Cartoon of the Day
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Thursday, May 03, 2012
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- CME Chairman Defends Speculators
- Tire Tariffs Cost $1B and $900k Per Job in 2011
- Population Distribution by Age, 1950-2050
- Shale Revolution Links
- Cleveland Fed Estimate of 10-Yr. Inflation: 1.47%
- Social Security vs. Private Retirement
- Embracing the Shale Revolution: Let's Export
- Most Popular Baby Names Back to 1880 from SSA
- For Every $1 Drop in Natural Gas Prices, Residenti...
- Cartography of the Anthropocene
71 Comments:
And how do we photo ID absentee ballots?
"And how do we photo ID absentee ballots?"...
DNA comparison...
Ben,
You ever voted absentee? I'm sure they could take ID info #'s if it was law....but you already need personal information just to fill out the absentee application. That in itself is more proof of identification than they ask from anyone else.
I'm sure this could be easily faked, but faking more than one would make getting caught a whole lot easier.
Ben,
You ever voted absentee? I'm sure they could take ID info #'s if it was law....but you already need personal information just to fill out the absentee application. That in itself is more proof of identification than they ask from anyone else.
I'm sure this could be easily faked, but faking more than one would make getting caught a whole lot easier.
absentee ballots are sent only to the address of the registered voter.
just ask them to show id once when they register to vote absentee. what's so hard about that?
if you only mail absentee ballots to registered voters why can't they be mailed IDs?
or if you mail absentee ballots with only registered voter info... why do you need photo IDs to vote?
seems like whatever is needed to validate a absentee would suffice for any voter - absentee or in person.
Everybody knows voter ID laws are racist!
/jk
not really racist in intent.. I don't think but seemingly inconsistent with how absentee . mail-in ballots are done.
if someone does not want to vote in person, can they vote absentee without presenting photo ID?
What happened to the panes that describe how conservative politics work?
What happened to the panes that describe how conservative politics work?
Same thing. Just replace the word "liberal" with "conservative". Politics is politics.
The real fraud in voting is voting istself. The probability of any vote determining the outcome in any large election is so low that it is not worth considering.
Whatever money is spent reducing voter fraud, is basically money wasted.
Just replace the word "liberal" with "conservative".
:-))
The real fraud in voting is voting istself. The probability of any vote determining the outcome in any large election is so low that it is not worth considering.
No argument here.
Voting, at least at a national election, is a highly irrational action.
At least at a local level the probability is slightly higher.
not sure you want people voting who don't even know who is on the ballot except for the one person they are voting for.
SHUT MY MOUTH!
"Whatever money is spent reducing voter fraud, is basically money wasted."
Tell that to Norm Coleman, Dino Rossi, or Bob Dornan.
jon-
"Voting, at least at a national election, is a highly irrational action."
yes and no.
sure, the liklihood that your vote is decisive is nearly zero, but, ironically, the more people who decide voting is irrational and decide not to do so, the more rational voting is for anyone who still does it.
to my mind, the truly rational action is to vote while at the same time convincing your opponents of the irrationality of voting. that's the game theory answer.
"What happened to the panes that describe how conservative politics work?"...
Simple hydra, the cartoon is describing what doesn't work...
"The probability of any vote determining the outcome in any large election is so low that it is not worth considering"...
O.K. why don't YOU quit voting then?
O.K. why don't YOU quit voting then?
Anyone who votes for one of the main parties should quit. The only vote that should be made is the one against the status quo, preferably for a losing side.
preferably for a losing side.
Trotskyism is loosing. Are you going to vote for Trotsky?
I fully agree with some here: some people should certainly never vote. We have an example here.
to my mind, the truly rational action is to vote while at the same time convincing your opponents of the irrationality of voting. that's the game theory answer.
If we legalized pot, both a large % of leftists, and almost all Ron Paulites would likely forget to show up to the polls.
I can see my way to supporting that.
"Whatever money is spent reducing voter fraud, is basically money wasted."
Tell that to Norm Coleman, Dino Rossi, or Bob Dornan."
Good point Paul, because Dino Rossi should be the Govenor of Washington state. The current govenor was most very likely elected with votes from disenfranchised voters providing the pluraality.
AIG (9:21)
"If we legalized pot... almost all Ron Paulites would likely forget to show up to the polls"
_____________
No way. Ron Paul supporters are not pot heads.
A preference for smaller government does not equal drug use.
"The real fraud in voting is voting itself. The probability of any vote determining the outcome in any large election is so low that it is not worth considering"
_________________________
That's true in the solidly blue and solidly red states.
Not necessarily for the swing states.
Personally, I think they should just hold elections in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada. No one else needs to vote.
Trotskyism is loosing. Are you going to vote for Trotsky?
