As much as I don't like Hillary Clinton, the more I think about it, I think I would like to see HRC as the Senate Majority Leader.

Hillary is the only one with balls in the Democrat leadership structure. At least we do know, for the most part, where Hillary stands on the issues.

Also, I think she is immune to the Obamassiah syndrome and will be as close as we can get to some sort of check and balance between the legislative branch and executive branch we will see for the next two years.

Finally, I saw this story and thought it was intersting

What the fuck have you done with krby?

While I agree that I would like to see Sen Clinton as the Majority Leader, I think that polls regarding Obama or Hilary v McCain are kind of useless.

Hilary's wasn't under constant attack from August through the election. Obama was. If she had been, her unfavorables would be higher than they are right now. Also, McCain's huge failure was picking Palin. It is highly doubtful he would have made the same choice if he was running against Clinton.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Yes, I know. I'd rather have Hillary out of the whole thing, but looking at best of a bad situation (IMO) having Hillary there to counter Obamallama would be better than Pelosi.

Better than Reid you mean.

Reid/Pelosi they are all the same

Thank God too because they can finally push along the liberal democratic agenda that will save this country from the past 8 years... damn about time.

You're an idiot.

That's fine but I'm also on the winning side. January 20th can't come soon enough. It's time that I am represented, not the Bush neocons.

I can't begin to explain to you why you are wrong Sky, but at least stop acting so smug about things, you're losing votes for your side!

I can't even begin to explain how happy I'd be if a liberal agenda began to take over America. Democrats and liberals are the best thing to happen to the US. We always fix up the messes the Republicans leave behind, and we'll put the nation back on the path to prosperity. The broken policies of the past 8 years have left us in near ruin.

It's time to take our fucking country back.

You do realize that a vast majority of the wealth this country had in the 80s and 90s was due to the Reagan administration, right?

Don't blame the problem of the last 8 years on the Republicans. Blame them on Bush and his cronies.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Hmm, someone is making money...just some things to consider:

full story here


A majority of those higher income voters voted for Obama because they believed that he would lower taxes -- Obama had the perception that he was the candidate of lowering taxes.

Sky, the "liberalization of the government" is already starting. Look at all these handouts that they are doing now, to the Banks, the insurance companies, to AMERICAN EXPRESS (a fucking credit card company!) and possibly to the auto industry. IMO these handouts are not the best way to revive a slowing economy, they will just make it longer till we see a true recovery and make the hard times even worse. Look at the $700 Billion that was passed six weeks ago, that was supposed to "free up lending capital" but the banks are holding onto the money.

Also, the Bush administration is not alone in holding the bag for this mess.

Be careful what you wish for.

I proudly voted for Reagan in 1984 and grudgingly voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. This prosperity you talk about Skycrasher is that going to come from "spreading the wealth around"? Because that sure looks like trickle up poverty to me and not a winner like trickle down economics. It doesn't take an economist to see that taking away money from the people who employee people in the private sector leads to unemployment. Business's of all sizes are here to make a profit and not a part of some charitable scheme that magicly provides jobs. What we need is a privatization of social security, getting the government out of corporate business, making the people who are responsible for the financial mess accountable whether they are a public or private citizen. We need a government that stays out of peoples private lives instead of meddling with gay rights, marijuana enforcement, gun rights, abortion rights.

You guys do realize he's just trolling the fuck out of you? Right? Sky is a retard, but he's not nearly as retarded as he's pretending to be right now.

What? All I heard was how he was going to raise taxes.

Regardless, the whole "I'm going to lower taxes more than you" part of the election all sucked to me. I don't think anyone should be lowering taxes, at all, given our fiscal situation.

haha I love you Bz

Nope.

Wait what? All supply side economic theories are complete and utter failures. The vast majority of the wealth this country has is because of the personal computer, specificly the spreadsheet.

"trickle down" economic theories do not exist. There is no microeconomic foundations for them. Stockman himself admitted that it was nothing more then a Trojan horse to implement supply side economic doctrine. And like all other supply side economic theories such as Marxism and Maoism, Reaganonomics deserves to be carried out to the wood shed and shot.

