Republicans and Democrats!
As many of you know I am a big fan of Frontline from PBS, and they just put together a excellent middle of the road piece on both Romney and Obama. I am sure that those of you on either side will find important stuff you like, and didn't know about both candidates. I don't think it is going to change any minds here, and the best part is that it is not designed to. It does however give you a complete picture of the candidates.

THIS IS THE BEST NON-PARTISAN THING I HAVE SEEN SO FAR IN THIS CONTEST.

I would love to hear only from those who take the time to watch the piece (1 hour 30 minutes) and see if you found it as powerful as I did.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice-2012/

I don't know about in California, but in the rest of the country 1:54:17 is closer to 2 hours than 1.5 :P

But I'm watching it.

Edit

30 minutes in and they've now said the word "polygamy" 15 times or so in reference to Romney's grandfather, but not once have they mentioned that Obama's father was a polygamist.

Not one single mention of Frank Marshall Davis.

Before he was a Mormon Bishop, Romney had never dealt with "real people or real people's lives."

Romney "may see the presidency as the ultimate fulfillment of his faith." No mention of Obama's faith.

Everyone saw Obama as the "savior" as early as his election to the Illinois Senate.

Romney was an "outsider as governor and is still an outsider." Isn't that what Obama claimed to be?

"The uninsured were bankrupting Massachusetts." I'm sure there were absolutely no other issues causing the state to lose money...

"Obama went to Washington believing that his election would cause everyone in Washington to join together to fix the problems." No mention of the fact that his party had majorities in both houses of Congress.

Obama has a grand vision, but lacks the personality to make it happen. He's really just too smart to deal with other people.

"The Tea Party turned Obama into a partisan figure that he wasn't before." HA!

If you truly believe that this report isn't skewed toward Obama, then you and I likely will never agree on anything. It isn't the hatchet job that most of the MSM would have delivered, but it is still bent towards Obama.

Thanks!

Wow, really? They come down hard on Obama, especially in the closing statement. What about how he promised to bring things together and found out he could not. I think they were kind to Romney. I guess we can agree on one thing. We are not going to agree on anything.

Its the "Tea Party turned Obama into a partisan figure" thing that bugs me the most.

Has is never occurred to anyone, even Dem partisans.. that maybe just maybe, its not the Tea Party, its not because Obama is black, its not even because of right wing media so much..... as it is that for the first two years Obama basically rubber-stamped everything Pelosi put before him?

That whatever Obama intended or did not intend, when it came to congress Pelosi and Reid steamrolled the opposition in a hyper-partisan manner, and instead of even trying to mediate any middle ground as the bi-partisan uniter he promised to be, Obama just rubber stamped it and went on down the road.

What did he expect?

If he had acted as even a minor check on the excesses of his own party and been even slightly inclusive things could have been a lot different.

Not really. And anything said in the closing statement is buffered by all the "he's really got big plans and good intentions and gets blocked at every turn by everyone else" that is prevalent throughout the rest of the video. Nothing is ever his fault... But we know that, because according to him, the buck stops with you.

I will tell you what he didn't expect - he didn't expect an opposition that set defeating him as a much higher priority than "greater good of the country" or even doing the job they got elected to. Filibuster galore, no-compromise pledges and the likes are not something any other president had to deal to the extent that was put on Obama.

That was just blowback for how he handled the first two years.

He should have expected it.

I think you are confusing cause and effect.

You confusing opposition for opposition's sake and a fundamental disagreement about what the "greater good" actually is.

So... ok....... what happened first, Pelosicare + Stimulus shoved down everyones throat - or the 2010 mid-term election?

I would think that eve...n..........*bzzzzTTTTzzzz*..... *crackle...*.... WARNING.... WARNING..... DANGER WILL ROBINSON....... LEFT WING REALITY MACHINE DETECTED....TEMPORAL DISTORIONS INCREASING..LAWS OF CAUSATION SUSPENDED........WARNING...*BtttZZZZZZZzzzssssss......POP......




........

Nice revisionism. Stimulus was all but done deal by the time Obama got into the office, compliments of Bush Administration that actually wrote it. ACA was GOP proposal verbatim, plus a whole bunch of concessions where GOP got everything they wanted yet still chose not to vote for it in attempts to discredit Obama administration. It is sure thing ACA wasn't a Democratic legislature, or we would all be eligible to go on Medicare, at any age or income.

