Paul Krugman wrote in his blog at the New York Times about something that I've been harping on for a while now: we don't need a new brood of moderate candidates because we already have the Democratic Party:

Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal wrote:Namely, the hypothetical position self-proclaimed centrists want somebody to take — Michael Bloomberg, a chastened Obama, whatever — is almost always the position actually held by the Democratic party. But to seem “balanced”, the pundits involved have to ignore that inconvenient fact.

He links to and quotes Greg Sargent at the Washington Post, who wrote on his blog:

Greg Sargent, The Plum Line wrote:Indeed, Obama explicitly said during his Twitter town hall that fixing our fiscal situation will require cutting spending “on programs I like,” using language almost identical to [Matt] Miller’s imagined third party candidate. Call that just talk if you will, but Obama and Dems already agree to $1 trillion in cuts as part of the debt ceiling deal, and they’ve already agreed that entitlements cuts will be on the table during the supercommittee deliberations on the deficit.

...

On health care, Miller envisions his third party candidate arguing the following: “Democrats must accept a private insurance industry and Republicans must accept that some people can’t afford decent policies on their own.” Not only have Democrats already “accepted a private insurance industry,” it’s the basis for the reform plan Dems already passed. That one is known as the “Affordable Care Act.” Has it solved all our problems? Of course not, but in many ways it’s a fundamentally centrist first stab at it.

On national security, Miller envisions his third party candidate claimng that “we need to be smart hawks.” But that’s exactly the stance Obama — who famously said he’s not opposed to “all wars,” only “dumb wars” — has adopted. Indeed, from the point of view of many liberals, his policies — on Afghanistan, civil liberties, and the war on terror — embody that stance to a fault.

In fairness to Miller, he has been one of the few commentators willing to call out GOP extremism and intransigence on taxes for what it is. And there are far worse offenders when it comes to the calls for a third party. Tom Friedman has repeatedly called for a third party because, he opines, we need “spending cuts, increases in revenues and investments in the sources of our strength.” In the real world, that’s an endorsement of the Democratic position.

I'll try to kick off some discussion.

What people demand when they demand centrists are a series of policies that can most easily be described as the midpoint between Republican Party policies and what Republicans claim are Democratic Party policies. They can most accurately be described as "Democratic Party policies."

Q: How should we address the economic problems?

Actual Republican policy:
"CUT SPENDING, CUT TAXES, FOREVER!"

Strawman Democratic policy:
"SPEND SPEND SPEND SPEND SPEND SPEND!"

Actual Democratic policy:
"Stimulus spending for the short term, in the form of social welfare and infrastructure boosting! A blend of tax increases, tax reform, and spending cuts in the long term!"

One of those three is held up as the "centrist" policy in substance. Guess which.

Ha your "actual republican" argument is a bit strawman itself.

Actual conservative policy says social welfare and infrastructure boosting will not save the economy.

A true conservative doesnt mind taxes, when they TAKE fairly. A true conservative is big on cutting spending, I mean really cutting spending. Show me a democrat who actually wants to perform any meaningful cuts. And a true conservative would also be ready to give up the corporate welfare the Repubes have fallen in love with.

And by the same rights you want to make the Democrats the "centrists" Ill add, anyone still hoping the Republicans will provide anything that resembles true conservatism should just go ahead and give up. IF and its a big IF, Cain makes it to the nomination I may eat crow on that, but from what I've seen, republicans have become comfortable just to sit a shade right of democrats.

stebo0728 wrote:Ha your "actual republican" argument is a bit strawman itself.

I'm not so sure about that. Hyperbolic, maybe, but I haven't misrepresented the current Republican position. They advocate cutting spending and taxes in both the near and long term as actual policies.

They may admit that some spending and some taxes are necessary, but that's not inconsistent with what I wrote.

stebo0728 wrote:Ha your "actual republican" argument is a bit strawman itself.

Yup. Not surprising given that IBCoupe supports the Democratic Party, right? Coming from a strong Republican Party supporter, it might have been phrased the other way.

Of course, that is not the extremist position taken by all Republicans. For that matter, "spend spend ..." is probably not the extremist position taken by all Democrats either.

stebo0728 wrote:A true conservative doesnt mind taxes, when they TAKE fairly. A true conservative is big on cutting spending, I mean really cutting spending. Show me a democrat who actually wants to perform any meaningful cuts. And a true conservative would also be ready to give up the corporate welfare the Repubes have fallen in love with.

I don't know if this makes me a "true conservative" , but I agree with what you said above since I consider myself a financial conservative.

So, my stance is "cut spending on some things, increase taxes where it makes sense - and the spending of that tax is targeted correctly, and figure out how to get to a balanced budget over time, and then work to reduce the total deficit over more time".