Hard to know who is trolling and who is being serious...

_________________

When in doubt, give the edge to Karthun. He's a relatively smart bloke when it come to this shit.

I happily cede my ignorance in this subject.

Back to the original subject, I would love to see it happen but it won't.

When you have Reagan's chief economic advisor admit that they lied to the American people about "trickle down economics" just so they could give the top 5% a tax cut economics "theories" deserve to be killed off.

But try Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

How does Secretary of State sound?

That is an interesting possibility.

I have a feeling that Joe Biden is going to probably have a decent amount of input on Secretary of State. He is a foreign policy wonk, so you know that he is going to be reasonably involved in foreign relations. I think whoever gets the job is going to have to be able to work well with Biden.

I have no idea what sort of working relationship Clinton and Biden have. Presumably it is good - they seemed to be pretty cordial with each other during the early primary debates.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I think she would be well-used as Sec of State but I am not sure she would take it as it would severely limit her input on issues that mean a great deal to her: health care, education, etc.

I did have a talk with someone, is there any restriction on having the Vice President be the Secretary of State?

Considering that he basically wont have any official duties to carry out while the democrats control the senate (no ties to break) he could certainly do the secretary of state job duties. The problem is having one person hold two jobs in an administration would reduce the headcount and diversity of opinion that I believe Obama is shooting for.

The other interesting thing I have heard(on cnn) is that McCain is scheduled to meet with Obama Monday in the transition office. Makes me curious what position they might be considering for him

Personally I don't see HRC as SecState. SecState is basically a lapdog for the administration (see Powell, Rice, Albright, et al) Hillary wants her own power and she could be more powerful as Senate Majority Leader than serving under the Obamallama as SecState

Re: McCain's new prospects

White House pooper scooper? "You kids and your dogs! Get off my lawn!"

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Secretary of State is the first cabinet position in line for Presidential ascension. If I were Obama I would keep her out of the line of ascension. Ask Vince Foster.

Obama > Biden > Clinton

Clinton wouldn't be a bad President. Obama is just better.

"Trickle down" flow of money is the basis of American capitalism. It has been since it's inception. I will even go so far to say it is the foundation of all capitalism, although I'm sure people can find exceptions.

Here is the proof. Money runs downhill. Always. Or at least 99.9% of the time.

Name me a single business, company, etc....where an employee makes more than the employer. In history. Go back 2,000 years even. Will you be able to find one or two maybe? Maybe. But it doesn't change the fact that money always trickles down, and people in higher positions make more than people in lower positions.

Now, if you are talking about "trickle down economics" as Reagan and Republicans originally postulated it.....then fine. A lot of that probably was manipulated to make it more palatable.

But to say money doesn't trickle down is dead wrong, because that's the only way it flows. It's practically a law of gravity.

Trickle down economic theories as was proposed by President Reagan was admitted to be a lies, scam and fraud by Reagan's chief economic advisor, What more do you want?

You still hear these lies today.

"Cutting taxes will lead to an increase in tax revanue." The Kemp-Roth tax cut cost the US government hundreds of billions of dollars of revanue. I believe the current estimate was 750 billion over 5 years during the 80's.

"Cutting capital gains taxes will increase investment." A cut in capital gains increase WITHDRAWS of investment from companies leading to a decrease in total investment. As long as the capital gains tax is lower then the total income tax (income + all other payrolls) people will invest money in stock and other assets.

True but money is a cycle like water. Snow forms on a mountain, melts and trickles down till it reaches the bottom where it evaporates and falls back on the mountain as snow. If the water slows or is stopped from trickling down you get arid conditions on the bottom and very little watter evaporates to form the snow falling on the top of the mountain. The cycle is driven by the evaporation at the bottom to form snow at the top and not the formation of snow at the top to fuel evaporation at the bottom. The economy is fueled by the consumers money evaporating at the bottom and not the business income forming snow at the top.

Hook me up with some of that dope you're on.

Well of course tax revenues went down. People were taxed less, duh. Why do you need all those tax dollars anyways? Again, I am a strong proponent for small goverment. You want to tax people so they can give $700 billion to banks?