No. There are more interesting parties around. In Canada we used to have the Rhinoceros Party. It promised to deal with obesity by passing a law that would change the gravitational constant or to deal with the energy problems by using legislation to lower the boiling point of water. Their platform was much more palatable than what I see of the GOP or Democrats or any of the parties in Canada.
I fully agree with some here: some people should certainly never vote. We have an example here.
Yes we do. Your ignorance of the fact that there is little materially different between the GOP and Democrats certainly shows you to be unfit to vote.
"Yes we do. Your ignorance of the fact that there is little materially different between the GOP and Democrats certainly shows you to be unfit to vote."
The usual cliched garbage from Vangel. So there's no difference between Chris Christie and John Corzine? Bobby Jindal and Kathleen Blanco? John Kasich and Ted Strickland? Vangel, you'd be lost without your cliches.
The usual cliched garbage from Vangel. So there's no difference between Chris Christie and John Corzine? Bobby Jindal and Kathleen Blanco? John Kasich and Ted Strickland? Vangel, you'd be lost without your cliches.
There is no difference between Obama and Romney or Bush and Obama. Have you looked at the budget proposal from Ryan? He would run deficits for more than a decade. Romney would increase defence spending. Both parties are for bigger government and the protection of special interests.
"There is no difference between Obama and Romney or Bush and Obama."
Well, yeah, there is, actually. Big differences. But I didn't ask you about those people. I mentioned some specific matchups, and you completely dodged the question, as you always do. Now tell me again about Nixon and the EPA.
Vangel, I just started reading a new book you could really benefit from.
No way. Ron Paul supporters are not pot heads.
You've never met a real live one, have you?
A preference for smaller government does not equal drug use.
I've met several Paulestineans. Not the "oh yeah Ron Paul is cool cause he wants to legalize drugs" types of college students. They're harmless. No, I'm talking hardcore professional Lew Rockwell podcast listeners.
The one defining feature of those 2-3 people I have met...is that they truly have no clue whatsoever about what their "preferences" are.
No way. Ron Paul supporters are not pot heads.
You've never met a real live one, have you?
I'm a RP-er and I despise drugs with a passion.
I'm a RP-er and I despise drugs with a passion.
There's always an exception to the rule.
Besides, you're from New Hampshire. You barely qualify as American.
Besides, you're from New Hampshire. You barely qualify as American.
Hahaha that's true. We do believe in freedom up here.
Well, yeah, there is, actually. Big differences. But I didn't ask you about those people. I mentioned some specific matchups, and you completely dodged the question, as you always do. Now tell me again about Nixon and the EPA.
Those people are not running for president so I have no idea what they would do if they were in the position of Romney or Obama. I am willing to say that they could not be in that position unless they played nice with the party leadership and promised to keep the federal government large and growing. Get back to me when any of the people that you are talking about run a campaign for President.
Vangel, I just started reading a new book you could really benefit from.
How ironic. A man who is a cliche writes about liberals who depend on cliches. The fact that you are reading a big-government, pro-war neoconservative author makes my point for me.
You've never met a real live one, have you?
I have met a number of them. Phil is ex-military who builds robots that move merchandise in warehouses. He took vacation time to volunteer for Dr. Paul's campaign. Reasonable. Freedom loving. Does not care much for drugs. Declined a second beer when offered.
I've met several Paulestineans. Not the "oh yeah Ron Paul is cool cause he wants to legalize drugs" types of college students. They're harmless. No, I'm talking hardcore professional Lew Rockwell podcast listeners.
Yeah. Can't have people object to a police state or the loss of individual liberty. After all, who knows if there is someone in a cave who hates your freedoms... :)
We do believe in freedom up here.
Which makes you an enemy of the GOP.
"Those people are not running for president so I have no idea what they would do if they were in the position of Romney or Obama."
Ok, so your new qualifier is at the federal level there is no difference, is that it? If so, that's an entirely new argument coming from you. Clearly, there is a big difference between Walker and his predecessor Doyle. That's why Wisconsin is in the midst of a recall election. Only an ignoramus would argue otherwise.
"I am willing to say that they could not be in that position unless they played nice with the party leadership and promised to keep the federal government large and growing."
Of course you're willing to say such a nutbar thing, with zero evidence of course. You're a Lew Rockwell cultist.
"Get back to me when any of the people that you are talking about run a campaign for President. "
At that point, they will magically transform themselves into an indistinguishable mass of a politician. Is that how it works in your fantasy world, Vangel?
"A man who is a cliche writes about liberals who depend on cliches. The fact that you are reading a big-government, pro-war neoconservative author makes my point for me."
"Big government" = cliche
"pro-war" = cliche
"neoconservative"= maybe the mother of all cliches.
But what is your point? You just told me none of the people I mentioned are running for President so they didn't apply. Last I checked, neither is Jonah Goldberg. Are you now saying Presidential office seekers and political pundits are all the same, but state level politicians do have distinctions?