If he didn't expect it then he is even worse the I thought, thats what both sides do and if you say different then you are blind deaf and stupid. Stop pretending your almighty democrats are the risen saviors of the world. The plain fact that you or Jet can not even bring up anything that the Dem do wrong shows how mind fucked they have you. At least we can say when a Rep fucks up and not have our side disown us.

I guess the fact that we don't suck the tit of the Rep like you do the Dems makes it easier. That and I am not even a republican. I guess I feel sorry for people who are brain washed.

I think I officially give up. Still going to underline my opinion, and stand up to the Neocons in here, but officially going to stop expecting any compromise.

The 2010 mid terms were in many respects as much as rebuke of Bush policy as Obama. It had been building for a while.

You are the one who makes everything out to be about Obama. I think you got too caught up in media spin and the way both the left and right wing media tried to portray reality, and lost sight of the actual reality.

there wont be a compromise. the constitution is set up to require compromise as parts of checks and balances

what happens is that every time we allow the constitution to be weakened, whether its the patriot act or the war on drugs or the welfare state, we are just setting ourselves up for the tyranny to come.

look at the current situation: both parties are willing to do anything to gain power. they have already made it impossible for third parties to function, now they are trying to screw each other too!
it used to be balanced in that each party knew that someday they would be the minority again. i think it all changed during the 40 years leading up to the 1994 revolution. after that, the republicans thought they should line their pockets, too.

now hoth parties act like they will be a permanent majority and do everything they can to destroy the other.

revolutions coming.

/scratches head

If you are looking for a neocon, that would be Obama. Neocons are liberals... the GOP neocons were originally a bunch of Trotskyites who came to the GOP.

Mitt Romney has filled his staff with a bunch of neocons and is emulating them.

Most of the people here... not neocon so much.

Also, I have never liked Frontline. Its not a matter of compromise, I have just always found them to be incompetent as far as reporting goes. To me its not about who or what they are biasing at the moment, or whether they do it intentionally... they just arent very good journalists. They regurgitate the narratives of others, without applying any fact checking or critical thinking to the claims or concepts they regurgitate.

That they try to do so in a manner that the uneducated might consider impartial is immaterial. They just arent good at their jobs.

Meanwhile, Romney would rather have your boss coerce you to vote for him

You guys are like a pack of rabid dogs in these political forums. It took less than a day for this thread to jump off on side-tangents (like almost every other thread in the political forums.) I've almost forgotten what the OP was by the time I've read through the replies.

I think Kaotic and Derid are the only two, other than Jet, who even watched the program, and tried to provide feedback to the OP. (I've tried, but haven't had a long enough, uninterrupted, period of time to watch the entirety, so I won't comment on its content yet.)

Sheesh! Back on topic, get along little doggies!

;)

If he really said that, or those bosses really said that, then they're morally wrong. However they aren't incorrect.

My boss is a small business owner and he is having a tough time making ends meet. We've already had to rotate guys instead of full shifts for everyone. I thank god that he only employs 8 people including himself, otherwise under Obamacare he would be forced to provide insurance for me and id be out of a job. Then there's all of the taxes he has to pay. Then all the regulations from the EPA to comply with. It is all combining to kill his business, and therefore my job.

So yeah,they're wrong to say it like that to those employees but they are correct. 4 more for Obama means more unemployed. I like earning my own money, I don't want to depend on government handouts. Romney might suck, but Obama is worse.

Working as intended.

I hope this thought will comfort you while Romney guts what left of social nets and drives the economy into the ground, Bush-style, while giving out unfunded tax breaks to 1%-ers to re-invest into China.

Yes, both are through-and-through shit candidates, but Romney's potential to cause damage is much, much higher than Obama's. Plus with Romney there is a possibility of two terms (if Bush could, why not him?), with Obama we _know_ that in 4 years we will get someone who is NotObama and NotRomney next round. With Obama worst-case scenario is that things won't get any better, and in 4 years we are about where we are today and we get to try again with somebody new.

That argument re: Obama had more weight before Bernanke decided on QE:Infinity.

As far as social programs and safety nets, I dont see Romney doing much there. Its obvious he isnt going to go with the "Ryan plan" , and even then it was mostly medicare.... unless you count Obamacare as something necessary... but only the diehard left wing partisans even want it, so no loss there for most of us.

