So says conservative Republican columnist George Will due to the GOP’s caving on free speech concerning 527 groups. The architect of the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, warns his party that their repeated failures have made the American public “say they want change” and that his party is “in very serious danger of having a very bad election this fall”. What’s going on? In my view both Will and Gingrich are right. I for one am not amused by the performance of the GOP in Congress. While I loathe the Democrat Party and do enjoy watching them make fools of themselves and tear each other apart, I want to see some serious shaking up in the GOP as well. I for one am sick of being their pet wedge issue come election time, along with the GOP offering nothing but wedge issues and empty promises on matters of substance. It’s true the Dems are worse in my view because they’ll mouth pretty words and smile atcha, all while knifing you in the back, but that doesn’t make standing some of the Republicans any easier.
The GOP has betrayed a number of principles I happen to believe in while holding control of Congress so no, I’m not happy with them at all. I’ve had it with the attitude that GOP stands for “God’s Own Party”. Faith is very important and I do not discount it even in public life, but many Republicans have taken it to a degree I am not comfortable with at all. I’ll be posting more on the failures of the Republicans in Congress and the issues they have angered me on later this week.
Let me be clear: The Dems have not earned being in the majority, but they may get there by default and the blame will be squarely on the GOP. Although I absolutely despise the insane rhetoric and assinine antics of a number of Dems (especially their freakazoid partisans) I am very angry with the GOP, particularly in Congress, and I’m not alone. They need a lesson in humility really, really bad along with a harsh reminder not to ignore the real reasons they were put in charge in the first place. An astute political strategist would seize upon this in trying to appeal to voters like myself to get us to at least consider voting for their candidate. IOW, use that anger and make their candidate at least tolerable to those who lean the other way. We shall see if the Dems are up to the challenge.
At the moment this is where I am, checking out the opposition to see if I can stomach seeing them in the Senate for 6 years. George Allen, the Republican incumbent from my home state, is part of the status quo which has angered me so much. I know nothing of his Dem opponents Harris Miller, save that he is a former businessman, and Jim Webb has an impressive backround which I find appealing. However, he also has expressed support for DADT calling it a policy which is “working”. I’m not sure how I will vote in November yet, but Allen now has his work cut out for him to earn my vote and it’s up to the Dems to make their case why I should support Miller or Webb over Allen. Part of their problem is that they must deal with the fact that I and other GOP-leaning voters loathe the Dem Party. They will have to separate the candidate from the Party, so to speak, because many of us might be convinced to support an individual Dem while rejecting the Party. Running Bob Casey in Pennsylvania I believe was a brilliant stroke, a rarity for the Dems, which I hope is a trend. I’m skeptical enough to think they will botch it once again, mistakenly believing the assinine behavior I detest will suffice. Some of the Dems and their noxious partisans have spewed rhetoric so far beyond the pale over the past few years that quite a number of voters including myself have relished watching them go down to defeat. Yet the GOP’s incompetence, corruption, and betrayal of conservative principles have brought me to where I’m giving their candidates another look. It’s absolutely amazing to me that a Democrat governor like Bill Richardson comes across as more of a conservative on fiscal matters than the GOP Congress whose members are as bad and in some cases worse than the Dems! I want to know details about the winner of the Dem primary in Virginia on how he will vote on issues. If I’m satisfied and the guy doesn’t make me nervous, he’ll have my vote. If not, I may find something else to do come Election Day…
UPDATE (from GPW): I’m working on a post on a similar vein, something confirmed by talking to the PatriotBrothersWest here in a “red” state, a general sense that the GOP has lost its way on domestic issues. The GOP should be grateful that the Dems have become so extreme or things would look far bleaker than they do now. If the Dems can coalesce around a positive message and sideline the BDS, they could capture both houses of Congress. More on this anon.
Here! Here!
Joe: Could you kindly add paragraph breaks to what you’ve written? thanks
It’s a dillemma indeed. Is the potential damage (and entertainment value) of having Uber-Moonbat John Conyers as chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the rest of the house run by the nuttiest of the Democrat nutjobs balanced by the necessity of teaching the Republicans to respect conservative values?