Were you born during the Reagan adminstration? I'm asking honestly, because it's like you forget how it was right before then during the Carter adminstration. Huge inflation. Rising unemployment. Do you remember your family only able to get gas on certain days based on what your license plate number was? Can you imagine trying to buy a house when the prime lending rate is above 20%?

During Reagan's tenure, unemployment fell, inflation fell, and our GDP and average income grew. And you are saying that's a failure because we didn't take enough in as taxes? That's laughable. Maybe it just goes to show that we don't really need as much in taxes as some people think.

You are right in one aspect. All the theory crap is bullshit. Who the fuck cares if you think a theory is good or not. The proof is in the results. During the Reagan years, our economy prospered. During the Clinton years, our economy prospered. So it doesn't matter what you can call it, you can call it the "Tickle Me Elmo" policy.....but if it works, it works. If you want to see how you can run our country into the shitter, then debate about economic policy during the Carter administration, or the Bush Jr. administration.

And in case you glossed over my first post.....trickle down is how money flows. It's more law than theory. I'm still waiting for you to provide me with an example of an exception.

Sorry man you can't fly on this dope.

things are going to be better in 2 years when the house goes red again, hopefully the obama admin can stay a little left of left of center until the balance is right

_________________

Honestly, this makes it sound like you aren't very familiar with the "reduce taxes, and tax income will gain" Reagan argument that was used over and over again. Hell, it's still used here on these boards by krby every once in a while.

It's basically a gross misapplication of the Laffer curve, if you've heard of it.

I am familiar with the "reduce taxes, and tax income will gain" theories, I personally don't believe in them. At best, it's a wash, and hopefully the amount you gain in taxes based on theoretic increased productivity evens out with the amount you lose based on lowered tax rates. However, I don't remember Reagan ever mentioning this personally as a reason for lowering taxes. I remember his speeches being about lowering taxes to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Now, did economists, even Reagan economists, try to sell America on the "reduce taxes, increase tax revenue" theory? Probably. I just don't remember Reagan himself doing it. If I remember correctly, he used to be very self-deprecating, always playing the kinda Dumb Joe routine, and stated that he didn't really know very much about economics, and left it for smarter people. I'm assuming you were a wee tike when Reagan was Prez, you can correct me if I'm wrong, so I hope the info you get on Reagan isn't just from left-leaning sites like Washington Post.

Be that as it may.....the point I was making is, it's stupid to think that just because lowering taxes doesn't increase tax revenue.....then somehow that makes the whole idea of supply-side economics and "trickle down" economics a failure. Because that is a really stupid and irrelevant endpoint to measure. Like I said, if anything, it shows how irrelevant high tax dollars can be sometimes. Imagine that you can actually lower tax revenue, and yet somehow also lower inflation rate, and create jobs! I know! Crazy, right ?!?

The true endpoint to measure is it's effect on the economy. In a very general sense, are people better off or worse off because of your economic policy? Are there more jobs or less jobs because of your policy? Are people making more money or less money because of your policy? Are people happier now or less happy because of your policy?

I think these are more accurate measures. I don't care how much tax revenue is taken in, as long as our overall quality of life is improving. Using these measures, then you can see that the economic policies for Reagan and Clinton are successes. More people saw an improved economic quality of life rather than a decreased one. It's the opposite for Carter and Bush Jr.

If it works, it works. That's all that's important. Whether it's Reagan lowering taxes, or Clinton raising them, as long as our lives are improving, that is what is important.



I don't know anything about the Laffer curve, although I did look it up now. Thanks, I learned something new today!

Reducing taxes always gets me more money in the long run... when playing Sim City.

It is so funny... lots of neo-cons felt the same way about Bush in 2000.

We'll see what you sound like in 4-8 years.

I am a strong proponent for a competent government. Do I like the 700 billion bailout? No, but we need to do something.



But Volker was appointed by Carter, not Reagan... I think your theory on caused and what fixed stagflation is flat out wrong.



