Why would a Moderate Want to Vote for Mitt Romney and the other Conservtive Congressional Candidates? [168*20]

GONERNOR MITT ROMNEY
GONERNOR MITT ROMNEY | Source
CONGRESSMAN PAUL RYAN
CONGRESSMAN PAUL RYAN | Source

WE ALL KNOW WHY PROGRESSIVES AND LIBERALS will vote for Democrats and why Conservatives will vote for "Republicans"; I use the quotes because that is the official name of their party, the practical title should be the "Conservative" Party. But what is it about the Conservative platform and record that would entice Moderates (me, for example, and ex-Republican) to either vote for the again, as in 2010, or vote for them for the first time; that question popped into my mind one morning as I was in the process of waking up.

What of course matters most are the consequences of Conservative policy, should they be able to implement it if voted into office. You should notice I am focusing on Conservatism and not a particular person, for it really doesn't matter too much who the person is, it is the policy they try to put in place that effects you life, not Romney nor Obama.

So, as I lay there, I started thinking of the changes we would see if the Conservatives were in complete control again. This is the bare bones stuff derived from their historical record and current rhetoric stripped of all of the high-minded verbiage each Party likes to hide their real intent with. So, without further ado, here is the lists I came up with. Conservatives would:

  • Repeal Obamacare thereby stripping tens of millions of Americans of health insurance
  • Revamp Medicare
  • -- Strip $700 billion out of Medicare (the only part of Obamacare they would keep except it would come out of benefits as well)
  • -- Increase prescription costs on the elderly
  • -- although not specifically said, because the healthy would leave Medicare, drive up Medicare costs over all
  • -- in the name of choice, leave the elderly open to deceptive advertising and practices by provate insurers looking to profit off of their old age
  • Severly reduce Medicaid
  • Legislate, at the Federal level, your morality to fit Christian ethos
  • -- Repeal the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell laws reinstating homophobia in the military
  • -- Insure the right of the Federal government to control who can marry
  • -- Attempt to promote only Christianity in public forums such as courts, pubilc schools in session, etc
  • Legislate, at the Federal level, to restrict the ability of minorities to sue for discrimination
  • Legislate, at the Federal level, to restrict or ban the ability of women to sue for unequal pay or sexual harassment
  • Legislate, at the Federal level, a looser definition of rape so that less instances of rape are classified as such (a recent attempt by Paul Ryan)
  • Legislate, at the Federal level, the right of a woman to control her own body
  • Legislate, at the Federal level, the right of a woman to have an abortion to save her own life (another Ryan initiative)
  • Reinstitute Austrian economics, the economic system that led to the 2008 recession and 25 other recessions, depressions, and panics between 1815 and 1930.
  • Continue policies begun in 1981 to increase income inequality in America
  • Continue policies begun in 1981 that inhibit economic mobility between income groups (i.e., if you are born poor, you stay poor, if you are born rich, you stay rich); the demise of the American Dream
  • Legislate, at the Federal level, to give financial institutions free reign to do what ever they like, vis-a-vis, 1797 - 1937 and 2000 - 2009.
  • Legislate, at the Federal level, and to prohibit at the State level, laws to pull back on environmental regulations that have cleaned up our air and water
  • Refuse to make Federal laws which protect consumers from fraudulent activities of corporations
  • Repeal laws already on the books which protect the consumer
  • Refuse to help, at the Federal level, the populous in times of dire need, like after sever drought, natural disaster, or national financial collapse (that view was the norm prior to 1933 although Herbert Hoover, a Conservative, tried to organize relief at the State level by providing them federal funds; he was criticized for it by other Conservatives for meddling)
  • One of the conservative standard bearers, Bourbon Democrat Grover Clevelald, POTUS #22 and 24, once wrote this in a veto message, summing up the Conservative view of "general Welfare" - "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood" - (the appropriation being referred to was one passed by a divided Congress on a bi-partisan basis to provide grants to starving Texas farmers suffering through one of the worst droughts during one of the worst depressions in American history.)
  • To Conservatives, the above message is perfectly reasonable and appealing; I have heard it in numerous variations in recent times. To non-conservatives, it is appauling.