I disagree with the Democratic Party stance on some things and disagree with the Republican Party stance on some things. I guess I prefer to call myself "in the center mostly, leaning strongly right on financial and economic issues and leaning strongly left on social issues".

Z

I think alot about the word "conservative" and what it means with relation to politics. Most importantly to me, the labels seem to have been laid down with regard to how a person desires to handle money that belongs to someone else. The conservatives aim to handle it as conservatively as possible, whereas the liberals tend to be more liberal with it, often to the point of (at least passively) denying and usurping ownership of said money. Then theres other conservative areas that apply, but they all sorta sum up to the general conservative application of government. Conservative use of prohibitory legislation, conservative use of government control, conservative use of bureaucracy, and other things. But lets note, conservative use does not equate to ZERO use. Some mix of all of the above are necessary, but from the conservative standpoint, when these items debatable, when its undecided as to their necessity, the default is to NOT institute, rather than to institute and see what happens.

Now much of what I said above DOES NOT apply to republican positions. Thats why I said earlier, unless I'm just flat proven wrong, true conservatism and the republican party have gone through a bitter divorce, and TPO's are already in place.

szh wrote:So, my stance is "cut spending on some things, increase taxes where it makes sense - and the spending of that tax is targeted correctly, and figure out how to get to a balanced budget over time, and then work to reduce the total deficit over more time".

Then you agree with the Democrats on this one, Z.

My point is not to draw a box around conservatives. You would've been denounced as a RINO if you came out and said what you just wrote. The Republican Party, if nothing else, has said "NO TAX INCREASES EVER." They signed a stupid pledge to that extent, and see any tax increase as a victory for big government. If taxes go up, in their eyes, it's that far down that spending won't come.

You and I may agree that it's a dumb position, but my point is not that Republicans are right or wrong, just that they are what they are, the Democrats aren't what Republicans say they are, and Democrats are what most people identify as the types of centrists they want to see in Washington.

stebo0728 wrote: The conservatives aim to handle it as conservatively as possible, whereas the liberals tend to be more liberal with it, often to the point of (at least passively) denying and usurping ownership of said money.

Lie. Liberals want government to spend money well, too. I assume that's what you meant by "handle it as conservatively as possible."

stebo0728 wrote:Then theres other conservative areas that apply, but they all sorta sum up to the general conservative application of government. Conservative use of prohibitory legislation, conservative use of government control, conservative use of bureaucracy, and other things. But lets note, conservative use does not equate to ZERO use. Some mix of all of the above are necessary, but from the conservative standpoint, when these items debatable, when its undecided as to their necessity, the default is to NOT institute, rather than to institute and see what happens.

Psst... You sound like a Democrat.

Have you flipped your lid? What part of the excerpt above made me sound like a big government, social engineering democrat?

And no I did not mean that democrats dont WANT to spend money well, I meant they CANT spend money well as long as they continue to embrace nanny statism.

stebo0728 wrote:What part of the excerpt above made me sound like a big government, social engineering democrat?

Now you sound like a Republican again.

Again, my intention was not to say that Democrats dont intend to be thrifty, but they embrace the big government, large social program model. I dont believe that model tenable to pull an economy out of the crapper. Furthermore I believe it to be counterintuitive to the notions that built our nation. We've thrown personal responsibility out the window, and rather than try to get it back, we embrace its absence, and continue to build a larger and larger dependant segment of voters.

IBCoupe wrote:

szh wrote:So, my stance is "cut spending on some things, increase taxes where it makes sense - and the spending of that tax is targeted correctly, and figure out how to get to a balanced budget over time, and then work to reduce the total deficit over more time".

Then you agree with the Democrats on this one, Z.

I don't think so ... at least, not necessarily on all items.

I want spending cuts without any sacred cows ... and that includes social programs too. However, Pelosi and other Democrats (see posts that I have made in this forum) have made those "over my dead body" positions, and so, I am not in agreement with them.

Z

Starting to feel like I've seen this argument a 1000 times here.

Here's my new idea just cause I can Pay Congress and the Prez more. I mean significantly. By doing this, politicians will be able to break free the reigns of lobbyists and therefore be able to attack problems that concern financial move easier.

/jack

szh wrote:I want spending cuts without any sacred cows ... and that includes social programs too. However, Pelosi and other Democrats (see posts that I have made in this forum) have made those "over my dead body" positions, and so, I am not in agreement with them.

They've not made them recently, to my knowledge. They've been explicitly put on the table for general budget debates, and they were explicitly taken off the table for the debt ceiling debate.