The *real* danger of a Romney Presidency, has nothing to do wwith social programs - Romenys pretty moderate in that regard truth be told, when it comes to actually governing ( he just had to swing right in GOP primary... yeah hes a liar, like most pols.. but hes still pretty moderate ) is the *WAR MACHINE*.

Increased military spending, soaring our fedgov expenditures.... we currently spend 800B/yr on military not counting wars and if Romney gets his way it will go over 1T. Not counting new wars, in places like Iran and Syria he is likely to start.

The idea that Romney will somehow take us back to a pre New Deal era (as nice as that might be) is a complete fallacy and just not accurate. The warmongering is,however, a legitimate concern.

I'd honestly prefer the warmongering to increased social programs. I'm sorry but I donate some money to charities, I don't need or want the government taking my money to give people who don't deserve it. Oh, and before you pill the elderly grandma and disabled vet cards on me, let me tell you about the mentally handicapped weed dealer i know.

He gets social security disability cause he can't work. He takes 90% of that money and buys weed with it. He then sells that weed to make more money then he was given. Now, i have no issue with the weed part of this. My issue is that after years of doing this he no longer needs the social security. He still gets it though.

Or how about a girl who works 3 jobs but all off the books and so she also gets food stamps and Medicaid?

Or the crackhead mom who uses her food stamps and welfare check to buy more rock?


I'm all for helping out grandma or vets. I'm all for a little unemployment for someone that's on the down and out, but 99 weeks of unemployment.... No! That just encourages them to not look sk hard right away cause the government is here to hold you.

Safety nets are bullshit. We need to get a bit more Darwinian and stop trying to save everyone. Some people need and deserve the help. Others are just going to take advantage, with no way to tell the difference until it's to late.

So Stubs, if you were to guess, what percentage do you think are tax-cheating, drug-dealing crackheads out of all social net recipients?

When you mention "get a bit more Darwinian and stop trying to save everyone", are you actually suggesting we let people die on the streets? Also, if we get more Darwinian, would you object if starving people committed crime to stay alive? If we speak in strictly-Darwinian terms do you think "I was starving to death" is justifiable defense for robbery? How would you reconcile that with the letter of law as it exists today? Last but not least, how much do you think it cost to the government to imprison someone and how does it compare to social spending in similar cases?

Please at least consider, if not reply, to these questions.

The Frontline report was pretty good and I agree with Jet, but I wish they had spent some time on third party candidates since PBS is basically the only venue willing to consider it. My choice is not presented here.

If I had to guess I'd say at least 50%, more if you count illegals. Dying in the streets might be a little much. I'm thinking more like, x amount of time on welfare or food stamps or whatever program. If you can't manage to find work after a set amount of time, your off. There are always feed the hungry/homeless programs, and I am willing to support those more if we cut the cash handouts. You can't take a hot meal to your dealer for your next fix.

It wouldn't hold up in a court of law but yeah, if I was starving and I couldn't find food id steal food or the money to get it.

I think it's something like 60,000 a year per prisoner but I'm mot 100% sure. Honestly unless were talking petty crimes, like minimum security 30 days kinda stuff then it should be no more then 10,000 a year. As for the worst it would be nice to not pay for them at all, cut off a rapists twig and berries, one bullet for a murderer and loss of hands for armed robbery. Things like that are a better deterrent then life in prison. At least you'd still have a bed, 3 squares, internet and cable tv. Not to mention gyms and libraries. That's better quality of life then some people that haven't committed any crimes.

So in hypothetical case where choice is welfare or crime and imprisonment, would you agree that welfare is cheaper for the taxpayer?

It depends on how long there in prison but yes, over a year I would think a prisoner costs more. Otherwise im going on welfare.

My problem isn't the social safety net itself sinij. My issue is with the people who abuse it. If you need help fine, here's some money. I fully expect you to pick yourself up after a time. It is a safety net, to catch you when you fall, it is not there to hold you forever and always.

Stubs, abuses do exist, but they are minority. Your 50% estimate is off by at least 30%. Still, if we accept 50%, what do you suggest we do with 50% who do not abuse it, need it and will get thrown under them bus?

So what is more important to you, helping people who need and deserve it or punishing those that abuse it?

Punishing those that abuse it. Were at a breaking point. We can't sustain the level of handouts we are at and in so far as I can tell Obama wants to make it easier to get some and get more people taking handouts. If it doesn't stop it won't matter if our economy recovers because were going to be broke.

