Jon Huntsman (and the like): can they ever win

[PokerGuy]

Reagan, Bush1, Bush2. Fiscal conservatives who ran up the debt when they actually got in power, because when implemented as actual real world policy, fiscal conservatism is just trickle down.

Uh, pretending to be a 'fiscal conservative' doesn't mean you are one. That's what I've said all through this thread: there are lots of people who pretend to be fiscal conservatives favoring prudent financial moves, but very few who actually walk the walk -- in major part because we as a voting public demand that they do stupid things and spend money like drunken sailors.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Uh, pretending to be a 'fiscal conservative' doesn't mean you are one. That's what I've said all through this thread: there are lots of people who pretend to be fiscal conservatives favoring prudent financial moves, but very few who actually walk the walk -- in major part because we as a voting public demand that they do stupid things and spend money like drunken sailors.

Is it that they are pretending to be fiscally conservative or is it that fiscal conservatism is a abstract philosophy that is nearly impossible to implement in the real world. It seems that it is one of those philosophy that seems like a good idea when taken as a whole, but is a terrible answer for any individual choice.

 

[PokerGuy]

Can you? I've found the description of fiscal conservatism to be very malleable.

Nope, I can't remember when fiscal conservatives were actually in charge, which helps explain why we are $18 trillion in debt and every child in the country is born owing (at least) $57,000 at birth.

Well again, the economics literature right now points pretty strongly to our choice to increase the debt being a really really good idea. It's hard to argue that people aren't serious about reducing our debts if the actions they would take (cutting taxes and/or reducing spending) would have actually made our debt problem worse. (fiscal multipliers were above 1)

So you're back to the old "times are bad, now's not the right time to cut spending!" and "times are good, we can afford it, no need to cut spending!" mentality -- the outcome is always the same, more debt. Funny how each choice might seem like a "really really good idea" when viewed in the abstract, but together all those choices add up to $18 trillion in debt and a stagnant economy and shrinking middle class.

The lack of fiscal conservatism for decades is what has us in a giant debt hole. Keep in mind that to me "fiscal conservatism" doesn't just mean "cut spending!", it means more responsible and prudent spending, even if the level doesn't change. What we choose to spend on is just as important as how much we spend. People need to understand what they are asking the government to do, and they need to be willing to pay for it. For example, I would be in favor of incurring debt to undertake big projects that strengthen our infrastructure (electric, communications, IT security, roadways, bridges) because there is a long term positive payoff to those actions. Incurring more debt to waste is not a good investment. It's not just "cut spending", it's "spend smarter".

If you want to argue that the country and the economy are better off $18 trillion in debt then I don't know what to tell you, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[dank69]

Is it that they are pretending to be fiscally conservative or is it that fiscal conservatism is a abstract philosophy that is nearly impossible to implement in the real world. It seems that it is one of those philosophy that seems like a good idea when taken as a whole, but is a terrible answer for any individual choice.

No, it's more like enacting "fiscally conservative" policies often has the opposite effect on the deficit.

"Brownback enacted policies that fiscal conservatives have been pushing for but the the deficit got bigger anyway so Brownback is obviously not fiscally conservative."

 

[SMOGZINN]

People need to understand what they are asking the government to do, and they need to be willing to pay for it.

But therein lies the problem, in a country as large and diverse as ours nearly every idea sounds like a good and reasonable use of our resources to a large number of people, and those people are most of the time willing to pay for it, but there is a bunch of other people that it does not help so much and are not willing to pay for it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Is it that they are pretending to be fiscally conservative or is it that fiscal conservatism is a abstract philosophy that is nearly impossible to implement in the real world.

Indeed, it is very difficult in the real world, for the same reason it is very difficult in the real world to get people to set aside money for their retirement. We reward politicians telling us they will give us everything, and we punish those who say "whoa there, we have to pay for this stuff". As I've said before, the blame comes back to the voting public.

Fiscal conservatism demands difficult choices, sometimes even unpopular ones. Since we punish politicians that do the equivalent of telling us to put money in a 401(k) instead of buying a new TV, politicians have realized that it's politically beneficial and easier to just promise everything and continually borrow more money than it is to make tough choices.

 

[PokerGuy]

But therein lies the problem, in a country as large and diverse as ours nearly every idea sounds like a good and reasonable use of our resources to a large number of people, and those people are most of the time willing to pay for it, but there is a bunch of other people that it does not help so much and are not willing to pay for it.