And what will you get if you don't elect a Congress that has 1) a super-majority of Conservatives or 2) a super-majority of Democrats? Two more years of gridlock, guaranteed; and it doesn't matter who you elect as President.

to me, obviously, this doesn't present a pretty or desirable picture. But, to others, it is perfectly acceptable; it certainly was prior to 1932, and even those regular Americans who suffered the most through those numerous economic hard times assumed those conditions were simply the price to pay for freedom. Nevertheless, I defy Conservatives who read this to prove any of the above points are not true because one or another of your leaders have said such, just ot nso blatantly, or it is now written in your Party platform.

Moderates, the fate of our Nation is in your hands.

IF YOU ARE AN INDEPENDENT ...

If you are an Independent, did you vote for Conservatives in 2010?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Didn't Vote
See results without voting

If you are an Independent, are you going to vote for Conservatives in 2012?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don't Know Yet
  • Won't Vote
See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 37 comments

Johnkadu123 profile image

Johnkadu123 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

This is a great hub...as always. Your piercing commentary should get politicians worried. LOL. That shopping list is an expose on the innate nature of our human selfishness. I will be keeping a close eye on your election coverage for the next 90 days.


lrc7815 profile image

lrc7815 4 years ago from Central Virginia

Excellent work My Esoteric! You laid it all out there. Wow!


MizBejabbers profile image

MizBejabbers 4 years ago from Arkansas

I like your perspective. Good hub, as always. Voted you up and interesting.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

The whole problem with voting in the last one hundred years is the loyal party voter. As long as there is this party team loyalty, the US will sink more slowly than the Titanic, but the end result will be the same.

Instead of voting for liberals, or conservatives which is basically voting for Row A or Row B, the vote should be to the best candidate. This will still be a vote for the lesser of two evils, because most voting is done based on democrat or republican loyalty.

History shows that neither party has moved the country forward, while it does show that the contention between the two parties has stalled and even moved the country backward.

So voting for the party, puts the party in control and then the party that gets elected, puts the party ahead of the country and the people.

It is the result of the voters making bad decisions by voting Row A or Row B.

The country is divided as heavily as it was before the Civil War. At that time it was Slavery that divided the country. Today, it is party loyalty that divides the country Red vs Blue. What the country needs is more purple.

So any arguments as to which party is better is a red herring. At best the election results in the last several decades have be so close that it results in just a little more than half of the voters elected the president. That means that almost half of the people are not represented for the next four years.

The voters need to control the elections, and their party by not registering as either democrat or republican. As we know the independents are sought after by both parties, and they actually determine the winner of the election.

The more independent the more that the voters control the election. The parties will put out the same level of candidates that they have done whether you participate as a party member or not.

My point is that the party is there to support you, but that has not been the case.

Social issues cannot be solved by the government.

As far as SS, and Medicare, and Obamacare, they were created by Democrats as TAXES, but both parties raided the trust funds. The politicians of both parties, and not the people are responsible for the resulting liabilities from the politician run systems.

Also over the last one hundred years, the size and scope of the government has significantly increased, and this lowers our GDP, and increases the government spending which in turn has the congress raising taxes.

We need to reduce the size and scope of government, this will reduce spending, and reduce the need to increase taxes.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you all for your comment. JSChams, your wish is my command. I whipped this off this morning before I forgot the idea. I will work on its counter-part this evening.

IB, I wish I could agree with you that voting for the best candidate is the goal of voting; with the caveat that the candidate you are voting for can be effective and relatively honest. It is the principles he or she stands for that I look for.

Question - How do you define "Moving the country forward"? What is forward to you?

I do agree that you should not vote party lines, but I think you should vote for the who comes closest to reflection your values. To me, that is the Democrats, even though I was once a Republican, just not a conservative one.

Regarding SS, Medicare, and Obamacare, they were not "created" as taxes, instead, they were created as basic insurance against catastrophe. The Supreme Court ruled they were taxes.

Think about what you are saying in the second to paragraph. Exactly what does government do with all of that tax revenue they take in or people they hire? They spend the tax revenue on payrolls, goods, and services, and all of those people they hire are paid wages with they in turn spend on goods and services. What is GDP? Just the sum of all that is spent on goods and services. So how does your assertion make any sense?

As to the last paragraph, that is certainly true. But, what government provided services are you willing to give up to achieve that goal?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

The one and only reason as to why a moderate would vote for Romney would be to stop MORE of Obama driven agenda's that is:

-Destroying the dollar

-Keeping us from becoming energy independent

-Actually keeping Medicare as it is, for those 55, and fixing it for those younger.

-Dividing America

- and lastly, why would an Indpendent vote for Romney....

to SAVE AMERICA

Sorry E,

First of all, I just jumped in there, kind of got excited.

I have not had the privilidge to read your work lately, so I apologize if I am being obtuse with my short answer.

It is getting down to the wire, and time to get very serious about our next vote.

Chris


HSchneider 4 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Excellent analysis as always, My Esoteric. Hopefully the moderates and independents will study these issues as carefully as you have while ignoring the flood of corporate advertisements that are inevitable. If they do they most certainly will vote for the Democrats.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Esoteric

Question - How do you define "Moving the country forward"? What is forward to you?

ib-------

Forward is obvious.

A good economy, low unemployment, stabilize the housing market, just to name a few.

You can't believe that where we are now is forward compared to where we were when Obama took the presidency.

----------

I do agree that you should not vote party lines, but I think you should vote for the who comes closest to reflection your values. To me, that is the Democrats, even though I was once a Republican, just not a conservative one.

ib-----

We have been doing that for the last several decades, and this is the result. The fact that you were a republican and now are a democrat doesn't move the country forward, it just goes from right to left.

It is a failing system, and it gets the same results, bad or worse.

---------------

Regarding SS, Medicare, and Obamacare, they were not "created" as taxes, instead, they were created as basic insurance against catastrophe. The Supreme Court ruled they were taxes.

ib-----

Time for some research on your part.

---------

Think about what you are saying in the second to paragraph. Exactly what does government do with all of that tax revenue they take in or people they hire? They spend the tax revenue on payrolls, goods, and services, and all of those people they hire are paid wages with they in turn spend on goods and services. What is GDP? Just the sum of all that is spent on goods and services. So how does your assertion make any sense?

ib-----

GDP doesn't include government spending, and it is the money spent by consumers that is counted. Even more important, the wage earners would spend this money directly, and not have the government give it away to some else. Taxes to support big government and big spending doesn't make life better for the people or the country.

---------------

As to the last paragraph, that is certainly true. But, what government provided services are you willing to give up to achieve that goal?

ib------

Name one that is worth keeping?

---------------


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Not a problem Chris, glad to see you are back.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

IB, I like your separation better than mine or others I have seen, I will have to try it, crisp and clean. I am taking a break from work, so thought I would relax a bit.

-------------

One thing worth keeping - How about safe skies.

-------------

On the SS, etc, they were originally called insurance programs, e.g., the "Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI)" federal programs. As to Obamacare, its other name is "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and its purpose is to require insurance companies to cover all applicants ... sounds like insurance to me. The only "tax" aspect of it is how the Supreme Court characterized the mandatory penalties for those who chose not to buy insurance. That is what the research shows.

I'll be back.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

OK, IB, in answer to my question, you answered -

--------

IB - Forward is obvious.

A good economy, low unemployment, stabilize the housing market, just to name a few.

You can't believe that where we are now is forward compared to where we were when Obama took the presidency.

------------

My question was promted by this statement from you -

-------------

IB - History shows that neither party has moved the country forward

-------------

Your initial statement included all of history but your answer only considers the three years Obama has been digging America out of a near depression. (BTW, Romney just said in an interview today it will take him 8 more years to finish the recovery from the Conservative recession.) Three years is not history, that is current events, but, I will address that first in your terms "... when Obama took the presidency."

-- unemployment 2/1/2009 was 7.9% and rapidly increasing

--- unemployment 9/1/2012 us 8.1% and slowly falling

---- by definition, using your starting point, that is doing better

-- the economy had an annual growth rate of less than -5% on 2/1/2009

--- on 9/1/2012, the economy is growing at an average annual rate in excess of 1.5 or 2%

---- that be definition is doing better

-- in 2007, the GDP hit an all time high before starting its two-year slide.

--- in 2012, the GDP has exceeded the previous all time high

---- that is, by definition, also doing better

-- on 2/1/2009, people 1st time unemployment filings were exceeding 700,000 per month and growing

--- on 9/1/2012, 1st time unemployment claims were 365,000, below the historic average of 400,000 (please note that Bush didn't get down this level until Jan 2004)

---- this, by definition, is an improvement from when Obama took office.

Exactly what metric are you looking at this is worse that the day he took office?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

That was now, so let's look at then.

