Asymmetrical Information

The last 10-15 minutes were transcendent: the self-deprecating and human description of his own foibles, the discussions w/ 9/11 family members, the role of America in the world. He was comfortable, in command, and his words soared.

The laundry list of domestic accomplishments and proposals, less so.

His domestic programs seem to consist of promising to open the store and let everyone come in and take what they want. Intervention for students, community health centers, community colleges

Community colleges aren't such a bad idea, assuming the knowledge that's imparted brings back more than it costs.

However, he promised to put a community health center in each rural or poor county in the nation.

It sounds great until you realize that hospitals are shutting down as a direct result of Bush's policies. See California or Arizona: Arizona will be getting $42 million annually for the next four years as reimbursement to hospitals for treating illegal immigrants... Over the past 12 months... University Medical Center in Tucson lost about $400 million caring for immigrant patients. (In the first link, "uninsured" is a euphemism for "mostly citizens of other countries.")

If Bush isn't going to enforce the immigration laws then he should completely reimburse affected states. He can get the money either from the illegal aliens' home countries or from those companies which employ the illegal aliens.

So mindles, since you seem to belong to the fiscal conservative wing of the GOP I wonder how you feel about all of this?

I understand why stout social conservatives support Bush and the GOP. But fiscal conservatives?

Kerry may not want smaller government than Bush but at least he seems willing to pay for it.

Bush is like the guy that thinks a new credit card is really a pay increase.

I thought I made it clear how I feel about it.

A tax increase/retrenchment that only covers a third of your plans isn't exactly 'willing to pay for it'. To extend your analogy, Kerry is like a guy who goes on a bender in anticipation of receiving a cost-of-living increase.

There is no fiscal conservative candidate.

I agree none is fiscally conservative but, to me at least, its clear that Kerry is the most fiscally conservative (or the least liberal?).

He is willing to raise taxes. That, for one, is a huge advantage over Bush. And based on the people he is surrounding himself with I suspect he will turn out to be another Clinton on the fiscal side (Of course I have no 'proof' for that).

Bush was booooooring. I would have preferred a replay of Zell from hell. My main thought on the reps convention is that it was well produced, and likely made Reagen flip flop over in his grave. I mean seriously, Arnold is an admitted user of recreational drugs, participated in bisexual orgies, is pro abortion rights, and pro gun law. Rudy G was living with homosexuals while divorcing his wife, has used his children in an ugly custody battle, is pro abortion rights, pro handgun control, and was a joke until 911 made him popular. I think the Gipper would have said, "hasta la vista, baby."

The august jobs report was not a good report. It was a great improvement over last month's report, but the general expectations (around 150K jobs) were low. It was not a bad report, it was more of an inline report that gives some ammo to either party candidate.

i agree. he's better than kerry, but i sure didn't hear what i wanted to hear. i want to see a president who whole heartedly supports free trade, lower taxes and immigration. those are my top three issues and both candidates seem too shy to speak out strongly about these issues which in my opinion are the most important ones facing the country (together with security of course).

"I understand why stout social conservatives support Bush and the GOP. But fiscal conservatives?

Kerry may not want smaller government than Bush but at least he seems willing to pay for it. "

No, he's willing for us to pay for it.

The real focus should be on spending, period. It's the spending that either we or our children will have to pay for, and it's the spending that drives taxes that have to be collected over the long term.

Bush's total spending is less than Kerry's total spending. Thus, it's cheaper over the long term to pay for Bush's spending than it is to pay for Kerry's spending. Thus, regardless of the tax rates involved, those who favor fiscal restraint and lower long-term taxes will have to pull the lever for Bush. (Unless they go for the Libertarian guy, but I don't know too much about him...)

'Bush's total spending is less than Kerry's total spending. Thus, it's cheaper over the long term to pay for Bush's spending than it is to pay for Kerry's spending'

Incorrect. Bush would put this spending on the nation's credit card. But that involves paying interest. Hence, even if Bush's aggregate spending is less, the impact of interest will make it worse.

Lookit, if you're really a fiscal conservative, you should vote for Kerry.

Neither party is inclined to limit government growth by too much (though I trust the Dems more on this). But a Republican Congress will never give a President Kerry even a tenth of what he wants in expansion. Opposing expansion plays to their narrative strengths and allows them to gain back some much missed credibility on economic matters. Same party in charge of the Executive and Congress: more spending. And Dems have already proven themselves to be too feckless to oppose the spending of Bush.

No, if you want to rein in spending, vote Kerry in the presidential election, and (moderate) 'Pub everywhere else.

Erg:

Incorrect. Bush would put this spending on the nation's credit card. But that involves paying interest. Hence, even if Bush's aggregate spending is less, the impact of interest will make it worse.

Not exactly true in present value terms. Absent deflation, if there were no interest it would obviously be much cheaper to borrow. Interest, therefore, makes it the same or worse.

