Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Destroying the Republican Brand
Posted by: Jon Henke on Friday, March 28, 2008

Via Greg Mankiw, Steve Pearlstein makes a nice point...
Well, isn't this rich: Max Baucus of Montana and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Finance Committee are suddenly in a lather that taxpayer funds might be implicated in the Federal Reserve's rescue of Bear Stearns.

Would that be the same Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley who have made careers out of protecting and enhancing the lavish system of import restrictions, price supports and other subsidies that have transformed American farming and ranching into a vast socialist enterprise?
Yes. That would also be the same Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley who are routinely indulged in their indefensible agricultural demands by both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

The Democrats, I can understand. They're ideologically committed to protectionism and to subsidies that don't really help, but feel good.

But Republicans? They're supposed to be against this sort of thing. Well, allegedly, anyway. Their complete failure on this sort of thing is emblematic of the ongoing destruction of the Republican brand. If you can't even defend free markets and oppose subsidies in agricultural policy, why should anybody think Republicans will be the Party of limited government anywhere else?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Wait, some republicans who act like democrats act like republicans for a change and its ’the end’?

I’m confused here.

Or has the perspective on the economy and what its for has become so twisted we don’t give a crap about producing anything and its all about the tulip trade on wall street?
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Big deal. Republicans destroyed their brand a long time ago
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Any society which passes on unpaid current taxes with compunded interest to future generations of fetuses is by definition an Immoral Society.

The concept of the Republican Party caring about the unborn child is one of the greatest con jobs foisted on the gullible in America, since the election of Ronald Reagan.

The Democratic Party generally wants to pay our bills as we go. For this they are politically castigated. The Republicans, in practice, are for Big Brother government, massive spending of money we have to borrow from China and India, and for passing the tab onto the little kiddies, Nice con, eh?

Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush and their ilk are nothing but deadbeats against generations of American fetuses.
 
Written By: John Stanley
URL: http://
Any society which passes on unpaid current taxes with compounded interest to future generations of fetuses is by definition an Immoral Society.

The concept of the Republican Party caring about the unborn child is one of the greatest con jobs foisted on the gullible in America, since the election of Ronald Reagan.

The Democratic Party generally wants to pay our bills as we go. For this they are politically castigated. The Republicans, in practice, are for Big Brother government, massive spending of money we have to borrow from China and India, and for passing the tab onto the little kiddies, Nice con, eh?

Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush and their ilk are nothing but deadbeats against generations of American fetuses.
 
Written By: John Stanley
URL: http://
Any society which passes on unpaid current taxes with compunded interest to future generations of fetuses is by definition an Immoral Society.
Perhaps by your definition, but you aren’t the arbiter of morality or the English language.

By your definition, a family that takes out a mortgage to purchase a house is immoral, because it robs from its future progeny. The money spent on the mortgage, after all, could have gone to the children.

Fortunately, economists disagree with you on the subject of deficits.

Here’s a quote from an economist:
The federal government will run out of excuses for not balancing its budget—as soon as General Electric and Wal-Mart stop using a mixture of growing debt and growing equity to fund their growth—and as soon as the Smith, Jones, and Rodriquez families (all generations, moving through time) stop accumulating growing debt for houses, car loans, and family businesses even as their total family incomes continue to grow. When everybody else stops borrowing, the federal government will be out of "excuses." [Don’t hold your breath waiting for that day to arrive, however.]

Never mind that I could support a budget goal of holding the debt/GDP ratio steady—which means the debt can grow up to the same rate the economy grows, without violating the goal. Never mind that the goal of steady debt/GDP would itself become a big challenge soon, due to demographic shifts. Never mind that it would be far more realistic and achievable than the sophomoric sophistry of insisting on a balanced dollar budget. A growing economy is what we need, far more urgently than a balanced dollar budget. It’s not the money, it’s what we get for the money, and it’s the real wealth we create that backs up the money we print.
———————————————————————
The Democratic Party generally wants to pay our bills as we go
This is so laughably untrue that I wonder whether you’re a parody.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
"Perhaps by your definition, but you aren’t the arbiter of morality or the English language."

Interesting how the leftish types here insist that their defintions are the one true definition. Evidently all the dictionaries are written by nasty publishing corporations (part of the VRWC, no doubt) who lie.

"This is so laughably untrue that I wonder whether you’re a parody."

Given some of his other comments, either that or a dreadfully uninformed troll.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Any society which passes on unpaid current taxes with compounded interest to future generations of fetuses is by definition an Immoral Society.

Perhaps by your definition, but you aren’t the arbiter of morality or the English language.

By your definition, a family that takes out a mortgage to purchase a house is immoral, because it robs from its future progeny. The money spent on the mortgage, after all, could have gone to the children.

Fortunately, economists disagree with you on the subject of deficits.
Way off the mark with the analogy, Steverino. For a mortgage is usually paid off in the lifetime of the mortgagee. Even if it’s not, there is a BUILD-UP of Equity to be transferred as wealth to the descendants.

The better analogy is that the parents take a three trillion dollar vacation, and ask the next 10 generations of family fetuses to pay off the tab.

A reasonable deficit for improving (say) infrastructure in the Homeland would not be necessarily immoral. But we haven’t been close to that scenarion since the last Democratic Administration.

To be insisting on Tax Cuts for the richest, and massive tax give-aways to oil companies making Billions, while insisting on a voluntary three trillion dollar invasion and occupation with Borrowed money is IMMORAL

You can get an economist to say anything. It is after all, not a science, but an expression of finding the numbers which "prove" a certain political ideology.

Billions in profits can get a lot of trained economist seals to honk any horn of the highest bidder.

Tata
 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://
The Democratic Party generally wants to pay our bills as we go
This is so laughably untrue that I wonder whether you’re a parody.


Written By: Steverino
No Steverino, your response only shows the power of repeating the big lie so often and for so long that people start to think with the lie, than with logic.

That’s why Murdoch, Moon, Mellon-Scaife own SO many media outlets - to create an alternate "reality" for their disciples.

The way the Masters of Wall Street have framed the topic is the Democrats are
"Tax and Spend" Liberals.

A more rational way to phrase that reality is to say the Democrats want to pay their bills as they go along. The Democrats get blasted for this fiscal responsibility, by the Republican Trained Attack Seals.

In fact, when Republicans attain power, spending goes UP, pork-barrel spending goes UP, tax-cuts for the wealthy and for the richest go UP. And lo and behold, the DEFICITS sky-rocket. Look at Reagan’s record. Look at Bush’s record. Those who believe the Republicans are the party of small government and fiscal responsibility are in an alternate reality.

So the unvarnished truth is this:

The Republicans are Borrow and Spend Freeloaders on the future of generations of American fetuses.

And you won’t hear that reality from the main-stream media.

Tata
 
Written By: Juan Man
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider