Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Finance, the economy & Economics Simple Fact: Republicans Can't Manage the Economy

I think it's impossible to know the truth about how government claims how they manage money, appropriate, and legislate redistribution of wealth.

All the formulas, facts, and figures they throw at the public...how can we, the average citizen have a clue as to the validity of anything the government discloses to the American public.

After the up coming election:

Nothing will change...only some new faces sitting in seats occupied by others who went to Washington save America from whatever woes existed at the time of major elections.

Lest we forget, promises is the candy politicians dangle in front of the voters...knowing that hook, line, and sinker...they'll do exactly what's always been done in the past.

There's no real evidence to the contrary that politicians will alter our economic problems that truly benefit the public at this point-in-time....is there? Am I missing something? Has politics revolutionized itself over the last 24 hours or so?

Any changes made would have to be radical changes that our government would do that would make our economic situation any bettter...and would surely lessen it's power. They aren't crazy. The game has lasted to long and has paid off too well to surrender any power back to the people.

Our economics now is too tied to the war. Our gov. can't admit that were beyond bankrupt.

Its an oversimplification to claim that politicians are all the same (EG. lying crooks), and therefore the situation is hopeless. Actually, that very idea is the core of Conservative belief: "Government is ineffective."

But that is actually just the Conservative Fantasy. They WISH government was always ineffective, and they start to believe their own propaganda. Conservative politicians get elected on that premise, and then do their best to demontrate it once in office.

But if you elect people who understand the types of problems that only government can handle, they can sometimes get very good results. For example, most of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco that is currently dragging down the economy is the direct result of Conservatives "freeing lenders from excessive regulation". Well, it turns out that lenders NEED to be regulated by the federal government because otherwise their short-term goals lead them to compete on the basis of lending money to people who won't be able to pay it back.

Obviously, we need an administration that has the ideology (and the cojones) to tell lenders "Don't Do That!". Then they can correct some of the Bush economic imbalances by restructuring the tax rules so middle class and working people have more money left in their paychecks. That will directly stimulate the economy to a much greater extent than cutting taxes for the top 1%. Finally, they can also divert some of the billions we are throwing down the Iraq-hole to start building an alternate domestic energy infrastructure. That would employ many who have been laid off, had their jobs off-shored, or mustered out of the armed forces. It would also have the sublime benefit of cutting the flow of billions of our dollars to people who hate us.

How do we get all of this good stuff to come to pass? Simple: Elect people who understand that only government can accomplish those goals. Even if they line their pockets, screw the pages and interns, employ their relatives, pick up men in restrooms, etc., there really are politicians who can get stuff done.

"Pondering it all" is absolutely correct. An additional thing that only a government can do is to repair our roads, bridges and dams. Workers would be needed at all skill levels and we could start using our current technology to enhance it all - adding transportation items such as the Pacific "Coaster" that is available to the people in San Diego. It works, its fast, and, it is fun! Back to regulating the banks and the airlines and trains, using green technology - use sensors in roads to tell us where they are breaking down in order to fix early and thus more inexpensively. Government needs to work for people not the so-called defense industry.

PIA...

How bout paying our lawmakers 5 million a year salary each to do an honest job. Outlaw lobbyist and special interest groups and imposing seriously stiff sentences to all who just can't abide by the law. And...take away all of the self-created protection laws that government officials and employees enjoy...that the rest of the citizens fry for and spend time in jail for.

Ponder, you said:
I can dig that too...but, the question is...which crook, intern and page screwing, restroom picker upper is smart enough and has enough understanding of government and enough power to control the ones who don't. In other words...where do we find 600 people with such qualifications? Once we find them...how do we get them to run for office? Once we get them to run for office...how can we make sure that they're elected?

Wait, let me back up a few steps...How do we get the American voters to become informed enough to clearly know when a person with such qualifications is running?

I suspect that you are, in general, right. The only quibble I have is that I believe its been going on for a very long time and is simply more visible now. I believe that has happened because nobody has put a stop to it so the powers that be think its ok to just keep on doing it (they are, I think, right). I don't think that anybody can argue against the fact that, right now, there is a wider gap between them with, and them without, than we have had for a very long time. I also suspect that the fact that there are over 40,000 registered lobbyists, currently working Washington DC, kinda defines the problem, and also messages the current firesale congress seems to be having. We are, I believe, being literally sold out and that doesn't even warrant a mention on the evening news.

It would be nice to believe that this is going to turn around and that one of the current crop of candidates can actually make a difference. I, however, doubt that's going to happen. These prophets for 'change' fascinate and entertain but..... On the Democratic side we have Hillary, a self confessed long time politician taking money from anybody she can. Then we have Obama who might actually try but seems to lack something. I think its because is is so unflaggingly 'nice'. On the Republican side we have a religious zealot, a long time serving senator and a Mormon who has proven he can pander at just about any level you choose. Even if we somehow managed to elect a candidate that was willing and able to make necessary changes that candidate would still have to work with a congress that seems actually proud of its own corruption! (they are able to collude to earmark for 'contributions' but are unable to do the nation's business).

On the other hand we have been in trouble before. In spite of that we have managed to somehow muddle through. I just hope this is one of those times!

Bwaahahahahaha! Can anyone define Bush's latest plan to distribute Treasury checks as anything OTHER THAN a 21st century Roman "free bread and circuses" attempt to mollify the Wal-Mart class of society that can't tell the difference between truth being the authority and authority being the truth?

The government is now handing out PAYCHECKS, and our job is to just drink our beer, watch our foop-baw and shut the hell up!

And I make too much money, so I won't be getting an eight hundred dollar payoff, and I do not plan on shutting up, natch.

JeffH in Occupied TX

Yes, Senators Clinton and Obama both seem to be "well-serviced" by corporate America's lobbyists. But Edwards is still in the race, and his main platform is to reject the current system of corporate ownership of the US government.

Even if Edwards finishes third, Clinton and Obama both need those Edwards (and Kucinich) supporters to win the nomination. That is why they are both adjusting their messages to appeal to the populists. The eventual winner never seems to ask their main rival to serve as VP (or at least if they do he doesn't agree), but I would not be surprised if either Clinton or Obama asked John Edwards to serve and I would not be surprised if he accepted. He has made a lot of statements about the populist agenda being more important than his winning the Presidency, so it would be pretty hypocritical if he opted out of the next administration given the chance to drive those issues.

Jeff,

I have an idea about the free 800.00 a person paycheck from Bush. He wants to salvage a few Republican's asses over the next couple of major elections. It's bribe money.

That's EXACTLY what it is, a bribe, straight up, and we're FINANCING it straight out of our pockets.
Bush isn't sending anyone HIS MONEY!

JeffH in Occupied TX

The President's latest "State of Denial" address highlights why it is that the GOP is so bad in economics. He claimed that the "average" taxpayer would have to pay "$1800.00" in more taxes if the tax breaks expire, but failed to note how that "average" came about. The "average" taxpayer would actually pay only $540 more, but the top taxbracket payers would pay an additional $30,000. Throwing them into the mix allows the "average" to rise by 400%. How is it that topbracket taxpayers get a 55:1 benefit? The tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the richest taxpayers, so that their effective tax rates are half or less than the "average" taxpayer.