, harping on an economy, where most people are doing (or beleive they are doing) fairly well doesn't generally win you votes. Accusing a sitting president of losing jobs when we have ~3 million more than when he started, is usually viewed negatively. It also doesn't help when you propose billions in NEW spending, don't have a budget to show where you're going to get all of the money, and not be able to respond appropriately to accusations that that money is going to come from the middle class. ESPECIALLY when that money won't go to anything the middle class cares about. Poo-pooing a problem that many perceive doesn't win you votes either. (Social Security, for example) Especially when your opponent has a plan to fix it. Finally, Democrats are _not_ viewed, whether right or wrong, as fiscally sound politicians. Most middle class want to keep thier money, beleive (rightfully so) that they will get more benefit from the money in thier pocket than in the governments. And the Democrats, especially ones who've constantly voted for more taxes, and to bust budget caps, aren't considered fiscally sound at all.

Now look at religeon... The largest percentage of voters are christian of some sort. (~81%) That group voted Bush. I'm not going to suggest that Democrats embrace religeon, and I would _hate_ to see anyone embrace the religeous right, again. (shudder) But they are a major percentage of voters, and unless/until the Democrats do more than mouth platitides towards them, they will continue to vote Republicans, who albiet to much, show by action as well as word that they support those institions. I know, this is a very controversial and touchy subject to bring up when discussing politics (and specifically Democrats), but it needs to be addressed. And the issue at hand, (Admittedly, in my opinion) is not "church" rights, it's not putting the 10 commandments in government buildings, it's not teaching "creation science" or supporting such. It's one of the issues the Democratic party has had for years... The Democratic party has had and shown contempt, bigotry, and out right hostility towards that voting block. The party of tolerance has none for the christian religeon. You can say what you will to rationalize it, but the south (remember the "dixiecrat" and the Southern Democratic Gentlemen?) has been burned for years by the Democratic party, and they are _religeous_. Same with the Midwest. In fact, I beleive it would be hard to show that the 31 states (I'm jumping the gun on the 2 outstanding states a bit... But only a bit) who chose Bush aren't all "bible belt" states, if you looked at the statistics.

Next look at the military statistics... It's largely held, that Democrats don't do war. (FDR and JFK were a long time ago and the party is not the same one they were in) Part of that is the constant votes against military spending. Kerry's record didn't help him here. Nor did it help him that the swift-vets were gunning for him. And it really, really, hurt that he refused to release his records.

There's also a "reality check" that needs to happen, with regards foreign policy. To many people beleived, right or wrong, that Bush's foreign policy was better/stronger/more consistant. I'm not going to debate whether that's true or not, BUT, attempting to return to the 90's mentality and policies is not acceptable, at least to 51% of the voting populace. Bilateral talks with Korea, No war (no GWOT), UN effectiveness, UN as useful, France as our Ally, etc. These things have changed, at least in the eyes of the majority. A plan, ANY plan, that does not involve attempting to return to the "glory" years, to policies that have proven not to work,
to hiding or minimalizing problems... These things are viewed as backward, avoidance, cowardice, unrealistic, etc.

I've written to much at this point...
As an independent, who has voted for many parties, and as someone who really tries to keep an open mind, I was very disappointed this year. For the first time, in a long time, I felt that I had no choice in who and what to vote for. I feel the Democratic party let the voters down this year. In a year where a wartime president could have been brought down, where the race was 3-4% between, that a better candidate could have won.

I know that's not going to be a popular statement here. But instead of the past years worth of knee-jerk responses to honest (and attempted constructive) critizism, I hope the Democrats think about this. I sincerely hope they take these things to heart, and use this election, to regroup, readdress themselves, and win 2008.

I know they can have my vote if they do.

Rand.

I hate to tell you this Andrew, but it's TOO LATE.

The continuation of Republican rule through 2008 at the minimum will bankrupt the treasury and destroy the value of the dollar. Barring a congressional supermajority for the Democrats in 2006 we are completely fucked. This isn't idle prophesy, the missile is in the air, the only thing in doubt is when it will hit and what the fallout will be. It's as sure now as the sunrise.

