This man has my vote if he decides to run

[mAdMaLuDaWg]

Sanford on Stimulus

This guy is one of the governors that actually gets it. I hope he decides to run in 2012

And I bet someone is going to post a video of him drawing a blank when asked about McCain on CNN.

Draft Sanford

 

[LegendKiller]

What's his position on Iraq, Gay Marriage, religion, among others? Don't see anything clearly evident. I'm waiting for a fiscal conservative / social liberal that's not a freak like Paul. Seems like this guy is a more balanced, has an MBA, which is good in my view. As a former i-banker, he might actually get it.

 

[bamacre]

So, LK, would you vote against this "stimulus" package?

 

[kylebisme]

What is he talking about in regards to Japan in the '90s? I'm not familiar with any such economic stimulus programs there.

Also, with his dismissal of the New Deal, I'm at a loss as to what he credits for the economic recovery and rise of the middle class though the following decades.

Can anyone make any sense his arguments here?

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
What is he talking about in regards to Japan in the '90s? I'm not familiar with any such economic stimulus programs there.

Also, with his dismissal of the New Deal, I'm at a loss as to what he credits for the economic recovery and rise of the middle class though the following decades.

Can anyone make any sense his arguments here?

New Deal was ineffective, turnaround can be attributed to the war. That is what some claim.

 

[kylebisme]

How do those some argue around the fact that employment and GDP rose sharply well well before the effort war?

And regardless, does that leave them with the argument that we need more war to stimulate our economy?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre
So, LK, would you vote against this "stimulus" package?

In its current form? No.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
What is he talking about in regards to Japan in the '90s? I'm not familiar with any such economic stimulus programs there.

Also, with his dismissal of the New Deal, I'm at a loss as to what he credits for the economic recovery and rise of the middle class though the following decades.

Can anyone make any sense his arguments here?

New Deal was ineffective, turnaround can be attributed to the war. That is what some claim.

And they would be wrong in their claims. Unemployment was declining quickly pre-war.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It`s all GWB`s fault......lol.....
What a strategy.....the Republicans knew they would not win this election...hell they even nominated a sacrificial lamb....ie Johnathan McCain.
But by screwing things up so bad they knew nothing the Democrats could do would will fix this mess we are in!!


lolol

 

[nageov3t]

I thought he would have made a great VP pick.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
It`s all GWB`s fault......lol.....
What a strategy.....the Republicans knew they would not win this election...hell they even nominated a sacrificial lamb....ie Johnathan McCain.
But by screwing things up so bad they knew nothing the Democrats could do would will fix this mess we are in!!


lolol

Are you are being serious?

 

[First]

I don't understand how he can say with a straight face that the Golden Gate bridge and other public works projects during the late 20's and early 30's was an attempt at stimulating the economy that failed, and that it's proof another stimulus will fail, when those projects completely failed to address the actual reason for the Depression. Which was deflation, as a result of huge money supply contraction leading to massively reduced wages, investment, and consumer confidence. Fed let the money supply contract, their public works stimulus was nowhere near adequate, basically they "let the market figure it out", and it's exactly why this stimulus must be big enough to have some significant impact. The infusion of dollars alone should be a big help, especially with foreign countries looking to the U.S. dollar as a safe haven(Austrians wrong here yet again).

And Japan in the 90's? I'd love to hear what stimulus Japan tried in the 90's that failed when they didn't have any bullets left in their monetary policy chamber, greatly exacerbated by a population that does nothing but save, never borrow, and never take risks with startups.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
What is he talking about in regards to Japan in the '90s? I'm not familiar with any such economic stimulus programs there.
Also, with his dismissal of the New Deal, I'm at a loss as to what he credits for the economic recovery and rise of the middle class though the following decades.

Can anyone make any sense his arguments here?

They threw money at the problem while ignoring the real problem: namely structural reform. In that respect Sandford is dead wrong. Unlike Japan, the United States is looking at true regulatory reform.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Sanford is on the Fundie Fringe where Romney wanted to be - but he doesn't doesn't carry Romney's flip-flopping baggage.

Sanford supports teacher-led prayer and displaying the Ten Commandments. He supports vouchers. K-12 education in SC is in a self-inflicted death spiral. A few years ago they restructured funding from local-based property taxes to a dedicated state sales tax which has been declining the last several years. People are up in arms because funding seems to favor better-off counties to the detriment of poor counties.