Those were just a few samples of abuse that I gave. I have more. Working off book, or only partially on the books and using that to gain unemployment or welfare or food stamps.

IMagine if somebody was working full time.off the books, making 500 a week. Because it's off book he applies for unemployment and gets awarded 200 a week, then applies for food stamps and gets 200 a month for food because he only makes 200 a week from unemployment. That's alot of money out of the taxpayers pocket.

What about our ridiculous health system. An illegal immigrant can get help at a hospital easier then I can and not have to pay much for it. Then there tab gets put on Medicaid because they're undocumented and work off books and are "poor" even if they live 15 to a house and everyone pulls in money. They pay no taxes and yet take from the system.


If you had a friend who needed help, someone unemployed and they needed a place to stay and some money to get on their feet again, how long before you cut them off because all he does is eat your food, spend the money you give him on smokes and sleep on your couch?

Yes, we are at a breaking point, but do you think social handouts (to individuals) that got us there?

I think it is a really big part of it. I include those idiotic "bailouts" as part of the handouts. Too big to fail my ass. The war is responsible as well but I have views on that you won't like. I don't think defense cuts are the way to go. We are already extreme downsizing and more cuts scare me

Government is the waste. We need less of it not more. I hate bush for creating the DHS. That mission was already covered by both FBI and CIA. We didn't need a whole new bureaucratic nightmare. We need to downsize the government itself. Streamline it as best we can and get it on a more efficient path.

That is not good inclusion. Bailouts went to 1%ers, not people who are eligible for social payments.

So lets re-focus, what portion of our existing fiscal trouble is going to welfare, specifically the "tax-cheating, drug-dealing crackheads" kind you seem to oppose most.

I hope you actually look up numbers and compare corporate bailouts, corporate subsidies and corporate tax break as a total sum, then compare it to welfare spending. Lets not include medicare in here, because you wanted to talk about specific case of "tax-cheating, drug-dealing crackheads" that are supposedly key to our problems.

It is a good inclusion because it's still people getting money they didn't earn handed to them. I don't care if your a billionaire or Joe Schmidt making 40k a year or a homeless crackhead, money you did nothing to earn is still undeserved.

As for the numbers, no I haven't looked up anything. I do most of my posting from my cell while I'm at work. I don't have to much time to look up stats. Especially since in my opinion, the numbers are not really relevant. It isn't right and something needs to be done about it. I don't mind helping someone who truly needs it for awhile, but I don't exist to support anyone but my own family on an indefinite basis.

Except for people who are permanently disabled or elderly no one should have access to unending free handouts.

Yes, but do you think 1% bankers and single moms getting social checks have much in common? You were specifically talking about how social programs contribute to running this country into the ground. "Social programs" have very specific meaning, when you include other things just to artificially inflate numbers in order to claim "social programs cost us tons of money, lets cut them!" you are not talking about cutting bailouts, you are talking about cutting welfare. Again, your problem definition and your proposed solution do not align.

I very much agree with you that 2b2f is a perversion of the free market process and has to be stopped. I also disagree with you that social programs are significant contributor to our fiscal predicament, nor that throwing more people under the bus will save us any money.

In ideal society everyone will have opportunity and ability to be self-sufficient, but we don't live in the ideal society. We have a social problem, and it has to be solved in some way and question you should be asking is not "how we can kick people off welfare", but "given that some people will be drain on society, how do we minimize costs of taking care of them". You will also quickly realize that "kick off welfare, Darwian style" option cost a lot more than other alternatives.

In closing, believe it or not, I am not some bleeding-heart liberal hippie that just want to give out money to crackheads. I too find it upsetting that welfare could be abused in many ways, but unlike you I realize that existing system is much more optimal in cost/effect than alternatives and can resist feel-good "throw the bums out!" urges knowing it will cost me, the taxpayer, more at the end of the day.

No they don't. I wasn't trying to include the bailouts in the social programs category. Just the "here's free money" category. A way to show I'm not just upset about the little people getting money for nothing.

Maybe you're right and it would cost more to cut these programs then not, but we have to cut something, and not only cut but also decrease spending otherwise the cuts are just meaningless. I think the social programs need an overhaul in this regard, not more money. I can get behind you minimizing costs vs. Kicking people but your man O is going to just keep adding dependants, he doesn't care about the costs.