What was the other three things that grew? Oh ya, taxes on the poor (payroll taxes), Government spending on useless shit (things not education, health care and infrastructure), and government debt.



I care if theory is effective or not. Effective theories make things better in the world, where ineffective theories, like reaganonomics make things worse.



Yes, because the best policies to persue are the ones that allocate all of the money to the top in the hope that some will trickle down to the needy. My apologies to Will Rodgers.

Dear God, I actually agree with krby

Harry Reid is a total wuss. While Nancy Pelosi and the House delivered on a lot of what they promised, Reid's weak leadership in the Senate saw a lot of that work wasted.

Hillary Clinton would kick serious ass.

That being said, there are some rather credible stories coming out that the "Sec of State" info wasn't really leaked to Andrea Mitchell by Obama surrogates, but by Clinton folks. It might be her way of putting more pressure on Obama to get the Sec. of State job because, for one thing, Bill Clinton's foundation fundraising makes such a position for her problematic. Obama has strict rules when it comes to appointees, spouses and conflicts of interest. He'd have to relax those rules for Hillary to be Sec. of State...unless Bill is willing to put aside his foundation for at least 4 years.

I'd like to see THAT conversation over the breakfast table!

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

Sure, I'll bite. Why do we need to do something? Why not let shitty banks fail and get bought out by better managed ones?

If you think bailing out a few banks is a good idea, then I'd be happy to see you explain the reasonings behind it.



If you think more people felt they were worse off during the Reagan years then better off....then I'm sorry to say you would be in the minority. Or maybe you are too partisan to see that, I don't know. A huge reason someone as uncharismatic as Bush Sr. won the Presidency is because he got the endorsement of a popular president such as Reagan. Or maybe you weren't old enough to witness one of the biggest presidential landslides in history, which was when Reagan was re-elected.



Funny, it's not about any policy. I'm just mentioning the fact that it's practically a law of nature that money runs downhill. Now you and your silly strawman argument. You must be having a very difficult time finding me that exception. I'm still waiting.

If Presidents Reagan and Clinton were so well liked, and I'm sure others that came before them, why has the idea of more than two terms as President never seen much press?

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

It does, but it just doesn't have any momentum. I remember people talking about removing the 2 term limit when Reagan was done, and I remember when they talked about it when Clinton was done.

But then I think people remember why we have it in place to begin with, which was because of FDR, rightly or wrongly.

Interesting, having just read a bit more on the man it seems strange that such legislation would be put in place on the heels of one of the best Presidents ever.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

I'm pretty surprised if that's true. I like it though.

I vote Democrat more often than Republican, but I expect that my own slant will become more conservative with age. That's just human nature.

I think Hillary would be fine as Secretary of State in Obama's cabinet. Better to give her an honorable position in this administration than watch her spend four years working out how to undermine it pending election time in 2012. She'll do both, of course -- but in the meantime, she'll do her job.

As regards the "liberals are awesome and the best thing ever" contingent: The way I see it, Reagan was one of the best two presidents in this country's history (the other being Truman), having goaded the Soviet Union into spending itself into oblivion trying to keep up with SDI. If you don't know what the Soviet Union or SDI are, ask your history teacher what he's not telling you.

/boggle

Truman and Reagan over Washington, Lincoln, and FDR? TRUMAN?!? I mean, sure it was a transitional period for us with a lot going on, but of his accomplishments? Frankly in the grand scheme of things he had little to do with the Marshall Plan. We'll give him South Korea I guess.

I'd throw in that some of the most liberal people alive are well over 50. Nevertheless, I chalk the common trend up to the brain slowing down as we age and not being able to process new forms of thought as easily.

If you are one of the people between the President and Secretary of State Clinton, you should buy more life insurance.

but so are the most conservative people...

_________________

Which is the more or less the point. The older most people get(in general), the more extreme and narrow-minded they become. Be it far liberal or far conservative. I tend to believe it mostly leans conservative for that reason.

some of the most liberal? may be over 50
majority of liberals? most under 50

"If you're young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you're old and not conservative, you have no mind."
-Winston Churchill

I guess I have no heart.