Increasingly, I think it is. If we end up getting an amnesty bill without any border enforcement, I say hang ’em.
Calarato: Yeah it was a bit of a rant, but that’s how angry I am at the GOP Congress. I fiddled with it a little bit to make it more readable, not sure I can do more with it at this time.
V&K: Immigration is definitely one of the issues they have ticked me off on. I’m even more moderate in accepting a guest-worker program BUT not without strict border control which the GOP has failed to deliver. Instead we still have a porous border and while those coming here to work doesn’t concern me too much, security matters do very much. Very much. Eh, I’ll save that for another post.
So, perhaps you boys have finally caught on to what many have seen for the last 6 years: These folks running our government these days do not adhere to conservative/republican principles; they adhere to the philosophy of feeding at the trough. They have waved the flag, served up hot button issues (like gays) to get votes, but all they’ve really done is enrch themselves. Sure, they’ve thrown a few measly pickings to the masses (Enron executives come to mind), but they have been looting this country worse than any government in history. Studies on the highly touted tax cuts, even from conservative organizations, show that they reallly are only helping out the very wealthiest in the nation. Had it not been for 9/11, GWB would have easily been a one-termer like his father.
Yes, it’s true that the GOP have been behaving like a bunch of drunken Democrats, with the possible exception of W. I’m sure that somewhere in their strategy there was the idea that they had to make compromises in order to do some of the more important things the world needed, such as ousting Hussein. It’s plain enough that Iraq has been a hindrance on the GOP, since it is obviously easier to criticize the one who does rather than the one who does nothing (like Annan). I’m really torn, and I do expect that some things should improve this year, but let us not forget all the good that has come from having a Republican majority: successes in the Middle East, two excellent Justices appointed, and some very important tax cuts. All in the face of an increasingly hostile media. Can anyone believe that things would be this good had Democrats been in charge for the last five years?
Can anyone believe that things would be this good had Democrats been in charge for the last five years?
Definitely not. On the other hand, we’re not partisan robots here. We’ll leave the braindead partisan shilling to zombies like Ian, raj, and Kevin. I think we’re arguing about how to get the Republicans back on track because the donks are beyond hope. If they don’t change their ways, they need to be taught a lesson. We survived eight years of Billary, we can survive 2, 4, … maybe 6 years of Republican minority if it serves to remind the bastards why we gave them a majority in the first place.
7. Can you ever make a comment without name calling?
I don’t think there is the slightest difference between which party is in power. I only want it so that the President and the Congress are never in the same Party at the same time again. There’s a Constitutional Amendment I’d support. Clearly the best kind of government our country can hope for, (and thrive under) is a deadlocked impotent government. Clearly the “Balance of Powers” within Government is not working very well at all. And I don’t want to be saved by either the Man on Horseback or by “People Power” aka mob rule. No matter which Party is selling that particular brand of Snake Oil at the time.
8. Can you ever take criticism without childish whining?
It wouldn’t be so bad. Put the Democrats in control of Congress and all the gay rights bills that have the votes to pass, but are being blocked from passage due to the Republican leaderships unwillingness to schedule a vote on them, would pass. Unlike Speaker Hassert, a Speaker Pelosi, seeing that she is from San Francisco, would schedule votes on those bills. The 1969 hate crime bill would be amended to add sexual orientation, ENDA would finally pass and likely DADT would end. Of course, whether President Bush would sign the bills is another matter. It might take a Democrat or President Giuliani in the White House to get them signed.
“I for one am sick of being their pet wedge issue come election time”
I feel your pain. 😉 But seriously, who in the GOP leadership is going to change that? Even a so-called moderate like McCain is now grovelling before the likes of Jerry Falwell. I say so-called because McCain is actually quite conservative. Already he has come out publicly in support of Arizona’s ballot proposition to ban SSM and civil unions and domestic partnerships. He also has said he would have signed South Dakota’s draconian anti-abortion law.
Giuliani might be a real moderate but he will go nowhere in a primary process where pics of him dressed in drag are sure to appear. Ahnold’s got a similar problem complicated by the fact that even Californians are sick of him.
