Bush Speechwriter David Frum says Republican Party has been hijacked

• Footwedge

  For what it's worth.....the cost of living differentials reflects the overall economy of the individual areas. It's kind of like a localized inflation. Inflation has negative implications associated with it....but the truth is, inflation is usually a bi-product of a growing economy. There are some exceptions to the rule of course.
  
  In general terms, those areas that have a high cost of living, also have the best overall economy.
  
  As for the listings of poor red states vs. wealthy blue states....that is more a reflection on religious values placed by the voters moreso than the economic situation.
  
  In other words...the GOP base is contrived of pro free markets/wealth, but also those that are very strong in religion and faith. Much of the south view the democrats as anti theistic and also too liberal on social issues. I don't think economics is the determining factor in the south as to which party they vote for.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I have a question (well a couple) for the bleeding hearts here. I'm not going to get into social issues like abortion or gay marriage, because those aren't going to be the end of this country. I don't think the federal government should have a say in either of those issues, in favor of or against.
  
  Anyway, what would you think about this scenario?
  
  1. The government eliminates all subsidies, tax credits, Medicare, any spending that is directed to a specific industry. (Also cut military spending, but that isn't really relevant here.)
  
  2. We lower tax rates across the boards. The top rates come down, and the lower incomes get more money back than they paid.
  
  3. The federal government keeps the following safety nets, unemployment benefits, Social Security (leave it in for now because I don't know what to do with it yet), and even welfare for people who don't want to work. In this scenario we will even increase the amount of money people get in these programs.
  
  4. All of the biggest companies are broken up into smaller companies. Some basic environmental regulations can remain in place, and other than that the federal government is out of the economy. No more Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, federal grants, federal student loans. Nothing else.
  
  If this happened, the market would bring prices of everything down in a hurry. Health care would be affordable because the monopolies would now be competing against each other and everyone else. College tuition would come down because no one could pay for what it is now. The cost of housing would come down without the federal government backing mortgage loans.
  
  The price deflation would make for a rough transition, but when the market was corrected, everything would be cheap.
  
  You still have your safety nets, only instead of grandma getting her Social Security and Medicare, she gets a little more from Social Security and can buy her own health insurance. The guy who is making $20,000 a year will end up making like $21,000 after taxes after a small redistribution of the income, and with cheaper prices he will easily be able to afford a health insurance plan.
  
  If you keep the government out of specifics parts of the economy, and keep companies from getting too big, you can let the market run free and bring prices down to where they should be. You can still have federal safety nets so people aren't starving on the streets, and the lower prices would be better for them too.
  
  So for those of you who believe in big government because you think it is the best way to make sure everyone has help if they need it, what would you say to something like this?
• Footwedge

  believer wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:Gibby is wrong....as I stated on the previous page, Byrd was a KKK member for about 8 years. But to his credit, he repeatedly and vigorously denounced his participation in those activities after he entered politics.

  Yeah...for political expediency. If Byrd were a Republican his political career wouldn't have been quite so lengthy.
  
  Do I think Byrd changed his racist heart and mind?
  
  "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” — Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
  
  I doubt it.

  Yup...doesn't get any more racist than that. But he renounced his behavior once he became involved with politics. He changed from being very socially conservative to becoming a social liberal.
  
  Even George Wallace had an "awakening" during his lifetime.
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck wrote: I have a question (well a couple) for the bleeding hearts here. I'm not going to get into social issues like abortion or gay marriage, because those aren't going to be the end of this country. I don't think the federal government should have a say in either of those issues, in favor of or against.
  
  Anyway, what would you think about this scenario?
  
  1. The government eliminates all subsidies, tax credits, Medicare, any spending that is directed to a specific industry. (Also cut military spending, but that isn't really relevant here.)
  
  2. We lower tax rates across the boards. The top rates come down, and the lower incomes get more money back than they paid.
  
  3. The federal government keeps the following safety nets, unemployment benefits, Social Security (leave it in for now because I don't know what to do with it yet), and even welfare for people who don't want to work. In this scenario we will even increase the amount of money people get in these programs.
  