I'm obviously not a fan of spending, and there are other concerns such as crowding out and increasing the size of government, but I suggest it is only more expensive to borrow (on the margin) if the blended rate paid on the debt is lower than GDP growth over the borrowing period(or the real rate is lower than real GDP growth, if you like).

I would dearly love to cast a protest vote this year, perhaps with the Libertarians. Alas, I live in a competitive state, and there is small matter regarding a violent conflict that must be attended to, so I'll likely hold my nose and cast a ballot for the incumbent.

Explain to me again how 144,000 is "good". Not as bad as the two previous months, sure. But working-age population growth alone requires that we create some 150,000 jobs each month just to keep participation at the same level. For the third month in a row, we lost ground, just not as much as we were losing. Employment growth has NOT kept pace with growth in the working-age population.

Erg, the nation's credit card is also the nation's bank account (See Barro, Robert).

Tim, I am a fiscal conservative. But if Kerry and the rest of the Democrats are too feckless to stand up to Bush, I have no confidence that they'll stand up to our enemies abroad. There's a war on, you see. Yes, I'd prefer if either Kerry or Bush were running on a more fiscally conservative platform, but this year I'm a one issue voter, and Kerry simply doesn't cut it on that issue.

The labor force actually decreased in August. Jon Henke picked through the BLS data and suggests that the monthly growth has averaged about 89,000 (I get 108,000 checking his math)

What is needed is a rebellion among the discontented conservative backbenchers on the Republican side of the House. Their policy should be to support Bush abroad, but fight him on domestic like the liberal he is. If you live in one of their districts, write 'em a letter.

I thought that the juxtaposition of Bush's laundry list of new spending with a criticism of Kerry's spending plans was pretty awkward. At least Kerry pretends to pay for his spending.

Bush wants to privatize social security, which will cost billions of dollars. But apparently he can cut taxes to zero and still do it all.

Bush is up 11 in poll
Tell us again Jane how Bush is toast?

You forgot he was running against a douche bag

Im not happy with Bush on lots of stuff but GOD OH GOD NOT KERRY

Higher taxes damage the economy. So does overly heavy regulation. Both will be coming our way if Kerry gets in.

And calling Kerry a fiscal conservative? Get a clue.

Bush may be no prize, but Kerry is a pathetic piece of shit.

1. I'm not Jane
2. Pardon me for being a prude, but please keep the personal hygiene and excrement comparisons out of the discussion. It does your opinion a disservice.

Thank you.

Bush promised a balanced budget last time. Yet in the face of two hugely expensive wars, 911, the collapse of the bubble market, he kept his tax cuts, installed the prescription drug plan, and chose to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq with our tax dollars rather than the Iraqi oil.

Kerry has stated he would continue the pay as you go spending of Clinton. Now I wont be so disengenuous to say I 100% believe Kerry, but we already know Bush broke his word on spending. In advance, I understand you reps have attatched a 2 trillion dollar number to Kerrys proposals, but at this point I believe some of what Kerry states, but nothing the reps state.

Begbee,

Clinton promised to "end welfare as we kn(e)w it" and then did so with the help of the Republican congress. I am unaware of any Kerry proposal that would cut federal government spending. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

As for the Bush's candy store, I am very disappointed. Maybe someday, after we once again rid the world of the totalitarian ideology of the day, we can elect a leader who will return us to the pre-FDR days of a limited federal government. I hope so. By the way, if that leader turns out to be a Democrat, I will gladly vote for him or her.

Jim English
Chicago

I'm afraid the libertarians have a point when they say there's little difference between the two parties. Bush favors deficit spending. So does Kerry. Bush favored war with Iraq. So did Kerry. What separates these candidates? If you accept their rhetoric, it's very little. Kerry says he will be more respectful of the French and the Germans and that he will spend a little more tax money on health care. Other than that, they have the same positions.

I dont think Welfare spending is a significant portion of the budget, Im pretty sure its less than 1% of spending(not including SS). Kerry has claimed he will operate under the same spend as you go policy of Clinton, though I have doubts about his ability to do this with his plans. But we know Bush doesnt care about defecits, he told Paul Oneill, "Reagen proved debt doesnt matter", and his behavior his first term reflects that belief. The other thing to consider is if Kerry is elected he will be accountable to voters for his next term. Not only as a second term President will Bush be not accountable to anyone, he doesnt have to worry about Cheneys chance to be elected. His spending will be completely unrestrained, and the reps can put one of Newties defeciet hawks on the next ticket to avoid any political price.

Democrats in Congress think that Bush did not provide adequate funding for the education bill or for the prescription drug bill. It's fair to say Democrats think more money should be spent on social programs. They are being dishonest if they claim that they'll be able to balance the budget and fund large new social programs, as a decision to impose fiscal restraint would necessitate spending limits. Democrats can either have new spending or fiscal restraint, but they can't have both. I think that both the Democrats and Bush want new spending and both are misleading voters about intentions to balance the budget.

There's no war.