What to do? Well, if you really want to send a messsage to the GOP, you should vote Libertarian. Consider: if the GOP lost control of the House and/or the Senate to the Dems and the Libertarians picked enough support to demonstrate conclusively that the GOP lost because their support went Libertarian, then maybe they’d get a clue that they should cater more to that wing of their party than to the theocrats. Just saying!
I disagree Ian. I’ve toyed with the idea, but in the end it would only be…
1. Throwing your vote away. I know, that isn’t very democratic of me, but it also happens to be true. Have you actually looked at the Libertarian party on the issues? I have some real problems with some of their positions. Better to not vote, than vote for those you don’t really think should govern.
2. If your hoping for openly gay friendly conservative Republicans, it’s like trying to find a chaste cheerleader or a drunk Baptist. I’ve always had to just keep in mind that I’m a free man in a free country, gay marriage or not, and that I’m going to vote for whats best for America, not necessarily gay people.
3. I do agree with your comments on the quality of Republican leadership in the Congress. We’ve become just as bad as the dark ol’ days of the Democratic majorities of the 70’s. It’s either hold my nose or sit on my hands this year. I’m still not sure which…
11. Dream on. The only thing the donks would do if they took Congress is try to impeach Bush for wiretapping the phone calls of foreign terrorists.
Gotta agree with V the K-I am not so sure any of those gay friendly bills would be pushed in congress, because gays are the pet wedge issue of both parties.
My concern though, if the GOP lost control of congress is that they would take it as a message to be even more like the democrats, rather than refinding their conservative values. Half the problem with the current congress isn’t that they are too conservative, but that they are too willing to spend money and act more like democrats.
GrampaGryph at #9 “Clearly the best kind of government our country can hope for, (and thrive under) is a deadlocked impotent government.”
Someone needs to pull that guy’s voter registration card and tear it up into little tiny pieces –until he completes a 12 step civics renewal program, keep him out of the election booth. What an utterly cynical, self-defeating, arrogant proposition.
No wonder the Left is known as the Party of Just Do No these days. Ghezzzzzz.
Besides, wouldn’t he one of those arguing (out of the other side of his mouth) that we already have a deadlocked impotent government?
So let’s add endless insane, moonbat investigations to the mix… yeah, that’ll help America win in the Middle East!
Hey – I think I just persuaded myself to vote Republican this year. (And no, I’m not one.)
I’m where I was at this point in 2004 — seriously considering not voting at all. But maybe another concerted effort by Michael Moore/Move-On/George Soros/Dan Rather and that lot will motivate to vote Republican… just like they did in 2004.
And to whoever said we could survive a few years of the Democrats being in charge:
Not if it leads to a lefty President in ’08: in addition to the head-burying-in-sand that would instantly become national policy, as regards the Islamo-fascists, I got 2 more words for you – KYOTO PROTOCOL.
No, the people who believe in America and want it to flourish have no choice but to simply go one winning elections against today’s Democrats.
So, if the Republicans have lost their way – Is there another way (short of defeating them) to get them back on track?
That’s the question that has to be asked / answered. We have no choice.
You really can’t compare the time of the Clinton Presidency to the present. Congress was much more evenly divided between GOP and Dems, so there was a more effective block on either Party’s aspirations. This is a truly GOP dominiated Congress, the fact that they seriously contemplated removing the filibuster traditions is proof of that. They only thing impotent about this Congress is the Democrats and any sense of self-restraint from the GOP.
Those against an impotent government I assume would say that such a government would be unable to address national needs. But I think that since “national needs” are being so poorly served under single-party domination of government, I don’t think it makes a difference.
If you liked Clinton-I, you’ll love Clinton-II. ….All hail St. Hillarybeast!!
The “popular” sentiment amongst the Republicans out here in East Coast “Blue-land” is a combination of resignation and disgust at the current congressional AND White House-Pentagon leadership. Older centrists like my own parents…who still think the Democrats are “idealess” and “gutless”…feel so betrayed by the GOP that they’re now saying “throw the bums out at any-cost”. The current GOP leadership inside the Beltway has squandered the Victory of ’94, and the Reagan Legacy;
– Out of control pork-fest have ballooned the Federal Budget.
– Afghanistan is not improving.
– Iraq has been downhill ever-since the wide-spread looting, and the casualty-rates are still “high”.