The last year or so they have been borrowing money from the Fed to keep their unemployment insurance afloat. State universities are hoping for a Federal bailout. Their latest 'plan' to save money involves abolishing parole and probation (I think Sanford may make an announcement today).

This has been bouncing around for over a year between the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Gov. The plan is generally based upon Virginia's experience. The money saved typically goes into a prison building program.

IIRC the Virginia plan started out great but has now created a big stink because local jails are now holding state prisoners for extended periods.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Sanford is on the Fundie Fringe where Romney wanted to be - but he doesn't doesn't carry Romney's flip-flopping baggage.

Sanford supports teacher-led prayer and displaying the Ten Commandments. He supports vouchers. K-12 education in SC is in a self-inflicted death spiral. A few years ago they restructured funding from local-based property taxes to a dedicated state sales tax which has been declining the last several years. People are up in arms because funding seems to favor better-off counties to the detriment of poor counties.

The last year or so they have been borrowing money from the Fed to keep their unemployment insurance afloat. State universities are hoping for a Federal bailout. Their latest 'plan' to save money involves abolishing parole and probation (I think Sanford may make an announcement today).

This has been bouncing around for over a year between the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Gov. The plan is generally based upon Virginia's experience. The money saved typically goes into a prison building program.

IIRC the Virginia plan started out great but has now created a big stink because local jails are now holding state prisoners for extended periods.

Thanks. That more or less eliminates this guy.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
What is he talking about in regards to Japan in the '90s? I'm not familiar with any such economic stimulus programs there.

Also, with his dismissal of the New Deal, I'm at a loss as to what he credits for the economic recovery and rise of the middle class though the following decades.

Can anyone make any sense his arguments here?

New Deal was ineffective, turnaround can be attributed to the war. That is what some claim.

And they would be wrong in their claims. Unemployment was declining quickly pre-war.

Unemployemnt was declining quickly pre-war because spending was rising sharply in preparation for war as the US military began expanding and sales of war materials to Great Britain began increasing. Roosevelts New Deal was only marginally effective in offsetting the GD.

Roosevelt did not want to follow a path of heavy deficit spending like Sweden, Germany and others did. In fact, both these countries came out of the GD ahead of the US. Sweden because of deficit spending and Germany too with deficit spending as it rearmed and expanded its military.

The social programs had little to nothing to do with any economic recovery. It was expansion of the industrial base and investment in those areas where goods were made that brought us out of the GD and that started when spending for the war began in 1939-1941.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
What is he talking about in regards to Japan in the '90s? I'm not familiar with any such economic stimulus programs there.

Also, with his dismissal of the New Deal, I'm at a loss as to what he credits for the economic recovery and rise of the middle class though the following decades.

Can anyone make any sense his arguments here?

New Deal was ineffective, turnaround can be attributed to the war. That is what some claim.

And they would be wrong in their claims. Unemployment was declining quickly pre-war.

Unemployemnt was declining quickly pre-war because spending was rising sharply in preparation for war as the US military began expanding and sales of war materials to Great Britain began increasing. Roosevelts New Deal was only marginally effective in offsetting the GD.

Roosevelt did not want to follow a path of heavy deficit spending like Sweden, Germany and others did. In fact, both these countries came out of the GD ahead of the US. Sweden because of deficit spending and Germany too with deficit spending as it rearmed and expanded its military.

The social programs had little to nothing to do with any economic recovery. It was expansion of the industrial base and investment in those areas where goods were made that brought us out of the GD and that started when spending for the war began in 1939-1941.

Please, unemployment was declining rapidly way before the Lend/Lease act, or any type of re-armamanet was beginning in the US.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
What is he talking about in regards to Japan in the '90s? I'm not familiar with any such economic stimulus programs there.

Also, with his dismissal of the New Deal, I'm at a loss as to what he credits for the economic recovery and rise of the middle class though the following decades.

Can anyone make any sense his arguments here?

New Deal was ineffective, turnaround can be attributed to the war. That is what some claim.

And they would be wrong in their claims. Unemployment was declining quickly pre-war.