Man, that is one convoluted theory you have there, Vangel. Maybe you better flesh it out a little more with your masters at LewRockwell.com.
Ok, so your new qualifier is at the federal level there is no difference, is that it? If so, that's an entirely new argument coming from you. Clearly, there is a big difference between Walker and his predecessor Doyle. That's why Wisconsin is in the midst of a recall election. Only an ignoramus would argue otherwise.
I do not dispute that Walker is taking on the unions. In fact, in previous threads I have supported the efforts to reign in state benefit expansion and have actually argued for an outright default.
Of course you're willing to say such a nutbar thing, with zero evidence of course. You're a Lew Rockwell cultist.
Nutbar? When was the last time the GOP ever nominated a candidate who did not support government expansion? It was not the two Bushes. It was not Reagan or Nixon. Yes, it stood for smaller government in the 1920s but that was 90 years ago.
Did you look at the Ryan budget? He increases spending. The same for Romney. All of the candidates with the exception of Ron Paul would have increased government spending. Yet you call Dr. Paul a nutbar but support big government proponents who want to be the GOP nominee. How does that make any sense?
Man, that is one convoluted theory you have there, Vangel. Maybe you better flesh it out a little more with your masters at LewRockwell.com.
Why are you guys so afraid of Rockwell? After all, according to you he is just a nutcase who attracts other nuts. Could it be that he speaks to the young people who are so upset for being sold out by the 'Liberals' and 'Conservatives' in the mainstream parties who cared far more about power and money than they did about individual liberty.
Jonah Goldberg and people like him helped ruin the country. If the GOP keeps following their advice there will only be more debt, more inflation, and the inevitable collapse of the reserve currency status of the USD. That will destroy much of the power of the United States and will turn it into another version of England or France.
"do not dispute that Walker is taking on the unions. In fact, in previous threads I have supported the efforts to reign in state benefit expansion and have actually argued for an outright default."
Well then, can you comprehend how that is completely inconsistent with your incessant "they're all the same" rhetoric? Walker is facing a vicious opposition by pretty much every Democrat in America.
"It was not the two Bushes. It was not Reagan or Nixon."
The President is not a dictator. And the candidates do not run unopposed. Do you seriously dispute Reagan was different from Mondale or Carter? Also, Reagan had the Tip O'Neill Democrats to contend with. The historical record demonstrates he certainly tried to roll the welfare state back. And Bush cut taxes, was pro-drilling, and tried to reform Social Security. John Kerry and Al Gore opposed all of those items. The American public ultimately also opposed SS reform.
"Did you look at the Ryan budget? He increases spending."
The question is, did you look at it or are you just repeating the same paleocon drivel? Among other things, Ryan's budget repeals Obamacare and reforms Medicare. It spends far less than Obama, and certainly as a share of GDP. I would prefer more draconian budget cuts, but Ryan's plan still pushes it farther than the American public wants to go. Yet, you inexplicably say Ryan is no different from Obama. The real heart of the problem is the average voter thinks we can fix the problem by taxing oil companies and getting rid of foreign aid.
The prospect of zeroing out the 2 parties is a mindless fantasy when a much more practical plan is to elect more real conservatives. In order to do that, we will also need to do figure out how to get through to an American public that cares more about the Kardashians than the fiscal crisis.
"Why are you guys so afraid of Rockwell? "
Who is afraid of him? He is a nut, so I know I can dismiss any of his boot lickers.
" Could it be that he speaks to the young people who are so upset..."
Wait...Rockwell speaks for young people? Are you even aware Obama overwhelmingly carried the youth vote in 2008? Hmmm, maybe Obama and Rockwell are the same. I can see they both share a contempt for America and tend to draw ideas from the same anti-American creeps like Noam Chomsky. Even more interesting, you have cited Marxist websites like the IPS as evidence for your crazy theories. Cliche Man Vangel, Maybe you are the same as Obama, too!
I have met a number of them. Phil is ex-military who builds robots that move merchandise in warehouses. He took vacation time to volunteer for Dr. Paul's campaign. Reasonable. Freedom loving. Does not care much for drugs. Declined a second beer when offered.
There's always exceptions to the rule. I could give you statistics, but statistics were invented by the government, so they wouldn't be of much use to you anyway.
Yeah. Can't have people object to a police state or the loss of individual liberty.
No. No problem. One just doesn't have to be associated to whack jobs like Lew Rockwell, or go protest next to commies in OWS. Just sayin...there's probably a lot more Ron Paul voters in OWS, than anything else.
I do not dispute that Walker is taking on the unions. In fact, in previous threads I have supported the efforts
Whaaa?!? Walker is GOP, a neo-con, a warmongerer, anti-unpasteurized cheese big government. And you say he's an sort-of-ok-dude? You're slipping Vange...slipping.