The only thing we can do now is get our personal affairs in order to ride out the storm. Britain looks like a good place to be.

My motto for the next 4 years is drawn from "I, Claudius":

"let all the poisons that lurk in the muck hatch out."

Forget the U.S., Andrew Cory, things are going to have to get a lot worse before they can get any better.

Mr. Foelster,
In the darkest quiet of the night, I believe every word you have typed. That quiet voice which tells me Republican control of my nation is the death of all I hold dear has caused me to vote strait Democrat for the last 4 years...

I can’t give up without a fight. I don’t know if you read a lot of King Arthur stories, but I did as a kid. I didn’t really care about the Round Table or the Grail. What I did care about was the sense that even though Rome had fallen, and darkness was fast claiming the land, we are not absolved of our responsibility to try and make things better...

2 things to keep in mind: We’re right, and only have to explain that to 1.5% of the population. And: America isn’t dead quite yet. Where there is life, there is hope...

This is supposed to be a post about what the Democratic Party stands for...but it immediately turns into Bush-bashing. Hmmm. Which is also what happens whenever I ask what the Democrat party stands for. I don't think you really have an answer.

"Fiscal sanity" may be a good thing to aim for, but it hasn't traditionally been a Democrat specialty. It's not a Dem principle yet. And you haven't defined what it is. During my lifetime Dems have normally advocated deficit spending as an antidote to economic slowdown. Bush seems to be following what Dems have usually called "fiscal sanity."

And the idea that we will go bankrupt is just STUPID. Current deficits are well within the normal range (as % of GDP) for the postwar era (that kinda dates me--it means post WWII) and in fact would qualify us for the Euro-Zone! And our economy is now growing strongly, (thanks to tax cuts) and all economic indicators are bullish. Which means that our debts will be a percentage of an ever-larger GDP. Ignoring that simple fact is not "sanity."

Oh, and I guess you stand for higher taxes. Better get busy and tell people.

That is rather peculiar Mr. Weidner, I don't recall anybody so much as mentioning Bush until you brought the worthless monkey to our attention.

The problem is that the deficit will increase as interest rates go up. You have noticed that interest rates are still near a historical low Mr. Weidner? As the Debt and debt service go up so to does the deficit spiral out of control.

And the economic indicators are NOT positive. Employment remains STATIC. And these ludicrous tax cuts have NOTHING to do with minor and inadequate upswing that we are seeing, just as they had NOTHING to do with the Reagan upswing.

Honestly, show me your damned numbers and explain to me how you are not living in a fucking fantasy world. I'd LOVE to hear it.

I don't deny that Democratic fecklessness helped get us where we are. If Spector were running the GOP I'd still be a Republican. But, honestly, it is ignorant fucks like you swallowing the mindless tripe that Rush spoonfeeds you that have pushed us into the abyss. That and the pathetic redneck halfwits taking the orders of their clerical parasites.

You are going to get what you've been striving for. I hope it agrees with you.

Mr. Foelster...

Your comments are rude, uncouth, unhelpful, and a sign of sickness.

Instead of frothing at the mouth, spewing forth garbage and insults, take a moment and THINK. Your posts are prime examples of _exactly_ what you're railing against.

I am not a redneck. I am not religeous. I can't stand Rush and don't listen. I take no orders, from anyone. And I am far from ignorant.

But I _did_ vote for Bush. And until people like you grow up, wake up, quit the blame culture, accept that you are NOT the only right answer in the world, accept that you may or may NOT be smarter/wiser than the other side, quit the conspiracy theories, etc. there will not be a change in this country.