Unemployemnt was declining quickly pre-war because spending was rising sharply in preparation for war as the US military began expanding and sales of war materials to Great Britain began increasing. Roosevelts New Deal was only marginally effective in offsetting the GD.

Roosevelt did not want to follow a path of heavy deficit spending like Sweden, Germany and others did. In fact, both these countries came out of the GD ahead of the US. Sweden because of deficit spending and Germany too with deficit spending as it rearmed and expanded its military.

The social programs had little to nothing to do with any economic recovery. It was expansion of the industrial base and investment in those areas where goods were made that brought us out of the GD and that started when spending for the war began in 1939-1941.

Please, unemployment was declining rapidly way before the Lend/Lease act, or any type of re-armamanet was beginning in the US.

Sigh

Unemployment rates
1932 23.6%
1933 24.9%
1934 21.7% Sweden emerges from GD
1935 20.1%
1936 16.9% Germany emerges from GD
1937 14.3% recession starts summer of 1937
1938 19.0% recession continues, Britain emerges from GD
1939 17.2% US and other countries emerge from GD as spending for war preparations takes over

So, no, unemployment was not falling rapidly. War preparations and the industrial expansion required for that was the leading indicator of most countries coming out of the GD.

 

[EXman]

This guy doesn't want a welfare state for govenors from mayors...

:thumbsup:


My local mayor asked for 575 million. How many people did he consult? ZERO. :roll: :laugh:

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
What is he talking about in regards to Japan in the '90s? I'm not familiar with any such economic stimulus programs there.

Also, with his dismissal of the New Deal, I'm at a loss as to what he credits for the economic recovery and rise of the middle class though the following decades.

Can anyone make any sense his arguments here?

New Deal was ineffective, turnaround can be attributed to the war. That is what some claim.

And they would be wrong in their claims. Unemployment was declining quickly pre-war.

Unemployemnt was declining quickly pre-war because spending was rising sharply in preparation for war as the US military began expanding and sales of war materials to Great Britain began increasing. Roosevelts New Deal was only marginally effective in offsetting the GD.

Roosevelt did not want to follow a path of heavy deficit spending like Sweden, Germany and others did. In fact, both these countries came out of the GD ahead of the US. Sweden because of deficit spending and Germany too with deficit spending as it rearmed and expanded its military.

The social programs had little to nothing to do with any economic recovery. It was expansion of the industrial base and investment in those areas where goods were made that brought us out of the GD and that started when spending for the war began in 1939-1941.

Please, unemployment was declining rapidly way before the Lend/Lease act, or any type of re-armamanet was beginning in the US.

Sigh

Unemployment rates
1932 23.6%
1933 24.9%
1934 21.7% Sweden emerges from GD
1935 20.1%
1936 16.9% Germany emerges from GD
1937 14.3% recession starts summer of 1937
1938 19.0% recession continues, Britain emerges from GD
1939 17.2% US and other countries emerge from GD as spending for war preparations takes over

So, no, unemployment was not falling rapidly. War preparations and the industrial expansion required for that was the leading indicator of most countries coming out of the GD.

Unemployment had declined more than 25% from the peak before wartime spending had increased dramatically.

Yes, Sweden spent a ton of money to get out of the GD sooner, but they also had a far lighter GD than most of the world to begin with. Germany and GB exiting did have everything to do with the war spending.

Other countries entered or exited sooner or later than the US due to a myriad of reasons. No single broad-based attribute can explain the country's situations (except the war).

The New Deal was more than marginally effective but could have been much more effective. Was it the correct decision? Depending on what you were willing to pay for. Taking Sweden's route wasn't appetizing, so we took the ND.

You get what you pay for.

 

[Codewiz]

I live in South Carolina. One of the first things Sanford did here in SC when he became governor was to cut education funding to state college. All the state colleges went apeshit over it. Guess what? Few years later, they are just as well off now as they were before.

Sanford showed that cutting spending WORKS!!!

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
I live in South Carolina. One of the first things Sanford did here in SC when he became governor was to cut education funding to state college. All the state colleges went apeshit over it. Guess what? Few years later, they are just as well off now as they were before.

Sanford showed that cutting spending WORKS!!!