Why are you guys so afraid of Rockwell? After all, according to you he is just a nutcase who attracts other nuts. Could it be that he speaks to the young people
Cause he's a nutjob who is speaking to young people, and turning them into nutjobs who go to OWS holding up "Audit the Fed" signs and "Ron Paul 2012" banners from bridges, which I have to drive under.
who cared far more about power and money than they did about individual liberty.
Isn't capitalism all about caring about money? I only care about money. "Individual freedom" just happened to be the most efficient method of organizing a society in order to maximize my economic benefits...so I can make more money. But why shouldn't I only care about money and power?
You're talking about a mechanism, and I'm talking about the end result. A mechanism isn't an end in itself.
Well then, can you comprehend how that is completely inconsistent with your incessant "they're all the same" rhetoric? Walker is facing a vicious opposition by pretty much every Democrat in America.
But they, meaning the parties, and their chosen candidates are the same. It was not just Democrats who were in bed with unions and expanded state government programs. Republican governors and Republican legislatures did the same thing across the country. And yes, there is the odd good Democratic or Republican governor out there but they are few in number and not usually what their supporters claimed. Even someone like Christie, who claims to care about limiting state spending, does stupid things like take helicopters for personal business or fund offshore wind farms and other green boondoggles.
And let me point out that it is easy to be fiscally responsible when you don't have much room because the deficits and unfunded liabilities have grown out of control while taxes are too high to encourage entrepreneurship.
The President is not a dictator.
Really? Didn't Bush decide to torture people and keep them in indefinite detention? Didn't Reagan make a deal with the Iranians without letting Congress know?
A president has a lot of power because he can dictate the agenda and use the power of the office to make arguments that are based on principle. He can veto bills and force Congress to override that veto. The fact is that the Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, etc., did not have the onions to take a stand and caved. In the Case of Bush he had control of Congress when he proposed to expand government spending.
And the candidates do not run unopposed. Do you seriously dispute Reagan was different from Mondale or Carter?
Yes he was different. He had better hair. And grew the size of government much faster than Carter, who actually signed the regulations that deregulated the energy and other sectors before Reagan took office.
Also, Reagan had the Tip O'Neill Democrats to contend with. The historical record demonstrates he certainly tried to roll the welfare state back.
No he didn't. He went along and expanded the size of government in exchange for promises of some decreases in the future. Promises are not actions. Only actions matter.
And Bush cut taxes, was pro-drilling, and tried to reform Social Security.
He also increased spending far faster than Clinton.
John Kerry and Al Gore opposed all of those items. The American public ultimately also opposed SS reform.
Yes they did. And Bush caved in. That is not what a principled leader does.
Really? Didn't Bush decide to torture people and keep them in indefinite detention? Didn't Reagan make a deal with the Iranians without letting Congress know?
Very astute observations; Bush and Reagan were indeed dictators. Are you sure you're not a Constitutional Law professor? If not, you ought to be.
Hmmm, looks like aig and vangeIV walked hand in hand to the local wikipedia outlet for their 'alledged' facts...
The question is, did you look at it or are you just repeating the same paleocon drivel? Among other things, Ryan's budget repeals Obamacare and reforms Medicare. It spends far less than Obama, and certainly as a share of GDP. I would prefer more draconian budget cuts, but Ryan's plan still pushes it farther than the American public wants to go. Yet, you inexplicably say Ryan is no different from Obama. The real heart of the problem is the average voter thinks we can fix the problem by taxing oil companies and getting rid of foreign aid.
Ryan increases spending. The fact that he does not increase it as much as Obama does not make him a fiscal conservative.
The prospect of zeroing out the 2 parties is a mindless fantasy when a much more practical plan is to elect more real conservatives. In order to do that, we will also need to do figure out how to get through to an American public that cares more about the Kardashians than the fiscal crisis.
Real conservatives. You mean guys who love big government that favours big companies rather than big government that favours big unions? No thanks. I prefer someone who stands for individual liberty in both the financial and social spheres.
Who is afraid of him? He is a nut, so I know I can dismiss any of his boot lickers.
It looks to me as if make believe conservatives are pissed off and afraid because Lew has exposed them for what they are.
Wait...Rockwell speaks for young people? Are you even aware Obama overwhelmingly carried the youth vote in 2008? Hmmm, maybe Obama and Rockwell are the same. I can see they both share a contempt for America and tend to draw ideas from the same anti-American creeps like Noam Chomsky. Even more interesting, you have cited Marxist websites like the IPS as evidence for your crazy theories. Cliche Man Vangel, Maybe you are the same as Obama, too!
Dr. Paul has attracted many young people to the libertarian movement. The GOP has a bunch of scared, old, mostly white people who vote for big government but call themeless fiscal conservatives.
There's always exceptions to the rule. I could give you statistics, but statistics were invented by the government, so they wouldn't be of much use to you anyway.