- Historically, who has had the more stable economic times? answer the non-conservative administrations

- Historically, who had the longest single period of economic growth? anwser, President Clinton

- Historically, who had the second longest period of economic growth? answer, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson

- Since WW II, who has created more jobs (there isn't a lot of good job information prior to then)? answer, Democratic administrations

- Historically, which economic system, the conservative Austrian or non-conservative Keynsian as had 26 times more recessions and depressions as big as or worse that the 2008 recession? answer, the Austrian (actually, in order to have a ratio, I had to assign the 1937 recession to the Keynesian system, if fact, it was not; the Keynsian economic system has never had a "bad" recession.)

Need I go on? I need to get to JSChams request now.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Esoteric

It is difficult to follow now

It would have been easier to have numbered the issues.

-----

As for the SS

--------

link -- http://www.ssa.gov/history/35acviii.html

INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES

SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date:

(1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.

(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 1/2 per centum.

(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.

(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 1/2 per centum.

(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Esoteric

Your statement

Your initial statement included all of history but your answer only considers the three years Obama has been digging America out of a near depression. (BTW, Romney just said in an interview today it will take him 8 more years to finish the recovery from the Conservative recession.) Three years is not history, that is current events, but, I will address that first in your terms "

--ib

I didn't limit my statement to three years. My point was that Neither Party has moved the country forward. If I were to limit it, I would say in the last 100 hundred years. All the control from one party to another only moved the country left or right, red or blue, hardly ever to purple.

---------------

-----------


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Esoteric

your statement

(BTW, Romney just said in an interview today it will take him 8 more years to finish the recovery from the Conservative recession.) Three years is not history, that is current events, but, I will address that first in your terms "... when Obama took the presidency."

-- unemployment 2/1/2009 was 7.9% and rapidly increasing

--- unemployment 9/1/2012 us 8.1% and slowly falling

---- by definition, using your starting point, that is doing better

-- the economy had an annual growth rate of less than -5% on 2/1/2009

--- on 9/1/2012, the economy is growing at an average annual rate in excess of 1.5 or 2%

---- that be definition is doing better

-- in 2007, the GDP hit an all time high before starting its two-year slide.

--- in 2012, the GDP has exceeded the previous all time high

---- that is, by definition, also doing better

-- on 2/1/2009, people 1st time unemployment filings were exceeding 700,000 per month and growing

--- on 9/1/2012, 1st time unemployment claims were 365,000, below the historic average of 400,000 (please note that Bush didn't get down this level until Jan 2004)

---- this, by definition, is an improvement from when Obama took office.

Exactly what metric are you looking at this is worse that the day he took office?

ib----

There are 23 million people out of work, and that doesn't count the people that have run out of unemployment, and or have given up looking for jobs.

There are 46,7 million people on food stamps

Getting jobs at McDonalds and Walmart and Home Depot are not the jobs that were lost. Percentages don't give job quality.

And once again, I don't care what Bush did, I am not a republican.

The GDP is up because the price of gas went from$1.78 to over $4. In California the price is $4.17 for regular and much higher for premium and diesel.

The economy is not growing at any rate that will keep up with the government spending and the national debt. The government is printing money that has no backing, and they have no cap on the amount that they will print.

--------------


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Esoteric

your statement

- Historically, who had the longest single period of economic growth? anwser, President Clinton

ib---

During the Clinton Administration we had the dot com and the Internet going crazy, and yes there was a lot of money, but then in 2000 the bubble burst and with it a worse economy.

The federal, state and local governments are increased in size and scope and made long term contracts as if the bubble would never burst. When the bubble burst, the private sector had to adjust their workforce, but the government didn't.

It was also during the Clinton administration that the housing bubble got started with the democrats making it possible with subprime loans and little equity for any one to get a home loan. That is another story.

And there was no excuse that the Bush administration did nothing to put that bubble in check as it is a variation of the dot check bubble. Also both parties were campaigning for two years 2007-2008, and the housing bubble burst surprising them all.

The dot com and the housing bubble were started by the democrats, but there was no help from the republicans. Proving my statement that neither party moved the country forward. And you can't use the dot com and housing bubble to show any reliable information about the economy.

-----

ib----

As far as air safety, neither the TSA or the FAA is doing a good job, and Homeland security under Bush was a joke, and I don't know if we have stopped laughing during Obama.

The entire government failed on 911. The FAA didn't do their job, and NORAD didn't do their job, and Bush did little to nothing. And when you can't find an armed fighter jet at Andrews Air Force Base that is criminal.

So you tell me how the money spent on these agencies helped us during 911?