– Katrina was a fundemental cock-up on all-sides.
– Bush, Cheney, Rummey and Condi have lost their personal credibility after WMDs, Iraq and Iran.
Even the persciption drug boondoggle hasn’t delivered any price relief, just serial comparisons when people gather about how they’re getting “screwed”. And every trip to the gas station delivers a real-time message about “how well” the war is going…$2.85 for regular, $2.95 for premium.
Worse, many out-here are viewing the entire “immigration reform” non-debate as a political side-show ineffectually-staged to distract public attention from Rummey, Iraq and Iran. A number of the moderate “republican-voting” people I know…as compared to the GOP-deadenders…are willing to this-year hold their noses and vote for the Democrats; knowing full-well that they’ll get bait-n-switcher like Gov. Corzine and Sen. Menendez of NJ. They are just tired of the GOP and it’s “promises” that they see as just not squaring with political and historical reality. And they know what St. Hilllarybeast is, but they’ll vote for her anyway as a reaction against whomever the GOP nominates…especially if counter-balanced by someone like Bill Richardson. They might prefer it be “Richardson for President”, but they’ll vote for St. Hillarybeast anywa; …long before they vote for Romney-the-Mormon.
I did not vote in 2000 ( i am a republican) but after listening and hearing everything that was anti-bush I became a very solid republican and staunch bush supporter (and still am)…… I know that there are many others like myself that live in blue states and have to listen to the liberal bush-bashing (it has now become pathetic the democratic party is an ongoing joke now in the kitchen)……….where was the democratic party 13 years ago when the first world trade center bombing happened? they were in power than REMEMBER THAT!!!!!!!!!! WHEN YOU VOTE!!!! and oh yeah something called rwanda and “acts of genocide” 1 million killed in 100 days “Liberal Apathy Kills”
#22 Part of me thinks that an impotent government is best. Part of me realizes that sometimes it is necessary to get stuff done.
As for Giuliani in drag. Skelletons are only a problem when they are in closets. Straight people love guys in drag as long as they are sure the guy is a tough manly-man. Dustin Hoffman, Jackie Chan, Bugs Bunny. The only people who will get bent out of shape about the dress are people who would never vote for him *anyway*.
Giuliani’s biggest problem, IMO, will be the habit of people in primaries to vote for the person they think can win rather than the person they like the best. If enough people like him but think that, say, the religious base would *never* vote for him, then he’s got problems.
Though the drag might cause problems for the tolerant-liberal but humorless sort who get all uncomfortable when elected folks aren’t properly dignified. (I’ve run into a few, for instance, who were simply *offended* that a pro-wrestler was governor of Minnesota… even if it wasn’t their state… because it was embarassing.)
That was #20, obviously. Oops.
#22 – Ted –
It sounds like your parents (and others) don’t read blogs much and are fully bought-in to the MSM picture of what’s been going on in the world. Or want the goodwill / approval of “blue” friends and neighbors who are bought-in.
Fighting the Islamo-fascists is a multigenerational struggle, like fighting Communism – not something over and done in 3 years – and we shouldn’t be surprised if the Islamo-fascists keep popping their heads up (or making new attacks) in Afghanistan, Iraq and plenty of other places, including here.
In reality, both Afghanistan and Iraq are going through the growing pains of building the habits and institutions of democracy and constitutional government. That’s good, in the end. They continue to slowly move forward.
In reality, the “disaster” in our Katrina response was at the state and local level (Nagin and Blanco). The Federal response, despite all the hateful press, was, IN FACT, days faster (and much larger) than the Federal responses to hurricanes under Clinton and Bush 41.
In reality, Bush & Co. did not exaggerate anything about Iraq WMD; they merely reported and acted on what the (left-leaning) intelligence services themselves were saying about Iraq WMD at the time. As has been proven by multiple bipartisan commissions now, in both the U.S. and Britain.
In other words: Most of the reasons you’ve given for your parents’ disenchantment with Bush are MSM-manufactured fantasies. Remember that the MSM is 90% liberal-or-Democrat (as many observers and studies have shown).