No, you can't give me statistics. If you could you would have provided them. What you have is narrative by the GOP insiders who are running scared because they have no credibility.
Dr. Paul has attracted many young people to the libertarian movement.
He certainly has. Young people are typically the most ignorant and impressionable people in society. So I'm not sure this is a selling point of yours.
I never heard of Mao Tse Tung making much of an impression on any intelligent educated successful middle-aged Chinese. The youth though, loved him more then Elvis.
The GOP has a bunch of scared, old, mostly white people
Old white people? Blah! What a bore they are...
No, you can't give me statistics. If you could you would have provided them
I can give you lots of statistics. 38% of Ron Paul supporters like Pepsi and 52% like Coke. Look it up.
Hmmm, looks like aig and vangeIV walked hand in hand to the local wikipedia outlet for their 'alledged' facts..
My facts are almost never alleged by anyone to be factual.
The GOP has a bunch of scared, old, mostly white people
Gulp...
http://images.forbes.com/media/magazines/forbes/2009/1116/1116_p026-paul_398x280.jpg
Very astute observations; Bush and Reagan were indeed dictators. Are you sure you're not a Constitutional Law professor? If not, you ought to be.
The office of the President is no longer limited by the Constitution. That gives the American President the more power than has been wielded by any dictator in history. Bush invaded a country that was not a threat to the US without a declaration of war by Congress. So did Reagan.
Hmmm, looks like aig and vangeIV walked hand in hand to the local wikipedia outlet for their 'alledged' facts...
It is a fact, not an 'alleged' fact that Presidents treat the Constitution as just a piece of paper.
He certainly has. Young people are typically the most ignorant and impressionable people in society. So I'm not sure this is a selling point of yours.
Actually, young people are typically the most open minded and sharpest as well. They actually pay attention, are capable of reasoning, and are usually motivate to educate themselves about issues that they are passionate about. They are attracted to Dr. Paul's campaign because his arguments about liberty are persuasive. My 13-year old saw a Jon Stewart clip where he made a comment about a comment that Dr. Paul made at a campaign speech. He could not see the joke because he understood that Dr. Paul was referencing Mises and Hayek while Stewart's audience seemed quite ignorant about the meaning of the comment. In his middle school many of the kids know about Dr. Paul and his message about the importance of freedom.
This is not about Dr. Paul or his campaign. It is a battle of ideas between those that support liberty and those that make excuses for big governments that limit it. I think that young kids are beginning to figure out that how free we are is not about who we choose to come to power or the process that is used to gain power. It is about the limits to power. Many people like you have no trouble with giving a President or Congress huge amounts of power to regulate every aspect of our lives. But it seems that others do have a problem with that idea and do not see how we can be free if there are people in Washington or some state capital who regulate the pressure in our showers or choose which schools our children should attend. As my son pointed out, if a place like Sweden allows parents to choose which schools their kids can attend shouldn't we do the same. And if he likes salty chips why should the government tell the producer that he must use less?
I can give you lots of statistics. 38% of Ron Paul supporters like Pepsi and 52% like Coke. Look it up.
Nonsense. How big was the sample and how big are the error bars? Anyone can make up some nonsense questions and ask a few people. That does not tell us what we need to know, particularly when the issues run deep and are serious and cannot be resolved by asking superficial questions.
That said, there are certainly a few things that we do know. For example, most voters agree with Dr. Paul about the need to end the military adventures and bring the troops back. Most agree with Dr. Paul about the War on Drugs. They overwhelmingly agree about the intrusiveness of the TSA, about the incompetence and harm done by FEMA, and about the need to cut military spending by eliminating the foreign bases in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere. They certainly seem to agree with him that the Fed needs to be audited.
It seems to me that on many of the issues Dr. Paul was leading and other politicians and the public followed when he proved to be right. Isn't a principle and intelligence a requirement of leadership? And if they are doesn't that disqualify Romney, Obama, and most of the panderers in both parties?
The way I see it the best choice for the US is Dr. Paul. Second, but far behind is Gary Johnson. If you are an al Qaeda member, or just want the US to decline in power and influence feel free to choose Romney or Obama as your preferred candidate.
" Romney would increase defence spending"...
Well vangeIV seeing as how Canadians can't defend themselves is it any wonder why defense spending is larger here?
"It is a fact, not an 'alleged' fact that Presidents treat the Constitution as just a piece of paper"...
Yet another NOT totally factless 'black & white' observation by the vangeIV...
It does beg the question though just how many Presidents since George Washington could've been indicted and convicted in a court of law for failing to adhere to their Presidential oath...
"It was not just Democrats who were in bed with unions and expanded state government programs. Republican governors and Republican legislatures did the same thing across the country."