Be that as it may, the reality is that if we have finite resources, we have to make choices as to how to best allocate. That doesn't mean everyone has to like every decision, but there have to be choices because of limits in available resources. Instead, when faced with tough choices, we've said "no worries, just do both, we'll just borrow". That makes sense in time of crisis, but it's a terrible long term policy, and we will continue to deal with the inevitable mountain of debt that follows such thinking.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope, I can't remember when fiscal conservatives were actually in charge, which helps explain why we are $18 trillion in debt and every child in the country is born owing (at least) $57,000 at birth.

This is not correct. You're counting intragovernmental holdings, which doesn't make much sense. (You're counting money the government owes itself)

So you're back to the old "times are bad, now's not the right time to cut spending!" and "times are good, we can afford it, no need to cut spending!" mentality -- the outcome is always the same, more debt. Funny how each choice might seem like a "really really good idea" when viewed in the abstract, but together all those choices add up to $18 trillion in debt and a stagnant economy and shrinking middle class.

I'm not back to it for two reasons:
1. That has literally never been my position.
2. It's not my position in the post you responded to either.

If you think we shouldn't deficit spend when the fiscal multiplier is above 1 I don't know what to say to you. It's odd to say that your concern is the debt and then advocate against deficit spending that by definition makes out debt situation better. You're saying we shouldn't take out $1 in debt even if we will be paid back $2 for it. No thanks.

The lack of fiscal conservatism for decades is what has us in a giant debt hole. Keep in mind that to me "fiscal conservatism" doesn't just mean "cut spending!", it means more responsible and prudent spending, even if the level doesn't change. What we choose to spend on is just as important as how much we spend. People need to understand what they are asking the government to do, and they need to be willing to pay for it. For example, I would be in favor of incurring debt to undertake big projects that strengthen our infrastructure (electric, communications, IT security, roadways, bridges) because there is a long term positive payoff to those actions. Incurring more debt to waste is not a good investment. It's not just "cut spending", it's "spend smarter".

If you want to argue that the country and the economy are better off $18 trillion in debt then I don't know what to tell you, we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's hard to see how this last paragraph even relates to our discussion. Our country is better off because of some of the debt and worse off because of some other parts of it. Debt is not inherently good or bad.

Regardless, you appear to be saying that a person like you describe has effectively never existed. can you name at least one from the entirety of US history?

 

[PokerGuy]

This is not correct. You're counting intragovernmental holdings, which doesn't make much sense. (You're counting money the government owes itself)

Actually, I was using the federal debt held by the public (I believe around $13 trillion), plus state and local debt (around $4.5 trillion) not including intra-governmental debt. I will readily admit that my memory might be off on those, and if so, feel free to correct me, but it doesn't change the argument at all.

If you think we shouldn't deficit spend when the fiscal multiplier is above 1 I don't know what to say to you. It's odd to say that your concern is the debt and then advocate against deficit spending that by definition makes out debt situation better. You're saying we shouldn't take out $1 in debt even if we will be paid back $2 for it. No thanks.

Where exactly did I say that? You're talking about a particular point in time and particular situation. I'm talking about an aggregation of the choices and the ultimate impact. You can look at individual decisions and decide if you think they were net positive or net negative, but when you look at the aggregate of the choices, 18 trillion and an ever rising percentage of GDP in debt is a bad thing.

Our country is better off because of some of the debt and worse off because of some other parts of it. Debt is not inherently good or bad.

Debt is by default bad, it carries with it inherent increased risk. However, if the analysis shows that incurring more debt brings a greater gain down the road (financial or not), a gain in excess of the price of the debt - a positive net ROI, then it could be a good idea. Right now, with the cost of borrowing so low, it's easier to make a case for borrowing and spending, but we still need to be more prudent in how / when / why.

Regardless, you appear to be saying that a person like you describe has effectively never existed. can you name at least one from the entirety of US history?

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying it's very difficult for a person to be fiscally conservative and make tough choices when the public is given the alternative option of "don't need to make a choice, do both". I consider Dwight Eisenhower to have been a fiscal conservative. Many pretend to be fiscal conservatives, but few can walk the walk because of us, the voters.

 

[theeedude]

Uh, pretending to be a 'fiscal conservative' doesn't mean you are one. That's what I've said all through this thread: there are lots of people who pretend to be fiscal conservatives favoring prudent financial moves, but very few who actually walk the walk -- in major part because we as a voting public demand that they do stupid things and spend money like drunken sailors.

OK, name one real fiscal conservative president then.

 

[PokerGuy]

OK, name one real fiscal conservative president then.

I know you're not very good at reading and comprehension.... or logic... or thinking... or much of anything, really.... but I just posted an example in my last post.

 

[soundforbjt]

I consider Dwight Eisenhower to have been a fiscal conservative. Many pretend to be fiscal conservatives, but few can walk the walk because of us, the voters.