To answer your second post, the part that wasn't venom and utter shit:
The economy has 3 million more jobs now, than it had the _day_ Bush was sworn in. That, by simple math, means the economy is BETTER. Is the economy great? Is it good? That's debatable (if you can keep a civil tongue in your head), but there's a number amoung many. Ok, you want more... Here's one that hits home to me. In 1999-2000, at the peak of the internet bubble, there were over 5000 jobs for my specialty on a single job site for the city I live in. When Bush took office, that number was down to 300. As of October 1st, the number had reached 3000. You want more? Ok, the average salary for my position was down $20,000. Again, on Oct 1st, the average was had recovered $16,400 of that.

Whether or not the tax cuts had anything to do with this recovery, (and that is being debated by economists) it is fully factual (and verifiable) to say that the economy has improved during Bush's presidency.

I could point out that the unemployment is currently no where near a high point, and that the country has survived much worse, for much longer periods of time. In fact, while it's a touch high, it's well within the normally accepted range for a stable happy economy. I'll also point out that unemployment is, in large part, voluntary. It's also, just as poverty, a highly temporary position to be in. There are jobs available.

Now, since you required numbers, I also require numbers. Show me, show me where the economy hasn't improved.

On a side note, as Andrew and I have discussed previously, Reagan's cuts weren't the problem (or solution) by themselves. It was the fact he couldn't cut spending by Congress. Yes, Bush shows every indication that he won't cut spending (hell, he shows every indication of increase spending). Nope, I don't agree with that. You could call me a little L libertarian in that respect. BUT, I see _no_, zero, zilch, difference between Bush and any (ANY) Democrat who's held office since FDR. Hell, the Democratic platform has ALWAYS held that big government is good and desirable. To take a page from this election. Kerry had 2.8 billion in NEW funding in all of his plans. He had to back off many promises, because it was pointed out that a complete reversal of the tax benefits (specifically towards the middle class) wouldn't pay for 2/3rds of it, and he was called to the carpet on it. So I call, Pot, Kettle, Black on this subject.

You are correct. The Deficit will increase with the interest rate. You left off that the intrest rate will increase when the economy has fully recovered. If we have a recovered economy, we have a larger, more wealthy tax base, which will be paying more money in. It's what let Clinton continue to increase government spending (EVERY SINGLE YEAR of his presidency) and STILL cut the deficit.

To answer your first post. I could point out all the economic flaws in your statements. I won't. I'll just point out that economists across the board have proved you wrong. Go read. If you need a reading list, post back, I'll be happy to supply one. Or, if you'd rather have one supplied by an economist, or even an economics professor (Ph D good enough for you?), I can arrange for that as well.

Do yourself a favor. Calm the fuck down, regroup, read some, and help change the Democratic party to something worthwhile, something not controlled by a far left. Something that doesn't feel the need to throw insults instead of pointed questions. Something that can propose solutions to problems, and not just blame-storming. Something more towards the center, where most of us are.

Rand.

OK Rand, you do realize that I wasn't talking to you?

Unless your name is John Weidner, and a quick comparison of your email links indicates that you are not, my vitriol was not being pointed in your direction. I thought that your post was quite reasonable. Mr. Weidner was being an asshole and needed to be verbally kicked in the nuts.

To make something clear: I don't give a bucket of warm piss about the Democratic party. The Urban machine Democrats, the Union democrats, the Farm democrats and Environmental Democrats can all rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.

I hold the Democrats MORE culpable for the long term problems than the Republicans. Both in terms of the gross spending problems AND in terms of the creation of the Presidential cult of personality under FDR. Bush wouldn't be able to wage war without a declaration or claim responsibility for the incidental economic gains of his administration. It disgusts me that rational libertarians and progressives have to hook up with the kinds of fools and thieves that run both the parties.

I am if anything MORE of a Libertarian than you, albeit I don't hold much truck with Ayn Rand. Were our positions reversed and you residing in Pennsylvania whilst I abided in California, I would have voted for Badnarik. I am somewhat puzzled that you didn't yourself.

OK, then specifics:

Regarding your employment assertion, I don't buy your 3 Million jobs gained figure. Show me your citation. The statistics I was aware of indicate either no net gain or a net loss of about 500,000. In either case this is still an effective drop in overall employment because the employable population has increased.