It is, with some exceptions, pretty much ONLY Democrats now who are in bed with unions. All across the country, we have GOP governors battling the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and AFSCME parasites. With the exception of maybe Cuomo in NY, I don't see any Democrats doing the same.
ANd for the thousandth time, I readily admit there are some bad Republicans. There are no good Democrats. I can point out to a long list of excellent Governors, Congressmen, and Senators on one side of the aisle.
"Even someone like Christie, who claims to care about limiting state spending, does stupid things like take helicopters for personal business or fund offshore wind farms and other green boondoggles."
So that now makes him the same because he does some things you don't like? Even though he is doing tremendous work in NJ trying to roll back the government while refusing to raise taxes? Can't you see how ridiculous that is? AND Ron Paul is a giant porker, but that doesn't bother you a bit.
"And let me point out that it is easy to be fiscally responsible when you don't have much room because the deficits and unfunded liabilities have grown out of control while taxes are too high to encourage entrepreneurship."
And yet I only see one side of the aisle trying to do anything about it. You may not like the RYan plan, but Harry Reid's Senate hasn't passed a budget in 3 yrs. And I obviously don't need to go into Obama's record.
"Didn't Bush decide to torture people"
No, jackass. And the enhanced interrogations were not done on US citizens.
"..and keep them in indefinite detention?"
Yes, a bunch of murdering terrorists you and your buddies at LewRockwell.com sympathize with. So? THat doesn't make Bush a dicator. You did notice he stepped down when his term was over, didn't you? Dictators don't usually abide by term limits.
"Didn't Reagan make a deal with the Iranians without letting Congress know?"
And he got slapped for it, very well could have been impeached. Again, SO WHAT? How did that make him a dictator?
"He also increased spending far faster than Clinton."
And Clinton's spending appetite was held in check by a GOP Congress. Bush's apostasy on spending doesn't negate the other items I mentioned, of course. But that's how you change the subject in order to hold your nutty theory together.
"Ryan increases spending. The fact that he does not increase it as much as Obama does not make him a fiscal conservative."
It's clear you don't know what you're talking about. I quote Peter Ferrara:
"Ryan's budget actually cuts the total level of federal spending in nominal dollars for each of the first two years. Total federal spending actually declines from 2012 to 2013, and then declines again from 2013 to 2014. That would be the first and only time that has happened since the beginning of the Eisenhower Administration 60 years ago, when we were still climbing down from runaway wartime spending. Total federal spending under Ryan's budget does not rise above the 2012 level until 2016. The total increase in federal spending over those four first years of Ryan's budget is 1.8 percent. Those would be the four most tight-fisted years in federal spending growth since the Eisenhower Administration as well.
By 2015, after just three years under Ryan's budget, federal spending would be nearly back to its long-term, historical average since World War II as a percent of GDP, at 20.1 percent, down from 24.3 percent today. That is a cut in federal spending of 4.2 percent of GDP in just 3 years. Even with Ryan's proposed reductions in individual and corporate tax rates, federal revenues would be restored to their long-term postwar average as a percent of GDP as well. That would leave the deficit in 2015 at a quite manageable 1.7 percent of GDP, compared to roughly 9 percent on average under President Obama."
Oh, but Ryan's the same as Obama in Vangel's hermetically sealed little fantasy world!
"It looks to me as if make believe conservatives are pissed off.."
Pissed off? Why would anyone be pissed at such a non-consequential quack like Rockwell? He and his cult followers are amusing at best.
"Dr. Paul has attracted many young people to the libertarian movement."
Yes, he's a bright shining star! That's why his campaign is going gangbusters!
"He went along and expanded the size of government in exchange for promises of some decreases in the future. Promises are not actions. Only actions matter."
We could hash that out, but I don't see how that disputes in any way my contention he tried to roll back government. We can certainly say Carter and Mondale would have expanded government even more, and would definitely not have cut income taxes.
"You mean guys who love big government that favours big companies rather than big government that favours big unions?"
No, I mean people like Walker, Christie, Kasich, McDougall, Jindal, Ryan, Flake, West, Rubio, etc. etc. etc. Once again, The fact that there are some bad Republicans who act like Democrats does not negate the existence of some very good GOP politicians who may still do some things Vangel disapproves of.
"Actually, young people are typically the most open minded and sharpest as well."
They're the most uninformed and likely to get caught up in slick packaged candidates. Hence the overwhelming enthusiasm they held for Obama in 2008.
" They are attracted to Dr. Paul's campaign because his arguments about liberty are persuasive."
Yes, to people who haven't spent much time living in the real world. His simple, fantasy ideology arguments could be quite enticing.
The office of the President is no longer limited by the Constitution
I'm telling you. You missed your calling at being a Constitutional Law Professor
Actually, young people are typically the most open minded and sharpest as well.
Listen buddy. I'm a lot younger than you are. I know a lot more young people than you do. I'm tellin ya...young people are morons. 90% vote for Obama, and 10% vote for Ron Paul. What does that tell you?