I don't really care where he stands on social issues. If he is really willing to cut spending like that then he has my support. The number 1 problem right now in government is to much damn spending. It would be so sweet to have a president who would take a hard stand on spending issues. This country takes in more than enough in taxes it just needs to learn to budget that money properly.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Codewiz
I live in South Carolina. One of the first things Sanford did here in SC when he became governor was to cut education funding to state college. All the state colleges went apeshit over it. Guess what? Few years later, they are just as well off now as they were before.

Sanford showed that cutting spending WORKS!!!

I don't really care where he stands on social issues. If he is really willing to cut spending like that then he has my support. The number 1 problem right now in government is to much damn spending. It would be so sweet to have a president who would take a hard stand on spending issues. This country takes in more than enough in taxes it just needs to learn to budget that money properly.

From my view from living in SC under Sanford, he is a libertarian similar to Ron Paul. That isn't to say he doesn't fold to pressures. He had been turning down federal money for unemployment but eventually folded and took the federal money but he did so only after he exhausted every other option.

Basically the whole state college thing caused tons of people to go crazy. He simply said, raise your tuition. He was right because for example Clemson University had TONS of out of state kids coming there because tuition was dirt cheap. Northerners were sending their kids to Clemson and buying them cars because it was cheaper than staying in state up north.

Clemson raised their rates to cover the cuts and out of state enrollment stayed the same. The question was simple, why were SC taxpayers subsidizing out of state college students for zero reason.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Codewiz
I live in South Carolina. One of the first things Sanford did here in SC when he became governor was to cut education funding to state college. All the state colleges went apeshit over it. Guess what? Few years later, they are just as well off now as they were before.

Sanford showed that cutting spending WORKS!!!

I don't really care where he stands on social issues. If he is really willing to cut spending like that then he has my support. The number 1 problem right now in government is to much damn spending. It would be so sweet to have a president who would take a hard stand on spending issues. This country takes in more than enough in taxes it just needs to learn to budget that money properly.

From my view from living in SC under Sanford, he is a libertarian similar to Ron Paul. That isn't to say he doesn't fold to pressures. He had been turning down federal money for unemployment but eventually folded and took the federal money but he did so only after he exhausted every other option.

Basically the whole state college thing caused tons of people to go crazy. He simply said, raise your tuition. He was right because for example Clemson University had TONS of out of state kids coming there because tuition was dirt cheap. Northerners were sending their kids to Clemson and buying them cars because it was cheaper than staying in state up north.

Clemson raised their rates to cover the cuts and out of state enrollment stayed the same. The question was simple, why were SC taxpayers subsidizing out of state college students for zero reason.

I've never seen a college charge in-state students the same as out of state students. Never.

Either they were just stupid, or there was something else going on that you aren't disclosing.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Codewiz
I live in South Carolina. One of the first things Sanford did here in SC when he became governor was to cut education funding to state college. All the state colleges went apeshit over it. Guess what? Few years later, they are just as well off now as they were before.

Sanford showed that cutting spending WORKS!!!

I don't really care where he stands on social issues. If he is really willing to cut spending like that then he has my support. The number 1 problem right now in government is to much damn spending. It would be so sweet to have a president who would take a hard stand on spending issues. This country takes in more than enough in taxes it just needs to learn to budget that money properly.

From my view from living in SC under Sanford, he is a libertarian similar to Ron Paul. That isn't to say he doesn't fold to pressures. He had been turning down federal money for unemployment but eventually folded and took the federal money but he did so only after he exhausted every other option.

Basically the whole state college thing caused tons of people to go crazy. He simply said, raise your tuition. He was right because for example Clemson University had TONS of out of state kids coming there because tuition was dirt cheap. Northerners were sending their kids to Clemson and buying them cars because it was cheaper than staying in state up north.

Clemson raised their rates to cover the cuts and out of state enrollment stayed the same. The question was simple, why were SC taxpayers subsidizing out of state college students for zero reason.

I've never seen a college charge in-state students the same as out of state students. Never.

Either they were just stupid, or there was something else going on that you aren't disclosing.

I NEVER said the same amount. I just said it was dirt cheap for out of state students.

For instance when I went to Clemson in state tuition was $1200/semester

Out of state tuition was $4000/semester.

Now compare the fact that it was considered a top 25 public university, the education was DIRT cheap.