Tell me why since the FDA was given the job to monitor the drug industry that there hasn't been any cures for a major disease. And why so many FDA approved drugs are the subject of multimillion dollar lawsuits because they don't work correctly. The FDA oversight adds 800 million dollars to the cost of the drug. The FDA doesn't do any independent testing. just to name a few..

-------------

--------------


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Esoteric

The recessions and the bad economies can be traced to the government. They are reactive, rather than proactive and they don't have a clue on how to stimulate the economy. They didn't in 1929, it took WWII in 1941 to get the country out of the depression.

They didn't learn from the stock market crash, and then came the dot com, up and then the bubble bursts. In many respects it failed for the same reason as the margins in 1929. The mechanism was different but the end result was the same. Then the government didn't learn from the dot com, and they even created the housing bubble. In fact the key players involved in it were Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae. The government ignored that when they were tracing the economic collapse of 2008.

----------

And when I say that neither party moved the country forward here is another example.

In the 1970s, the US was under the thumb of the Middle East Oil countries, and they instigated an oil scarcity, twice in that decade. It was because of our support for Israel and they were teaching the US a lesson. Of course the government supported the stories from the oil companies about a lack of oil because dinosaurs were not dying any more.

Yet, neither party, and neither congress controlled by either party from then until now did anything to prevent these kinds of problems because of our dependency on foreign oil.

The result in the 70s was the loss of US superiority in the automaker field. People dumped the US gas guzzlers for little tin foreign cars with better gas mileage. The gas guzzlers were in and selling like hot cakes, as the expression goes, until the 2008 economic crash. Then once again the gas guzzler from the US were the problem.

The government had over three decades to come up with a solution but they didn't even try. George W Bush was the worst of them all because he did nothing while the gasoline prices hit almost $5 a gallon, and neither did congress. The reason is that the taxes on gasoline consumption is a tidy revenue for the feds and especially the states like CA.

------

Again to my point about neither party.

History, last 100 years, voting in the minority party to change it to the controlling party has failed to get good results. The fact is that both parties when they are the minority, fight the controlling party.

But that doesn't mean just because there is no forward movement for the country based on the controlling party, more damage can be done by a controlling party, or president if allowed to stay in office, then would be damaged by electing the other party to control.

-----------------


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Esoteric

As the government grows in size and scope, the salaries, benefits, and defined benefits pensions of the government workers also adds up. Unlike SS, the government workers have a real pension, and it is backed by the taxpayers. So when the 401ks took a nose dive in 2008, the government FERS, actually made money, because they also got a cost of living increase. Their losses were made up by the taxpayers.

Every government employee is a tax liability.

------------------------------


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BTW, Ib, I forgot to respond to the GDP issue. There are four sub-components to GDP: 1) Personal Spending-70%, 2) Business Investment - 16%, 3) Government Spending - 20%, and 4) Net Import/Exports - negative 6%. (all the percentages are point estimates for 2011)

---------------

IB - Every government employee is a tax liability

---------------

ME - Yep, that is true, that tax dollar pays for some good or service the public wants

----------------

IB - talks about gov't pensions

----------------

ME - what you say is not quite right anymore, it used to be, but isn't anymore. All federal gov't employees now pay into the SS system, I know, I was one and actually chose to, even though I didn't have to convert. While there still is a defined pension benefit to the not so new (1985) FERS plan it is decidedly smaller than it used to be under CRS; you could live off of CRS, you cannot off of FERS. The rest of your retirement is from SS and how lucky you were in the stock market, to which the government matched your contribution up to 3%. In the time that I was in the "TSP", Thrift Savings Plan, I took to major beatings. The first time I lost 50% of my TSP retirement before pulling out. The second time, the great recession, only about 15%, but by then, I was an active trader and knew what I was doing; most of those who weren't, lost about 60%.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

IB - I don't deny the money taken out of your pay for SS and Medicare is in the form of a tax, any money taken out for any purpose, the Supreme Court has decided, it is such and the section you cite states it. But it had a specific purpose, unlike the "income tax", is to go into a fund to be returned to you, or your survivor, upon your old age, that is insurance. Medicare is the same way. In Obamacare, there is no tax save for those who choose not to purchase insurance, then it is effectively purchased for them because they will never be denied service in the emergency room.

I can't look at a subject and pick out one word and hang my whole belief system on that word, sorry. I have to look at the context surrounding that word, tax, to see what the purpose was, and that purpose, in this case, was insurance.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

IB - So

- Moving from a slave economy to one that banned slavery isn't moving forward?