President Obama has said there need to be cuts to Medicare, but he would veto anything that made those cuts without raising taxes. He's taking a hard line on the very position you just espoused. Face it, Z, you've gone blue.

There was an interesting opinion article in the WSJ today by Charles Schwab:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... ns_opinion

Charles Schawb wrote:But doing so will require a consistent voice about confidence in businesses—small, large and in between. We cannot spend our way out of this. We cannot tax our way out of this. We cannot artificially stimulate our way out of this. We cannot regulate our way out of this. Shaming the successful or redistributing income won't get us out of this. We cannot fund our government coffers by following the "Buffett Rule," i.e., raising taxes on Americans earning more than $1 million a year.

What we can do—and absolutely must—is knock down all hurdles that create disincentives for investment in business.

I am starting to think that populism, while it can be a positive force in the national political dialog, is not the be all/end all of the discussion. So when Isaac talks about people demanding centrist ideas and policies I get a bit skittish. These are probably the same people that helped get us into this mess in the first place.

Personally, I would like to see our country get back to our core founding principles and good practices. It seems that is what Charles Schawb is hinting at in his article. President Obama might want to give it a try.

IBCoupe wrote:

szh wrote:I want spending cuts without any sacred cows ... and that includes social programs too. However, Pelosi and other Democrats (see posts that I have made in this forum) have made those "over my dead body" positions, and so, I am not in agreement with them.

They've not made them recently, to my knowledge.

I have not looked recently admittedly, but I think/suggest that Pelosi and the 12 Democrats who went on record very vocally and publicly opposing any such cuts, will not allow them to be considered for cuts.

IBCoupe wrote:They've been explicitly put on the table for general budget debates,

Yeah. That was in May ... prior to all the rancour and discord.

IBCoupe wrote:and they were explicitly taken off the table for the debt ceiling debate.

Correct. I suspect that they will insist on leaving them off the table still ...

IBCoupe wrote:Face it, Z, you've gone blue.

Perhaps only blue in the face from holding my breath ... expecting any politician to be rational about things. My personal stance on the above thoughts I espoused has never changed.

Z

szh wrote:Correct. I suspect that they will insist on leaving them off the table still ...

So, despite the fact that they stated they were on the table for deficit reduction and off the table only for the debt ceiling, you think they secretly oppose cuts to those programs in the former?

Bud,

I'm not saying the policies are right or wrong. I'm not saying that moderate is best (though, usually, it seems to me to be). I'm saying the moderates people want are already here.

IBCoupe wrote:

szh wrote:Correct. I suspect that they will insist on leaving them off the table still ...

So, despite the fact that they stated they were on the table for deficit reduction and off the table only for the debt ceiling, you think they secretly oppose cuts to those programs in the former?

Ah, I misunderstood your observation/point.

Well ... let's see what happens, I guess. But, I will not hold my breath to turn blue.

Z

That's okay, Violet. Don't need to hold your breath; we'll just roll you on down to the juice room.

Cold_Zero wrote:It seems that is what Charles Schawb is hinting at in his article. President Obama might want to give it a try.

That's like taking an environmental impact study published by Massey Energy and saying "Here! See? They know about these things -- listen to them!"

Come on, if the rate on capital gains was increased (which is where the majority of the tax increase impact would come from as part of the Buffett Rule), Schwab would feel it straight to their bottom-line, as people moved away from stocks and toward other forms of investment. Remember guys, anything that gets taxed at the capital gains rate isn't directly stimulative anyway. It's like saying a football franchise benefits from someone re-selling tickets to their games for more than face value. The company gets no benefit other than a "consumer confidence" rating which impacts their ability to get slightly favorable rates in the commercial paper markets.

But all that is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things -- it's the corporate tax code that needs reforming. U.S. based companies are sitting on over $2.3 trillion in cash as of the end of the 2nd fiscal quarter of 2011. Just sitting on it. It's not doing diddly-squat for their share price, it's not helping them innovate, it's not putting people to work, and it's certainly not stimulating the economy. And they are the ones funding the lobbies to keep the corporate tax code lower and full of the loopholes only companies of their size can take advantage of. That creates an unfair market and places artifical restrictions on trade. It's like if you were to buy in to a p0ker game that's already been going on for 100 years. You've got your $100 grand in chips and you're playing against opponents who have billions each. If they were willing to bet big against your strategy you'd have a chance of increasing your stack. But they are instead just going to ante the minimum (which means much less to them than it does to you) and wait for you to just fizzle out.

If the market isn't doing anything to make them bet big (which it isn't), then what do we do?

IBCoupe wrote:That's okay, Violet. Don't need to hold your breath; we'll just roll you on down to the juice room.

Z