I find your anecdotal evidence regarding the IT sector's recovery to be quite peculiar. It's the correction from a nadir after a burst bubble. Nothing more or less. It has zero pertinence to the fiscal policies of either party.

And I call your assertion. The economy has been stagnant overall for the last 4 years. It think the overall average growth rate is something like 2.0%, which is nothing to cheer about.

I would have been a lot happier if Kerry hadn't promised Healthcare, everyone knew he couldn't deliver. I would have been happier if he had honestly said that he would have to increase taxes and made an honest justification for it.

He is indeed a weak man with too much political calculation in him.
Fine.

Regarding Reagan:

He had the ability to not spend the funds that congress had alloted him. He didn't have to press for and get the Pentagon toychest that he did. (The military expansion nearly caused Andropov to initiate a Nuclear 1st strike in 1983, BTW.)

The flaw in your reasoning on interest rates, and it is a fatal flaw, is that the the Fed will be able to control interest rates. If it can't market its Treasury bonds, and as soon as the Chinese and Japanese stop buying it won't, the rates will go up, economy or no.

I disagree categorically with your statement about economists. My source is a Princeton PhD, Paul Krugman. My saying so is a waste because you are going to immediately dismiss him as a partisan hack.

Enough. A plague on both your houses. You've made wormsmeat of us.

You weren't? You weren't implying that anyone who voted for Bush were "... ignorant fucks like you swallowing the mindless tripe that Rush spoonfeeds you that have pushed us into the abyss. That and the pathetic redneck halfwits taking the orders of their clerical parasites."

Seems to me that you classed two peoples who "pushed us into the abyss" redneck halfwits and ignorant fucks. Since I voted, in your opinion, to push us into the abyss, by your words, I must be one or the other. Thus, you both insulted me, and brought me into the conversation. Whether you meant to splatter me with your vitriol or not, I was indeed splattered.

Not to mention that whether or not a man needs a swift kick in the nuts has no bearing on how you should speak and/or treat them.

If you don't care about the Democratic party, why post on a subject involving fixing a perceived flaw in that party?

For the record, I don't live in California, haven't for 25 years. Regardless, I'm not party affliated, but an issue voter. An informed (don't scoff now, let me have my illusions) issue voter. When I can be.

Ok, I have to bite... When exactly did Bush wage war with a declaration?

And people can't have thier cake and eat it too. Either the president has no real influence on the economy, in which case he can have no blame in it failing, OR he has influence, and gets to take credit for it doing better/well/good. Pick one.

Specifics... The meat and marrow of a discussion-

There's nothing to buy. You can either beleive the facts, or not, at your discretion. But a suggestion is to try using the government's published numbers for jobs and the economy. It's a start.

A quick search, and we have such choice quotes as:
"Since August 2003, payroll employment has risen by 2.2 million. (See table B-1.)"
That would be from the bureau of Labor Statistics... http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

I give here... I slipped a bit when I specified the day Bush was sworn in... I missed read a line on the graphs, and read 2002 instead of 2001. I was reading from the recession, where we were down 2.5 million+ jobs.

That does not change what I said. The economy is doing better. As you pointed out, There was a bubble. It burst. We had an all time unemployment low at it's height. We are, this month, 500,000 jobs away from the HEIGHT of that bubble. The unemployment is at 5.5 this month, roughly the same as when Clinton started his second term.

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1

Sure, there are more people. And as I said, the it's debatable on whether the economy is good, great, or just better. But it is better than the recession. It is better than Clinton's first term. And while I don't think it'll reach the height that Clinton enjoyed, it will be based on much more sturdy and steady legs than a bubble provides.

By the way... There's another cake and eat it too. There was a recession. There was a recovery. Either Bush gets credit for recovering us, or you can't blame him for the dismal economy.

Fine, I'll leave the anecdotal out of it. Start using some facts.

So, I gave sites and numbers. Let's see yours.