- Giving women the right to vote isn't moving forward?

- Getting patronage out of most federal jobs (remember, I was there) isn't moving forward

- Getting children out of sweat shops isn't moving forward?

I could make an extremely long list of questions like that, but that should suffice.

And then, if you agree if those are examples of "moving forward", did they happen under Conservative governments or Progressive ones? Which side fought very hard to prevent them from happening at all?


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Esoteric

BTW, Ib, I forgot to respond to the GDP issue. There are four sub-components to GDP: 1) Personal Spending-70%, 2) Business Investment - 16%, 3) Government Spending - 20%, and 4) Net Import/Exports - negative 6%. (all the percentages are point estimates for 2011)

ib1 -----

so even by your account, government spending is high.

---------------

IB - Every government employee is a tax liability

---------------

ME - Yep, that is true, that tax dollar pays for some good or service the public wants

ib1-------

I previously gave you a number of the services that weren't doing their job.

---

----------------

IB - talks about gov't pensions

----------------

ME - what you say is not quite right anymore, it used to be, but isn't anymore. All federal gov't employees now pay into the SS system, I know, I was one and actually chose to, even though I didn't have to convert. While there still is a defined pension benefit to the not so new (1985) FERS plan it is decidedly smaller than it used to be under CRS; you could live off of CRS, you cannot off of FERS. The rest of your retirement is from SS and how lucky you were in the stock market, to which the government matched your contribution up to 3%. In the time that I was in the "TSP", Thrift Savings Plan, I took to major beatings. The first time I lost 50% of my TSP retirement before pulling out. The second time, the great recession, only about 15%, but by then, I was an active trader and knew what I was doing; most of those who weren't, lost about 60%.

ib1------

The FERS plan is paid for and backed by the taxpayer, and your use of the SS is different than what it is in the private sector. FERS is a real retirement plan, and many people in the government have several retirements because of the age and time required to vest. The whole package is a major tax liability while in the private sector none of that exists outside union jobs.

-----


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Esoteric

ib1 ------

Now you are down to the short strokes because I answered more questions than you did.

--------

IB - So

- Moving from a slave economy to one that banned slavery isn't moving forward?

ib1----------

It was the democrat slave economy.

It was a republican that died to stop slavery.

So you have to go back to 1865 to see a move forward.

The Civil War didn't stop the democrats from keeping the emancipated slaves in check, so it was necessary to amend the constitution with the Civil Rights Amendments.

Where is the move forward in the 20th and 21st century?

---------

- Giving women the right to vote isn't moving forward?

ib1------------

Now you are up to 1920s

-----------------

- Getting patronage out of most federal jobs (remember, I was there) isn't moving forward

ib1----------

I don't know what you mean, all I know is that the size and scope of the government keeps increasing. And that isn't moving forward.

-----------

- Getting children out of sweat shops isn't moving forward?

ib1---------

Wow, you really are grasping for straws, when do we get to modern history. As the pages fell off the calendar since the Civil War the rift between the parties started to stray away from slavery, to the poor man versus rich man separation. And that didn't and still doesn't move the country forward.

--------

I could make an extremely long list of questions like that, but that should suffice.

ib1-----------

Really, why would you think that would suffice, you didn't even get to the stock market crash?

---------------

And then, if you agree if those are examples of "moving forward", did they happen under Conservative governments or Progressive ones? Which side fought very hard to prevent them from happening at all?

ib1--------

As long as you keep saying your side is better than the other side, you make my point because the country got to where it is today because neither side could find enough common grounds to move the country forward.

It isn't moving the country forward by giving government workers good salaries, expensive benefits, taxpayer backed defined benefits pensions, and job security while the average private sector wage earner has none of these. It is not fair to saddle the private sector with SS, Medicare and Obamacare, when the government employees are treated different, and they have their own plans that make their recent inclusion into SS, and Medicare just a bonus.

Most private sector wage earners work under an At Will Employment Contract that was forced upon them by their employers, with a take the contract or leave. Under that contract, the employer can terminate the services of the employee without an reason being given.

That contract was made in recent times, and that is not moving the country forward.

------

I have many hubs where I have detailed the issues of the political parties and how they failed the country. Your arguments are not compelling and why you support the continuation of picking a political party like you would the home town sports team makes no sense.