Maybe you right, Obama may end up adding more defendants to social programs. Still, its a pocket change comparing to say, defense budget. Looking at it you'd think we are still fighting Soviets.

Well we are still fighting the Reds, its just they're Chinese not Russian. Its also an economic battle, via currency...but still I don't doubt for a second that they'd attack us if they thought they'd succeed. Part of keeping them from thinking they can is our military power. This world is never going to sing kumbaya around a campfire while holding hands and roasting marshmallows. We could probably stand a few cuts to defense, mostly in the operating costs for the Iraq and Afghanistan shenanigans. If we end all that and bring everyone home that would put a nice chunk of change back in the governments purse.


Pocket change or not, if we can't afford to help everyone already on these programs, adding more is irresponsible and reckless and in my opinion is enough to cost Obama the election. I wish I had realized what his agenda really was back in 08 instead of being one of the idiots caught up by his frustration with the GoP and Obamas hope and change bs.

Yes, battle with China is economic in nature. It only makes sense we spend on economy, not military.

Hypothetical example - imagine if ENTIRE DEFENSE BUDGET was given as a tax cuts to corporations for employing Americans. Can you say 0% unemployment and melting economy in China?

Instead we bicker over cutting down on 800/mo handouts to crackheads and single moms.

If we spent the entire defense budget on the economy, in the for. Of tax cuts and regulatory roll backs, yes we would destroy their economy and win that fight. We would also weaken ourselves to the point that they could just invade and be done with the money games.

that's why I argue over that 800 a month.

I'm not saying defense couldn't use a cut, but that should come in the form of stopping operations in the Mideast. In the meantime, for our economy, the government can't spend its way to fixing the economy. That's idiotic. They need to cut taxes on businesses and ease some of the stupid EPA regulations. That will encourage new business, the return of manufacturing, and that will mean more jobs.

How likely do you thin one nuclear-armed country going to invade another nuclear-armed country? Even Khrushchev blinked.

Personally I wouldn't like to rely solely on those to deter them. They could take a few hits from nukes over there and keep on keeping on. We need conventional might to back up the WMD cards.

I think that the Chinese don't regard human life the way we do, at least those that make decisions. What's a few million people to them if they net the continental united states? They have 1 billion people living there.

Well, 1T/yr is not needed to defend against China.

Even ignoring nukes for a second, because its always possible for some future tech or situation to nullify them anyhow...... (not talking tomorrow, just in general)

China has a lot of people. China can make a huge army. However, China has thousands of miles of ocean between us and them. The idea that they could invade us is a nonstarter.

Nor would they want to.

If they were to pick a fight of that nature with the Anglos it would be with Australia, because they have lots of arable land with relatively few people, and its a lot closer.

Anyhow, the point is you can maintain a huge defence - and focus on important and relevant systems like navies and fighter planes and missiles and such - you dont need to maintain 10 Divisions of Heavy Armour ready to be used as an occupying force for whichever country we decide to topple tomorrow.

Dont forget China sit really close to Sibera, and that is a nice massive resource rich region.

I agree they would have alot of ocean to cover to invade. It would be unlikely, but so was the attack on Pearl. I also firmly believe in "better to have and not need than to need and not have" and I can tell you it usually works out in my favor. That being said, who is allied with Australia? So even if the Chinese were to go for the closer target, we'd still end up putting boots on the ground.

So in conclusion, is 1 trillion a little excessive? Yes. Does it need to be cut? Yes. Should we be wary of how much we cut? Absolutely.

Actually the attack on PH was projected pretty well, but in any case the point was we could cut a few hundred B - because we dont need a massive occupying force on standby if we simply stop invading other countries.

Any war China engaged in that we had any reason to care about, would be waged with boats and planes etc

I am glad we all agreed that cutting defense is more reasonable and cost-effective approach to reducing deficit than trying to squeeze water out of the stone by cutting basic welfare programs.

Medicare, medicare, social security (all welfare imo) = 1.6T
welfare = .47T
military = .92T

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_budget_2011_4.html

so yeah. we can probably cut our defense budget in half and defend the US, but we should cut welfare by half as well

that would add up the about 1.5T. almost enough to balance the budget!

Throw in cut corporate welfare by half into the pot and I would agree on ideological lines.