They are attracted to Dr. Paul's campaign because his arguments about liberty are persuasive.
They are attracted to any idiotic non-conformist ideology of the moment. They don't care what it is, as long as it is non-conformist and "different". Well, you can't get much more "different" than His Honorary Excellency, the Excellent Dr. Ron Paul.
Nonsense. How big was the sample and how big are the error bars?
Huge, for the first part, and tiny, for the second part. Look it up!
"if someone does not want to vote in person, can they vote absentee without presenting photo ID?"
LOL
No. I must show my photo ID to my mailman, or she won't accept my absentee ballot.
To avoid that requirement, I must mail it to the registrar of voters in a plain envelope so it's not recognized.
"What happened to the panes that describe how conservative politics work?
Same thing. Just replace the word "liberal" with "conservative". Politics is politics."
Yes, and to be accurate, you must replace those little donkey characters with tiny elephants.
Morganovich: "to my mind, the truly rational action is to vote while at the same time convincing your opponents of the irrationality of voting. that's the game theory answer."
That, or convincing them to get to the polls on the day after election.
Yet another NOT totally factless 'black & white' observation by the vangeIV...
It does beg the question though just how many Presidents since George Washington could've been indicted and convicted in a court of law for failing to adhere to their Presidential oath...
Most of your recent presidents have clearly violated the Constitution many times. And Congress has done the same. Both parties are the same. Obama has now adopted a policy that allows him to kill citizens without trial or charges. Bush kept people in jail without charging them. Clinton bombed Serbian civilians without a declaration of war. Congress is engaged in activities and has taken powers that were never delegated to it. What more evidence do you need?
It is, with some exceptions, pretty much ONLY Democrats now who are in bed with unions. All across the country, we have GOP governors battling the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and AFSCME parasites. With the exception of maybe Cuomo in NY, I don't see any Democrats doing the same.
It is easy to pretend to be fiscally responsible when the state is bankrupt and there are few choices. But the path to that bankruptcy was walked by both parties. And let us remember that the Teamsters voted for Reagan because they did not want Carter to deregulate trucking. In politics things are not exactly as simple as the various sides try to portray them, particularly when they are all driven by the quest for power and do not believe much in principle.
"It is easy to pretend to be fiscally responsible when the state is bankrupt and there are few choices."
Nonsense. I dont' see Brown in Calif and Quinn in Illinois doing anything other than raising taxes. They're the two most bankrupt states in the nation, and both overrun with Democrats. Your neatly bow-tied theories fall apart first contact with the real world, Vangel.
Oh, but Ryan's the same as Obama in Vangel's hermetically sealed little fantasy world!
He is the same. Both would not run a balanced budget for more than a decade into the future.
Pissed off? Why would anyone be pissed at such a non-consequential quack like Rockwell? He and his cult followers are amusing at best.
Because he lifts a mirror and shows them what they are. Since when were conservatives in favour of foreign adventurism and a big government?
Yes, he's a bright shining star! That's why his campaign is going gangbusters!
He regularly attracts thousands of people at his rallies. Romney has staged events where the cameras don't show how few people actually attend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W53n-L7OmYg
We could hash that out, but I don't see how that disputes in any way my contention he tried to roll back government. We can certainly say Carter and Mondale would have expanded government even more, and would definitely not have cut income taxes.
Carter appointed people to deregulate industries. Although Reagan gets the credit for the outcome Reagan did not deregulate nearly as much as Carter did. Nixon, Reagan, and the two Bushes were responsible for a huge growth in both regulation and government.
No, I mean people like Walker, Christie, Kasich, McDougall, Jindal, Ryan, Flake, West, Rubio, etc. etc. etc. Once again, The fact that there are some bad Republicans who act like Democrats does not negate the existence of some very good GOP politicians who may still do some things Vangel disapproves of.
Note that states have to balance their budgets even when they are run by Democrats. Republican presidents have not given you a balanced budget since Ike's last year in office. To pretend otherwise is to be blinded to reality.
They're the most uninformed and likely to get caught up in slick packaged candidates. Hence the overwhelming enthusiasm they held for Obama in 2008.
Perhaps if the GOP had the sense to run a better candidate who was genuine, believed in real principles and freedom they would not be sucked in by Obama. And let us note that Obama can get away with lies only because his opponent is worse. Unless the economy collapses Romney has no chance.
Yes, to people who haven't spent much time living in the real world. His simple, fantasy ideology arguments could be quite enticing.
Nonsense. Just because you are so afraid that you are willing to give up your liberty for the promise that some incompetent idiots at the TSA and DHS will keep you safe it does not mean that you live in the real world. In the real world the US taxpayer cannot afford to pay for the defense of South Korea, Japan, and Germany and to hand over Iraq to the Iranians.