There are some very real things not to like about the Bush Administration, and you mentioned one: the destructive growth of government (call it “pork spending” or whatever) that they’ve presided over. Some other commentors in this thread have given some other real reasons.
I don’t like the Bush Administration. The position I’m taking here is that we should bash them for the real reasons they deserve – not the fake MSM-manufactured ones.
And sorry – This thread is actually about the Republicans in Congress, not the Bush Administration – but my same thoughts apply. Let’s see that they’re bashed for the good reasons (not the fake MSM-manufactured ones).
No such studies exist.
Well, they sort of do, rightwingprof, but only in the context of trying to prove leftist talking points.
What the leftists focus on is how much money the “rich” allegedly save, and they distort it in a clever fashion; they talk in terms of dollar amounts, versus percentage of income.
Second off, what the leftists do is depend on the rudimentary understanding of economics that their typical audiences have. Money not given to the government has three potential destinations; it’s spent, it’s invested, or it’s stuffed in a mattress.
If it’s stuffed in a mattress, it’s there….but it doesn’t grow, it doesn’t work, and it doesn’t do anything. If it’s invested, it is returned to the economy as capital, where it can then be made available for loans or other means of encouraging business growth. If it’s spent, it flows back into the economy, with each person taking their cut.
Let’s say the tax on someone whose average income is $6 million annually is cut by 1%. That yields $60,000.
Suppose this person decides to take that savings and buy a Cadillac Escalade.
The dealer and salesman get a piece.
GM, its suppliers, and its employees get a piece.
The gas station and its employees get a piece.
The state gets a piece (through sales tax, registration, etc.), PLUS the tax on the income of all of the workers in this chain.
Now, what leftists want to do is for that $60k to go to the government, where they can redistribute it as untaxable welfare.
Thus, no Escalade = no money for the dealer, salesman, GM, GM employees, GM suppliers, the gas station, OR, ironically enough, the state.
But it doesn’t matter; once leftists completely stifle the process, EVERYONE will be on welfare and can benefit.
Ask France how well that works.
Well, I guess people like V the K and just me would be pleasently surprised then. A Speaker Pelosi would have to move on the gay rights bills or face a revolt from her home constituents in San Francisco.
When it comes to gay issues, a lot has changed in the past 11 years since the Democrats last controlled Congress. We have strong bipartisian support for many of your key initiatives, with the Republican leadership being the only thing blocking them. The votes are there and because of it, the votes don’t ever get scheduled. Nancy Pelosi would change that.
Of course, of the 3 key bills: hate crimes, ENDA and DADT, it’s obvious DADT would be the most difficult to get through Congress, even if controlled by Democrats. For, schedule the repeal of DADT for a debate and it up would bring out all the ant-gay bigots still in the military like it did back in 1993. However, 14 years is a long time and this time around we’d have the votes and the public’s support. After some charged rhetoric and countless hours devoted to it on cable news shows, it would pass.
#28 – #29 –
Wow, you guys bother answering Kevin’s errors? Well, you made good points, I’ll admit that.
The concept of taxation as a form of oppression that destroys capital formation and business innovation, and MIDDLE-CLASS (and all other) JOBS ALONG WITH THAT, is hopelessly lost on the socialist-minded, such as Kevin, etc.
And never mind that IT IS THE TAXPAYER’S MONEY TO BEGIN WITH; OTHERS HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO SEIZE IT. That basic truth is WAYyyyyyyyyyyy lost on them, unfortunately.
A Speaker Pelosi would have to move on the gay rights bills or face a revolt from her home constituents in San Francisco.
Please. Nancy Pelosi’s constituents have already proven they will support stripping gays of rights if Democrats support it; indeed, they’ll call it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Let’s face facts, Erik; every time you gay leftists make these promises, we get screwed. Support Clinton, get DADT and DOMA. Support Kerry, get antigay state constitutional amendments.
Meanwhile, Pelosi is supporting Cindy Sheehan and her merry band of idiots sending money to terrorists so they can blow up our troops and other American interests. Plus, with her record of campaign finance fraud, it should be obvious that she’s nothing but a pompous, lying hypocrite who will say and do anything to get elected.
In short, no deal. I’m not voting to put a terrorism-supporting liar in office based on your promises of “gay rights”, when she and her party have demonstrated the exact opposite.