Problem is that doing so all but guaranteed to fuck the economy. Huge cuts during anemic economy will produce another recession. Huge cuts to welfare during high unemployment will fuck over tons of people. Huge cuts to military will produce even more unemployed.

Sadly, it is not as simple as "lets just cut all of it".

Best approach to cuts is to analyze how much of each dollar is get reinvested into economy (1..2..3 before Derid rages about Keynesian economics). Welfare is generally 100% spent in US. Military sending is spent as salary, but more so as contracts. There are procurement requirements for US-made, but not for everything. So I'd guess it is anywhere between 50% to 75% spent in US. Corporate tax cuts are all get reinvested overseas, I'd guess as little as 25% of it ends up stimulating US economy.

Approach I would like to see is minimal cuts to welfare (mostly drug screening and such), moderate cuts to Defense budget (mostly Army), severe cuts to all corporate welfare, end of 1% tax cuts.

Then take some of this freed capital and create tax breaks to any business that employs US workers and penalize outsourcing (i.e. if job is outsourced and resulted in a layoff you pay a penalty).

Regardless of the approach it has to be bipartisan. Ryan/Romney are incapable of bipartisanship. Obama isn't much better, but at least we only have him for only 4 more years, not 8.

The only reason massive cuts might cause recession, is because the money being used was created by the Fed - so if the Fed was no longer injecting the stimulus in that manner.. a temporary recession may ensue.

However, the long term health would be a lot better. Its kind of like kicking a heroin habit. At first the addict feels miserable. Then after they get over that really shitty part, they are 1000x better off.

Our fiscal habits are slowly killing us, and we are always in danger of overdose. A short, needed correction is a small price to pay for long term health.

More like another lost decade and recovery is by no means guaranteed.

Again, you assume that if we go through all the pain eventually system will self-correct and we will reach "better days". Have you considered that we might end up wrecking the country and never getting past "Step 2. ???" into prosperity.

What happened to Obama balancing the budget like he said he would in 2008? What happened to cutting the debt?

You do realize that Obama hasn't done anything the help the situation right? Numbers don't lie... we are spending $4 billion a day. Now how can you justify this? Are you going to be one of those people that have to be standing in a pile of ruins before you realize we should have done something sooner? The way you keep spewing off, it seems that way. Obama didn't get it done in 4 years, you have to be off your rocker if you think another 4 years will be any better.

IT'S TICKING...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Nope, because historically in a generally free market - the scenario you talk about has never, ever happened.

The natural tendency of people is to "do", and in an environment where they are not forcibly prevented from "doing", work happens and goods are produced and services provided. These goods and services are traded, which happens most efficiently and reliably when an abstracted token of value we usually call currency is stable and sound.

The concept that a economy that was returned to sound fundamentals, where major idiotic distortions introduced by govt were removed, would somehow find itself in a permanent depression is completely alien to me.

Most of the money being spent that is at the heart of this discussion is the functional equivalent of paying people to dig holes and fill them back up. Its wasted productivity. If it wasnt wasted, the govt wouldn't have to subsidize it. Obbviously the military is an exception and falls under a different type of argument - in that case, its just as simple as if we stop occupying countries we dont need to maintain a huge force capable of occupying a country. I would keep Naval and Air Force and R&D spending for example, but how many standing divisions of Heavy Armor and Artillery do we really need if we arent going to be fighting the Soviets on a huge European battlefield?

Free markets have a much better track record than govt intervention at creating value, and long term growth. Created value is ultimately what drives economic growth. Eliminating non value-add activities, and economic distortions simply frees up those resources to start pursuing activities that actually add value.

GOP and Bush happened. I am starting to think Romnesia must be an epidemic on the right.

You do understand if I apply your "logic" and Romney gets somehow elected, it will instantly become his fault? I hope even you can see flawed logic here.

Derid, when you say "historically happened", what exactly are you referring to?

I can think of a number of historical examples where economies outright collapsed, usually it take 20+ years to get back to recover and has a high chance of autocrat coming to power. I think your worst-case scenario is overly optimistic.

I think post-WWI Germany is very likely scenario if US economy is allowed to collapse so you can start building your ideologically pure economy.

Nah, post WW1 Germany took place because of the insane punitive measures the French imposed on the German economy. Trying to imagine that the same would happen here, even though the distorting and limiting factors on our economic fundamentals had been *reduced seems like a nonstarter.