Congress is our team, and the president is the manager, and the SC is the umpire. If either party fails, then congress fails. It the president makes the wrong play, then the country fails, and if the SC makes the wrong call then the country and the people lose.

Too date, there are very few wins.

You can put a tuxedo on a turkey, but it is still fowl.


Josak profile image

Josak 4 years ago from variable

Esoteric, Just wanted to say I enjoyed the hub, voted up etc. I would also like to mention our latest GDP growth report 2.5% growth last year compared to a bubble adjusted rate of growth of just 1% for Bush before the crisis. So Obama has grown the economy two and a half times more than Bush did in one year despite coping with the recession left by Bush.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks, Josak, that is good to hear. It would be nice if he could sustain at that level for a few months, 2.5% to 3.5% is a healthy, sustainable growth rate. I was surprised to find out Obama has already surpassed Bush in total GDP, I thought he had a long way to go.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

hp doesn't format well

US Government Spending As % Of GDP

Obama government spending is the highest.

Fiscal Years

GDP-US $ billion

nominal Population- US million

Total Spending -total % GDP

1992 6342.3 254.933 37.04

1993 6667.4 258.103 36.31

1994 7085.2 261.312 35.38

1995 7414.7 264.561 35.53

1996 7838.5 267.850 34.69

1997 8332.4 271.180 33.76

1998 8793.5 274.552 33.24

1999 9353.5 277.966 32.64

2000 9951.5 282.172 32.56

2001 10286.2 285.082 33.33

2002 10642.3 287.804 34.74

2003 11142.2 290.326 35.31

2004 11853.3 293.046 34.86

2005 12623 295.507 34.83

2006 13377.2 298.109 35.12

2007 14028.7 300.733 35.09

2008 14369.1 303.380 37.14

2009 13939 306.051 42.63

2010 14526.5 308.746 40.75

2011 15094 311.592 40.09

2012 15601.5 314.123 40.27


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

1951 - Federal spending at 14.4 percent GDP.

1981 - Federal debt at 32 percent GDP.

1982 - Federal spending at 23 percent GDP.

1995 - Federal debt at 66 percent GDP.

2000 - Federal spending at 18 percent GDP.

2009 - Federal spending at 24 percent GDP.

2011 - Federal debt at 97 percent GDP.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

GDP

Last updated: July 30, 2012

Although the economy will improve slightly in the second half of the year, 2012 will be the third straight year of disappointingly slow growth -- winding up at around 2% after inflation. The pace of growth in the first half of the year totaled just 1.8%, the same as for all of 2011. In fact, looking back to 2010 -- the first full year since the recession ended -- with its growth of 2.4%, the three-year span will be the three slowest consecutive years of economic growth, outside of a recession or depression, back to 1930.

Read more: http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/economic...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Here is the problem with taking your last set of numbers at face value; without understanding the dynamics of them. Let me give you two hypothetical, and totally impossible situations to prove my point and both start with the assumption that President Obama DID NOT add one dime to the deficit, that everything he did was deficit neutral and that the outlays went according the last Bush budget plan.

1) there was no automatic "economic stabilization" payments made resulting from the depression. In this case, using actual reciepts and GDP, plus Bush's planned outlays, 2011 Federal spending would have been 21.2% of GDP. This, of course, also assumes the economy would have recovered just as it did in real like, which all economists agree it would not have.

2) the above assumes that the government acted as it did prior to FDR left Americans to suffer the ravages of depression. Today, there are automatic "economic stabilizers" that kick in without government action. If we add this in then Federal spending would be ... ta da 23.1% (amazing how that works, isn't it). Instead of being an Obama number, now it is a Bush number, son of a gun!

Where you got 97% of GDP for debt, I have no idea. In 2011, public debt was $10 trillion and GDP was $15 trillion, which is 67%. Not surprisingly, if you replace reality with my alternate Bush-based reality, public debt would end up being 65% of GDP, again assuming the recession was no worse than it actually was.

What all those obtuse numbers are saying is that percentages can increase for THREE reasons, 1) the demominator, GDP, decreases, 2) the numerator, spending or debt increases. and 3) how much they decrease and increase relative to each other; meaning, understanding is much more complex than presenting a simple string of numbers.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Y'all do know don't you that because the economy is based so much on perception, if the Conservatives had simply kept their collective mouths shut and not depressed the American spirit, growth and employment would be much better today.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

IB, in your list of % spending of GDP, it is very hard to separate out the numbers, but I am guessing the last four are the percent. In any case, are these in constant or real dollars? If they are in real dollars, they aren't comparable over time.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Again, IB, you throw a number out there, 23 million "out of work". In what context? Compared to what? 23 million is just a number with no meaning, who knows, it could be a wonderful number.