  4. All of the biggest companies are broken up into smaller companies.Some basic environmental regulations can remain in place, and other than that the federal government is out of the economy. No more Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, federal grants, federal student loans. Nothing else.
  
  If this happened, the market would bring prices of everything down in a hurry. Health care would be affordable because the monopolies would now be competing against each other and everyone else. College tuition would come down because no one could pay for what it is now. The cost of housing would come down without the federal government backing mortgage loans.
  
  The price deflation would make for a rough transition, but when the market was corrected, everything would be cheap.
  
  You still have your safety nets, only instead of grandma getting her Social Security and Medicare, she gets a little more from Social Security and can buy her own health insurance. The guy who is making $20,000 a year will end up making like $21,000 after taxes after a small redistribution of the income, and with cheaper prices he will easily be able to afford a health insurance plan.
  
  If you keep the government out of specifics parts of the economy, and keep companies from getting too big, you can let the market run free and bring prices down to where they should be. You can still have federal safety nets so people aren't starving on the streets, and the lower prices would be better for them too.
  
  So for those of you who believe in big government because you think it is the best way to make sure everyone has help if they need it, what would you say to something like this?

  I'd say that you overestimate the rational thinking of a completely unrestrained free market.
  
  Daniel Day Lewis will drink your milkshake and there will be nothing you can do about it.
  
  I'm not for big government per se but I think that there are areas where regulations are definitely good ideas. I also feel that there are some places we have poorly thought out and even poorly justified regulations.
  
  I think things like federal student loans are a good idea that could be implemented better. And FAFSA needs redone or killed and replaced.
  
  There's got to be a balance. If you strip away regulations and all social programs you get companies run by ruthless guys that don't care that they're fucking over everybody. Which I guess can also be said about any government program too but...
  
  Point being that I don't share your unrelenting faith that a free market will do what's good for everyone. Not to say I'm anti free market but sometime industries screw up so consistently and purposefully that they need the right to police themselves removed.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: I'd say that you overestimate the rational thinking of a completely unrestrained free market.
  
  Daniel Day Lewis will drink your milkshake and there will be nothing you can do about it.
  
  I'm not for big government per se but I think that there are areas where regulations are definitely good ideas. I also feel that there are some places we have poorly thought out and even poorly justified regulations.
  
  I think things like federal student loans are a good idea that could be implemented better. And FAFSA needs redone or killed and replaced.
  
  There's got to be a balance. If you strip away regulations and all social programs you get companies run by ruthless guys that don't care that they're fucking over everybody. Which I guess can also be said about any government program too but...
  
  Point being that I don't share your unrelenting faith that a free market will do what's good for everyone. Not to say I'm anti free market but sometime industries screw up so consistently and purposefully that they need the right to police themselves removed.

  I'm pretty sure you're confusing a true free market economy where no company gets big enough to distort the market with what our economy has been the past 100 years. They are totally different things. Still, you could give some examples of what you mean by "fucking over everybody" or "screw up so consistently and purposefully" and then I would know what you are talking about a little better.
• I Wear Pants

  A true free market economy where no company gets big enough to distort the market doesn't exist and I imagine cannot exist.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  It doesn't exist, but it certainly could. An economy with zero involvement by the government except to break up companies that reach a certain size would be a true free market. There would always be competition to keep companies honest and in check. When you have two or three huge companies dominating an industry they can pretty much do whatever they want. If someone needs their business, they don't have much of a choice where to go. And if they are too big to fail then the government has to step in and throw trillions of dollars at them when they fuck up. If that same industry consists of 15 smaller companies competing against each other, they aren't all going to work together to fix prices. Someone will want the business they can take by lowering their prices. If one of them goes bankrupt no one will give a shit because there are 14 other guys to pick up the slack. That is how it is supposed to be.
• HitsRus

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: A true free market economy where no company gets big enough to distort the market doesn't exist and I imagine cannot exist.

  I f it is market distortion that you worry about....
  more government is definitely not the answer.... in most cases it is the biggest 'market distorter" of them all.