/tangent
This is a bit tangential, but while we are talking about WWW1-WW2, its worth noting that when discussing military interventionism and adventurism WW2 is often brought up. (Not particularly directed at you sinij since you aren't a military interventionist afaik) Interventionists often ask non-interventionists "yes but what about WW2, we had to fight that didnt we?". And the answer is always "well, yes but WW2 was different" sometimes its pointed out we were attacked etc.

The truth is, we were obligated morally to fight WW2 because we basically caused it with our inane, unnecessary and unwarranted involvement in WW1. For no particularly good reason, we injected ourselves into WW1, which unlike WW2 *was just another example of European political stupidity - and handed the Brits and French a victory at great cost to ourselves. The results of this meddling was the French punishing the everlasting shit out of the Germans, leading to the downfall of the Wiemar Republic and the continual state of Mideast strife that is the result of the Brits breakup and partition of the Ottoman Empire - and they were likely insane with their handling of that quite deliberately to ensure that strife would keep the former Ottoman areas weak for the foreseeable future. We are still, as the now preeminent Western power, dealing with the blowback from that to this day.
/end tangent


Recessions happen all the time, the one experienced from turning the flow of ill-created Fed bloat off would not likely be particularly harsh or long. It would be a simple occurrence of a process of adjustment. Overall productivity and value would go up, simply because the burden on the economy overall would be lessened.

If you want to talk about "when has this occurred" - well, its the natural state of things during any time where massively boneheaded govt interventions arent manifesting themselves in the form of thing like the Great Depression, or the recent Great Recession. Typically, in most times in most places, things improve where the govt is not committing some colossal blunders. There are always anomalies and quirks, but the type of govt interventionism we have that we are talking about reducing has never in any way been shown to smooth out those quirks - so there should be no reason to keep them.

back to the point.

a recession would definitely happen if the cuts took place all at once. if you do 5% a year, you could ease ghe pain.

however, as derid points out, the money we are spending isnt "real". its borrowed or printed as debt.

the economy is being propped up by this govenment spending. call it an entitlement bubble.

oh when i say welfare i mean all welfare. i also prefer a flat tax- no funny business. put ghe entire tax lawyer profession out of business

I would support flat tax if first 25K of all income (inflation-adjusted) was excluded from any taxes.

I could get behind that. Taxing the bottom 20% really does not generate much in terms of absolute revenue, but does have an asymmetric negative push on their finances.

I too find no fault with this. Make it happen!!

This is how compromise suppose to work. Write your representatives to remind them!

the only serious proposal i read was personal deduction 25k, family of 4 60k (i think) 17% on everything after that

whoops. that was steve forbes back in 2000 i think

ok here we go http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/forbes_flat_tax.html

it doesnt say what the personal is, but a family of 4 has a 36k deduction. it should probably be higher.

on a related note, this study needs to be redone. http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html

It get tedious to agree on everything.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, when you say flat tax, you mean FLAT TAX ON EVERYTHING, including dividends and benefits taxed as income, right?

You are a mindless drone.

I feel like I should remind you Obama had 18 months of a majority house & Senate. He barely was able to get Obamacare passed, not because of republicans as you Obamanites like to believe, there were 5 or 6 democrats that voted against it.

Then after the Dems lost the house majority Obama had a chance to be a REAL leader. Of course he didn't, so the rest if history. Obama is a fucking joke as a leader.

Wolfgang, do you see "real leader" capitulating to GOP hostage-taking? When most GOP signed "I will not negotiate" pledges? When GOP machine explicitly stated that their goal is to defeat Obama first, everything else second?

Well if the President met with you and you gave him a "wish list" and he told you that your party lost and that wasn't going to happen. Don't you think that show's some serious disrespect, Who cares that they signed a pledge, people sign shit everyday but still negotiate. Obama is as guilty or more so than anyone with the failure at not getting to the negotiating table.

How many meetings have you heard of them having??? A REAL leader would have gotten it done. Actions speak louder than words, Obama's actions towards the republicans was of disrespect. He never tried to gain their respect because he didn't want it. Look at every strong leader through-out history you will find they didn't like a lot of their counter parts, but they were able to respect them enough to work with them. Look at the man I have on my Signature, General George Patton. He was a hated man, and he hated some of the people he worked with. But he was still able to get the job done. As a President your role is to be THE LEADER.