And no one caught this bit in #9 – ” I only want it so that the Presiden4t and the Congress are never in the same Party at the same time again…”
Coming from Gryph, I don’t believe that for a second. It implies / requires that if a Hillary were President, Gryph would be actively trying to persuade us all to vote Republican.
#29… This scenario is primarly based on the cirular theory of money and while it does apply, what isn’t taken into account are outflows.
Outflows are when the money is used outside of the American economy such as in foreign investment or purchases of foreign goods. This is why the trade imbalance is important to our economy.
Not everyone who saves $60k off their taxes is going to use that money where it benefits the American economy as some will use it as mentioned above. This isn’t an arguement against the tax cuts but the idea of putting disposable income in the hands of those who will use it, doesn’t directly equate to a bounce in the economy. And, IMHO, there are some better uses for that $60k that would be of more benefit to the American economy such as deficit reduction, etc…
By the way… NDT, I hope things are going well with you in SF my friend 🙂
#34 – blowhard – apt name, by the way –
Who the hell are you to decide what is or isn’t a good use of a person’s money?
How about letting them decide? After all: They earned it.
Having said that: Deficit spending is a tax on future generations and it would be better, admittedly, if the government CUT SPENDING (still not seizing all that money in taxes).
One thing studies have shown, is that government spending (of any kind – defense, welfare, whatever) has the least beneficial impact in the economy of any spending. Which makes perfect sense, when you understand that government produces nothing.
(To be most precise: government produces, or should produce, protection and law and order, so that real people can then function freelyh and produce in the real economy. To whatever extent government goes beyond that mandate, society and the economy tend to suffer. As our European friends have made so apparent.)
Kindness, Calarato. Blowhard did bring up a valid point that, by nature of the beast, some of that money will leave the United States for elsewhere.
But I would gently caution that an entity such as government should look at cutting costs well before it raises revenue generators, inasmuch as its revenue is dependent on vibrant economic activity.
NDT, you lost me – I have no idea what your first words there are directed at.
I second the “hear, hear” of number one.
Actually the only endorsement I have ever made was recently and it was for a Republican. You look at my latest blog entry to find out more about her.
And if Hillary were to become President,and you wanted to elect people who oppose her policies you do not need to vote Republican. There are other parties besides the two you know. Or you can vote for someone who isn’t a member of any Party at all. So long as there is an actual and practical balance of power and opinions, I’m happy. But that isn’t what we have right now.
This is actually a false argument, for several different reasons, one of them being that the economic chain is not limited by national borders. Money that flows eventually into a foreign nation still benefits the economy in the same ways that money does that stays in the United States.
And that is why the trade deficit has nothing to do with the economy — well that, and the fact that we haven’t had a production economy in twenty years.
I have to say I agree with you about the Democrats. If you recall me from a couple of earlier comments I am a “moonbat” as it were. The only reason I hope to see the dems take one of the houses this november is to get back to checks and balances. I hope and pray that this nation is able to, some day, throw off the stranglehold that the republicrats have had over our democracy for far too long.
#39 – Voting for a third party won’t produce the partisan deadlock you claim to aspire to, Gryph. My point looks solid.
#41 – Just curious – then what did you think of the stranglehold that the Democrats had for, oh, basically 62 years? Was that cool with you?
P.S. I may as well say it directly: The argument “‘We’ should support partisan deadlock” is bogus. The people who try to advance it invariably turn out to be closet “preferees” of one party, in functional terms, or when push comes to shove – just the party that is unpopular or not presently in power.
There may be real and valid policy reasons to vote against Republicans – we could discuss those, and drop the Andrew Sullivan-type of specious self-justifications. This would be similar to my suggestion in #26-#27, just coming from a different angle.
#35
One thing studies have shown, is that government spending (of any kind – defense, welfare, whatever) has the least beneficial impact in the economy of any spending.
This is one of the few times that I have to disagree with you Cal.
I have no problem with deficit spending when it has to do with our defense. Spend all the money you must to defeat the enemy. FDR proved that true. We survived WW2 with twice the amount of debt that we have now.