Here's Ike's party platform from his 1956 re-election.
Sounds like a pretty liberal platform to me, he'd be called out as a RINO by today's right wing.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25838

 

[chucky2]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Dwight probably wouldn't have been for giving able bodied people money to sit at home and go out and buy Pepsi and Cheetos with, but hey, I could be wrong...

 

[soundforbjt]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Dwight probably wouldn't have been for giving able bodied people money to sit at home and go out and buy Pepsi and Cheetos with, but hey, I could be wrong...

Too bad no one listened when he warned that the nation should guard against the potential influence of the military–industrial complex.

 

[PokerGuy]

Here's Ike's party platform from his 1956 re-election.
Sounds like a pretty liberal platform to me, he'd be called out as a RINO by today's right wing.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25838

Hey, I didn't single him out as an example of a great president, just of as a fiscal conservative. That's just one part of the puzzle of course.

 

[theeedude]

I know you're not very good at reading and comprehension.... or logic... or thinking... or much of anything, really.... but I just posted an example in my last post.

Predictable response from someone incapable of posting anything of substance.
BTW, what were top marginal tax rates under Ike? He would be called tax and spend liberal today.

 

[irishScott]

The irony is people like that would probably win the general election handily, but would get skewered in the primary; and without party money they just won't be able to do anything in the general.

 

[PokerGuy]

Predictable response from someone incapable of posting anything of substance.
BTW, what were top marginal tax rates under Ike? He would be called tax and spend liberal today.

Looking at the top marginal rate is for simpletons. Effective rates are what actually matter. If you look at effective rates over the years and factor in the skyrocketing sales/property/local taxes, it's probably more now than it was then.

Regardless, I actually prefer tax and spend liberals over spend spend spend liberals as well as no-tax-and-still-spend conservatives. At least with the tax and spend liberals it's clear they want to take your money and waste it or hand it to cronies. With spend-and-no-tax people, the spending is just hidden from the average person through borrowing and deficits.

 

[theeedude]

Looking at the top marginal rate is for simpletons. Effective rates are what actually matter. If you look at effective rates over the years and factor in the skyrocketing sales/property/local taxes, it's probably more now than it was then.

Regardless, I actually prefer tax and spend liberals over spend spend spend liberals as well as no-tax-and-still-spend conservatives. At least with the tax and spend liberals it's clear they want to take your money and waste it or hand it to cronies. With spend-and-no-tax people, the spending is just hidden from the average person through borrowing and deficits.

So 92% top marginal tax rate = true fiscal conservative

Let's end on a note of agreement, I prefer tax and spend liberals too.

 

[soundforbjt]

Hey, I didn't single him out as an example of a great president, just of as a fiscal conservative. That's just one part of the puzzle of course.

I actually think Ike was the best republican president in the last 60+ years.
Who do you think was better since then and why?

 

[chucky2]

Too bad no one listened when he warned that the nation should guard against the potential influence of the military–industrial complex.

That is truly too bad indeed, but that ship has now long since sailed. Both parties are completely entrenched in it. Witness the F-35 for a no more perfect example...

 

[werepossum]

Here's Ike's party platform from his 1956 re-election.
Sounds like a pretty liberal platform to me, he'd be called out as a RINO by today's right wing.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25838

Dude, that's 1956, when the Republicans were THE social liberal party (not to mention isolationist and anti-war) and the Democrats were the social conservatives. Every civil rights movement and law from before way Lincoln had been proposed and advanced by Republicans, opposed by the Democrats. This was true up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was a rebranded Republican bill (although granted, it began changing in a big way in 60 when Kennedy made it a central part of his platform) and in subsuming the black vote, lost the white southern vote. That period, 1960 to 1964, is when the Republicans lost the black vote and like all political parties ever they were more concerned with themselves politically surviving and prospering than with principles, so they began turning into the socially conservative party. Except perhaps in fiscal policy, that Republican Party has almost nothing in common with today's party.

 

[soundforbjt]

Dude, that's 1956, when the Republicans were THE social liberal party (not to mention isolationist and anti-war) and the Democrats were the social conservatives. Every civil rights movement and law from before way Lincoln had been proposed and advanced by Republicans, opposed by the Democrats. This was true up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was a rebranded Republican bill (although granted, it began changing in a big way in 60 when Kennedy made it a central part of his platform) and in subsuming the black vote, lost the white southern vote. That period, 1960 to 1964, is when the Republicans lost the black vote and like all political parties ever they were more concerned with themselves politically surviving and prospering than with principles, so they began turning into the socially conservative party. Except perhaps in fiscal policy, that Republican Party has almost nothing in common with today's party.

Exactly why I said Ike was the best republican president in the last 60+ years.