Listen buddy. I'm a lot younger than you are. I know a lot more young people than you do. I'm tellin ya...young people are morons. 90% vote for Obama, and 10% vote for Ron Paul. What does that tell you?
The last time I looked the GOP picked McCain, not Paul. And the last time I looked they wanted the wars over, not extended. I just saw Obama make a speech today. He attacked Romney on Afghanistan because Romney is too scared to set an end point for the war. The fact that he escalated the war will not be taken advantage of by the GOP because their candidates are too scared to actually stand up against the warfare state. That makes GOP voters stupid.
They are attracted to any idiotic non-conformist ideology of the moment. They don't care what it is, as long as it is non-conformist and "different". Well, you can't get much more "different" than His Honorary Excellency, the Excellent Dr. Ron Paul.
This only shows just how little you understand. Perhaps Albanians do not really care much about liberty but many Americans still do.
Huge, for the first part, and tiny, for the second part. Look it up!
LOL. You are just making crap up. The last time I looked the election was not about Coke or Pepsi and the issues were not so simple that they could be covered on a simple poll. Of course, you may be thinking about the issues on the GOP platform under Romney. They might be simple enough that the candidate can change his mind a few times during the course of the election.
"He is the same. Both would not run a balanced budget for more than a decade into the future."
He would drive the deficit down to $182 billion by 2017. Obama runs trillion dollar deficits into infinity. Only a Lew Rockwell nutter would call that "the same."
Your arguments are such crap, Vangel. I doubt you even believe them.
"Because he lifts a mirror and shows them what they are."
I look at the mirror and see a guy not in thrall to a fantasy world ideology.
"He regularly attracts thousands of people at his rallies. Romney has staged events where the cameras don't show how few people actually attend."
Amazing. Um, you are aware your master Ron Paul lost every primary he competed against Romney, yes?
"Although Reagan gets the credit for the outcome Reagan did not deregulate nearly as much as Carter did."
More made-up bullshit from Vangel. Under Reagan, the number of pages in the Federal Register dropped to less than 48,000 in 1986 from over 80,000 in 1980. I don't have Carter's exact numbrs, but The Federal Register, which lists new regulations, averaged 72,844 pages annually during the Carter years from 1977 to 1980.
Ok, now you will change the subject to a sin some other Republican committed.
"Note that states have to balance their budgets even when they are run by Democrats."
What ignorant gibberish. Democrat Ted Strickland left behind an $8 billion dollar budget deficit that was cleaned up by GOP Gov John Kasich even while eliminating the estate tax and implementing an 800 million income tax cut.Further, Ohio's bond rating actually went up under Kasich's reforms.
Oh, but I imagine Kasich did something Vangel doesn't care for, thereby making him "the same" as any random Democrat.
He would drive the deficit down to $182 billion by 2017.
He would? How can he bind a future Congress to any spending limits? Don't you remember that was what Reagan claimed? He would agree to spend a lot of money and run big deficits now and the savings would come later. The savings never came.
The trick is to see what he does for spending next year, where Congress can be bound. And on that front he is one big fat zero. Huge deficits. Lots of spending increases in some areas. A bit of savings in other areas. Rome burns and the GOP band is playing its violins.
Obama runs trillion dollar deficits into infinity. Only a Lew Rockwell nutter would call that "the same."
Lew Rockwell remembers the failed Reagan promises and points out that what matters is next year's budget, not a budget that claims to bind Congress over a decade in the future. Only fools and charlatans accept on faith what is not permitted in the Constitution. The only Congress that has a say in spending is the one that passes the budget. And a budget is passed each year. You have no idea what will happen in 2024. And neither does Ryan because he may not even be in office at the time. What matters is what happens this year and next. And on that front there is no substantial difference between the two.
And let me also note that Bush was supposed to be a fiscal conservative. Where did that get you? And how does that compare to what the GOP predicted and what Rockwell said would happen? If one is objective, it is clear that Rockwell was right.
Obama cannot spend a penny without Congress approval.
Your arguments are such crap, Vangel. I doubt you even believe them.
My arguments are based on actual understanding of politics, human nature, and observation. I have heard the GOP and Democrats make promises that were not kept. I have seen a GOP president and a GOP Congress spend like drunken sailors even as the professed their fiscal conservative bona fides. So you will have to excuse me if I judge the parties by their acts instead of their PR.
Nonsense. I dont' see Brown in Calif and Quinn in Illinois doing anything other than raising taxes. They're the two most bankrupt states in the nation, and both overrun with Democrats. Your neatly bow-tied theories fall apart first contact with the real world, Vangel.
Wasn't California run by a Republican governor? Didn't that governor support wasting money on cap and trade and green subsidies that were also supported by the Republicans in Congress and people like Christie and Romney? Didn't a GOP president and Congress give you No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D?
Post a Comment
<< Home