Any business will get a loan to invest in the future. Borrowing money to pay for our future security is a good investment. Security helps the economy.
North Dallas Thirty, I think you’ll be proven wrong. Give the Democrats control of Congress, particularly with a liberal Speaker from San Francisco, and they will deliver for us.
Instead of votes on FMA, you’ll get votes on ENDA. Really, it’s been so long since the Democrats were able to drive the legislative agenda, that i’m too young to even remember them ever doin’ so. It’s time to give them the car keys again.
Of course, when our bills do pass, you will undoubtedly point to the bipartisan support they recieved and the number of Republicans that voted for them as validating your viewpoint. When in actuality, the credit should (and will) mostly go to the Democratic leadership.
But that will be OK.
So much misinformation, and so little time
Regarding ## 34 and 40,
# 34
The trade imbalance is not as important to the US economy as you might believe. The trade imbalance only reflects one part of the economy, namely, the trade in manufactured goods. It ignores trade in services, and it ignores payments for other reasons, and it is little more than a political statistic for the manufacturing sector. The relevant issue is the balance of payments, which includes not only trade in goods, but also services and the other issues. (I could go into detail with transactions with which I am personally familiar, but I don’t want to unduly expand this comment). In the 1960s, the US boasted of having huge balances of payments but that was largely an artifact of the legacy of WWII: Europe and the Far East were still recovering from WWII, and the US was supplying much of the manufactured goods and agricultural products to those regions. Not so, since the 1960s.
What was then referred to as the “balance of payments” is now referred to as the “current account.” The summary of the most recent current account, as published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (a private operation, but one that is highly regarded) is at http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/transnewsrelease.htm
# 40
No, that’s not true. From the page I linked to above:
It seems to me that, if “we haven’t had a production economy in years” the value of goods exported would be far less than were cited in the BEA release. Particularly since the ratio of good exported to goods exported remained fairly constant, and US$231.3billion (exported) is not exactly chicken-feed..
The last sentence should be “Particularly since the ratio of goods exported to goods imported remained fairly constant, and US$231.3billion (exported) is not exactly chicken-feed.”
Query to the webmaster, why is there apparently not a “Live Preview” for long posts?
raj, erroneously writes: “The summary of the most recent current account, as published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (a private operation, but one that is highly regarded) is at….”
The BEA, raj, is a division of the US Dept of Commerce –it’s been around in one form or another since 1872 when it was a Treasury function. Read about the modern BEA here
http://www.bea.gov/bea/about/mission.htm
You can learn about some of the controversies about the BEA & the need to fundamentally change the way we determine the GDP in the following article titled “Why the Economy is a Lot Stronger than You Think” …which may be tough reading for yougiven your predisposition to see grey, black or even swirling funnels in every cloud.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_07/b3971001.htm
#48 Matt
Oh, thanks for the reminder that the BEA (the Bureau of Economic Analysis was an offshoot of the National Bureau of Economic Research (per your BusinessWeek article). I’ll fisk the BW article, which is quite idiotic, later. Not surprising, considering its provenance.
North Dallas Thirty, I think you’ll be proven wrong. Give the Democrats control of Congress, particularly with a liberal Speaker from San Francisco, and they will deliver for us.
Well, let’s see….the last time Democrats had control of Congress AND of the White House was 1993 and 1994, and what pro-gay legislation did they pass?
DADT.
But that’s all right, Erik; you and yours, just like you did later for Democrats who supported DOMA, FMA, and antigay state constitutional amendments, no doubt called that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Meanwhile, as long as Pelosi continues her support for terrorists and campaign finance fraud, she’s not fit to hold the seat she currently has, much less the Speaker’s chair. But you, once again, seem more than happy to forgive her both since she’s a Democrat.
raj, not a problem to correct your mistakes once again… glad to help you understand that a unit of the Commerce Dept isn’t, as you indicated, a private operation. Tedious, but it must be done.
Only in raj’s world would a correction be considered a reminder… as in he knew that all along… just erred in his characterization. Really? Oh, I see. LOL, the pompous & pedantic never land softly and you prove it well, raj… day in, day out.
He’s not worth considering, much less responding to. He’s like a first-year grad student, he knows next to nothing, but is far too impressed with himself.