Well, maybe in the Orwellian sense there's a war.

But in that sense we are also still fighting the "War on Drugs." So that would be 3 horribly expensive wars at the same time.

Yes, yes, yes, I know 911 and all that. I don't forget. I thought the sky was going to fall at the time. I got over it. I'm still waiting for the majority of Americans to do the same. What we need is some rational thinking on the issues of security. I recommend reading Bruce Schneier's "beyond Fear," particularly for the more libertarian minded.

War on Terror. Parse that out for me. Tell me exactly how we can win. Besides distributing Xanax to every man, woman, and child in America. Which might not be a bad idea. Especially in our current elevated state of "Terror Alert." A Xanax a piece might get us back down to green.

There's no war.

Well, maybe in the Orwellian sense there's a war.

(RMc snaps fingers loudly) Wake up, pal. You've been reading the NY Times again. (Oh, and if Mr Eric Blair were alive to see the crap written in his [psuedononymous] name, he'd never stop throwing up.)

Need a refresher course? Click here.

War on Terror. Parse that out for me.

It's called "The War on Terror" because "The War Against Muderous,Totally F*cked-Up Monsters Who Want To Kill Us, Especially If We're Americans or Jews or Jewish Americans" takes too long to say. (If you're looking to a snappier, more accurate moniker, try "World War III".)

Tell me exactly how we can win.

By showing the terrorists that attacking Americans or our allies is a Really Bad Idea that will result in their complete destruction. We bum-rushed the Taliban, then put Saddam in a box (right after sending his vile progeny to Doggie Heaven). It'll be three years on Saturday since there's been an attack on American soil. Coincidence?

I got over (9/11). I'm still waiting for the majority of Americans to do the same.

You're gonna have a long wait, friend. Go ahead and pull your ostrich act; the rest of us will keep watch.

People have to quit thinking radical Islam attacked us on 911 based upon unreasoned hate. Bin Ladens fatwa gives detailed reasons for radical Islams hatred of the US and our freedom isnt one of them. Read "Imperial Hubris". But that doesnt mean the War on terrorism is bad policy, because we have shown no inclination to alter our energy policy towards the mid east. For me, the big problem is that Iraq was never a major player in terrorism, the muslims know this, and to them this occupation is further proof of Bin Ladens fatwas accusations. We are making things worse. If the rumor that several of the terrorists in Chechynya were recently trained in Iraq, it will further devastate the Bush reasoning for the war in Iraq. If we are serious about a war on terror, and we should be, we should be looking at Iran, not for Occupation, but removal of its nuke program and regieme change. We should dictate to SA new policy agreements that are restitution for 911. We should take a long hard look at our relationship with Pakistan. At this point, I have no idea how we deal with a NK that keeps adding nuke warheads and laughing at the world.

If we are serious about a war on terror, and we should be, we should be looking at Iran, not for Occupation, but removal of its nuke program and regieme [sic] change.

Gee, y'think? Of course, the minute the US takes any action against Iran (or anybody else), you and your lefty harridans will be marching in the streets and bitching about it. "Bushitler lied, mullahs died!" Please.

Bin Ladens fatwa gives detailed reasons for radical Islams hatred of the US and our freedom isnt [sic] one of them.

I'm sure Saddam, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and The Guy With The Bad Moustache had good reasons for their peculiar flavours of madness, too. So?

RMc you mean the way Liberals opposed the war in Afganistan?

Read Bin Ladens fatwa. His reasoning is accurate, its his methods of attack that are insane.

Read Bin Ladens fatwa. His reasoning is accurate

In the immortal words of Krusty the Clown, "You, sir, are an idiot."

Now go play in traffic.

Wheres the content?

Wheres the content?

Where's the apostrophe?

Moron.

No content, an insult, and a grammer correction in three sentences, you keep raising the bar RMc.

Sigh. It's "grammar", Junior. Don't you own a dictionary? (Have you ever even seen one?)

And I'll start posting "content" the minute you do, you silly tool. (Hint: "Bushitler lied Haliburton blah blah blah" does not count as content.)

RMC wrote: "It'll be three years on Saturday since there's been an attack on American soil. Coincidence?

Quite possibly, yes. Of course, we went EIGHT years without a foreign terrorist attack on American soil after the first WTC attack and went about a year and a half between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. So clearly, the invasion of Iraq has little to do with whether foreign terrorists can hit or or not.

So clearly, the invasion of Iraq has little to do with whether foreign terrorists can hit or or not.

Maybe...but the invasion did produce one fewer country led by an US-hating maniac who sponsored terrorist groups. And I think we'd rather fight 'em over there than over here.

See, Begbee? It is possible to disagree and still make a coherent point! (Well, it's possible for RK, anyway...)

RMc the line I would rather fight them over there than here is incredibly stupid. I have never done this here before, but back that garbage up with a source. Next time you come up for air from going down on Grimus try some content, Ronald.

Comments are Closed.