Also, it would be helpful to be more correct in your characterization, for in fact, in August 2012, there were 15 million actually "out of work"; the other 8 million were involuntary part-time.

Now, were you trying say Obama has done a terrible job compared to when he took office? Well the number out of work or underemployed then was 22 million and growing. Or how about when Obama was finally able to stop the recession from getting any worse, then the number of out of work or underemploy was 25 million.

And if gas prices were such a large component of GDP as to drive its size, then GDP should have skyrocketted in 2008 along with gas prices instead of falling dramatically.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Comments on Bubbles:

-- DOT.COM: in terms of recessions, this was a tiny one, of little consequence to most of America who didn't own stocks, unfortunately, I did. In any case, I didn't even include this one in my book on recessions. It was mainly a rich man's recession, for a change, they were the ones primarily hurt by this bubble bursting. In fact, if the only thing that happened was the Dot.com bubble, there would have been no recession. However, 9/11 happened and the aftermath did. Nevertheless, economic activity only decreased only 0.3%, the smallest of any recession listed by the NBER and unemployment topped out at 6.3% after climbing 2%.

The Dot.com crisis was not caused by any party or economic system other than capaitalism itself, and only that because this were such activity is allowed to take place. The real cause is GREED, nothing more, nothing less, I don't even blame this one on the Conservatives.

As to the housing bubble, a quick read of either the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report or a couple of my hubs based on that commission's report will dissuade you of the idea that this 1) began in the Clinton administration and 2) it was the result of Democratic policies. Neither is true, plain and simple.

The beginning of the bubble itself began with the rise in sub-prime mortages and housing prices, both began in earnest in 2004. The primary motivator of the bubble was again GREED by both the financial industry, real estate speculators, and average Americans. What paved the way for it to happen was Conservative economic policy of deregulation of the financial industry, the repeal of the all of the protective regulations set-up after the 1929 depression to prevent what happened in 2008 from ever happening again, and a Federal Reserve run by a Conservative who thought everything was hunky-dory until it was too late. Did Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have a hand in it, they certainly did, but they didn't play the major role, private banks and non-agency banks did. And that's the truth.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

On the FAA - it seems to me they are doing a hell of a job stopping our planes from bumping into each other.

On the TSA - as keystone cop as they may seem, would you be singing the same tune if airport security were simply ignored and you were on the next flight a terrorist simply walked on board?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Nope, IB, I only needed short answers to easy questions. I suspect you are as well aware as I am that, when looking over history, Party labels,e.g. Democrat, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican, "Know-Nothing", Conservative, etc, loose any meaning and you must revert to the underlying political philosophy which were social Conservativism or Progressism and fiscal Conservatism or Progressivism. Those latter four categories have remained constant over time. It is the Party who embodied the Progressive spirit, initially the Whig and then Republican (through about 1918), but later the Democrats from 1933 on regarding social forward movement in America. For fiscal betterment, it was the Republicans, initially from 1900 - 1913 and then Democrats and Republicans (less the Conservative wing) from 1947 on.

Conservatives have always opposed any forward movement, without fail. You cannot point out one period in history where Conservative ideology, as we understand what Conservativism means today and not in 1700, when it was just the opposite, helped improve the lot of anybody but white, male, Protestant, property owners. If you can, please do so here.


MizBejabbers profile image

MizBejabbers 4 years ago from Arkansas

Not to argue with anybody, but there are two points I would like to make: 1. My college government teacher taught that it was futile to "vote for the man, not the party." His view was that the MAN was the reflection of the party values and had to be in order to get the nomination. If it was true then, it is certainly true today. 2. The argument for moving forward left out the carpetbaggers who raped the South after the Civil War. This was moving forward? They hurt the average former slave as much as they did the white Southerners. The exception was a chosen few blacks who were elevated to their "yes" men. By the way they were of Abraham Lincoln's party, and this is why the South supported the Democrats until years after the Civil Rights movement. At least that's what my Southern Pappy said.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

So, true, so true, Miz BeJabbers. I am working on a History of Political Parties Hub/Book and I suspect by the time I am done, my brain will be turned into spaghetti.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working