And I call your rebuttal bull. The past 12 months have been an economy with huge gains. Hell, the last 3 days have seen quite a bull surge. For that matter, the last 4 years has seen tremdous growth. The fact it grew after a fall means that the net _change_ is low, but to say stagnant, a word that means no change, is bull.

I'm not touching the healthcare issue. It's insane, has shown to be worthless in multiple countries, would be a black hole of money with no end in site. That's neither here nor there. And it was only one of several spending points Kerry had. Ones he didn't have the money, and no plan on how to get the money, for.

Nope, won't argue with that assessment of Kerry.

Reagan couldn't stop Congress from expanding. That killed his tax cuts. In fact it caused him to reverse those cuts.

And? Trying to put missles in Cuba nearly caused JFK to push the button. Fighting in countries nearly caused it. Feh. It has no bearing on this conversation.

Wait wait... Let me parse this statement. The fed controls the interest rate. BUT if Japan and China stop buying bonds, the rate goes up. Logical flaw there.

Krugman... Yeah you guessed mostly right. I won't dismiss him entirely, but I will say he is one side, and often a minority.

Feh. The sky is not falling, Mr. Little.

Rand.

OK let me clarify:

The president has no real control over employment or growth. He and congress control budgetary policy which has an effect on monetary policy which has an effect on the economy.

The Fed can control interest rates ONLY to the extent that it has leverage to control the bond market. If nobody buys its bonds at the rates it offers, it has to raise rates, irrespective of what it feels is good for the economy.

This really isn't rocket science here. I'd love to be wrong, but I'm moving all my savings to Euros as soon as I can.

Also, I must say that I find it mildly ironic that a guy calling himself Rand is concerned about arrogant condescension in other people's political discourse.

You can take whatever irony you want. It's the name (nickname, granted, short for Randall) given to me at birth. As an geek joke, I've added () to the end, for Rand(), but unless you're a programmer, you're not likely to get it.

So... Let's see, no comments on the other page or three that I wrote, but you seem to take issue on my calling out your view on bonds.

Right now, Japan and China have a trade imbalance with us. They sell us stuff, we pay in dollars. Those dollars, by themselves, are, to steal a phrase from my favorite economist, collectable monochrome paper portraits of presidents. I'm handwaving here cause I don't want to waste even more time in economic lessons, but those dollars eventually get spent in the US. They're spent buying US products, buying Treasury Bonds, or they can sit on them. The _least_ economic sensible action is to sit on them. They earn the country nothing, and gain the country nothing. If they buy products with them, then the US economy does better. If they buy Treasury Bonds, they gain a something when the bond matures.

Unless Japan and China quit selling stuff to us, they'll _always_ have a need to get rid of dollars. Does that mean they have to buy bonds? No, but it does mean the money gets spent. That money, whether it pays for the bonds, or helps our economy, WILL help keep the interest rates down. (Better economy, more taxes, etc. I've been over that already)

Please, go buy Euros. That'll just get dollars back in US pockets, or get them to buy more bonds.

If you really understood the situation, you wouldn't worry about China not buying bonds. You'd be worried about what political/military consquences there are in China buying bonds.

Rand.

Calling yourself after the Synoptic Random function? It sorts well with your character.

Usually if one walks like an objectivist, and squacks like an objectivist, and makes outrageous claims like an objectivist, than we can be sure that we are dealing with a Rand fan.

I ignored your rather inane rambling to clarify my points to objective 3rd party readers.

I don't recall ever bringing up healthcare, fail to see how an incompetent Federal beaurocracy can be worse than an incompetent and malicious HMO beaurocracy. Nor do I see any evidence of it being a disaster abroad.

The point on which your argument hinges is that foreign countries MUST accept all trade with the US in dollars. You should know better. They could demand an exchange of Specie, in principle, but it is more likely that they would request payment in a 3rd party currency. Either would create inflationary pressure.

Out of morbid curiosity I'd like to know who your favorite economist is. Other than that there is no need to further waste one another's times.