Cynical Nation

Sounds nice--which "10%" from federal agencies is to be cut, is what I wonder. Sounds sorta along the same lines of cutting "waste and fraud." Pick a few agencies, Rudy, and let us know where/what/who would get the axe.

Too bad Rudy's not a canddiate anymore...or is he? Vacationing in Florida.

"I still like Rudy Giuliani as a candidate"

He is one of the worst. I wish the GOP would pick him as the candidate, as his links to corruption will make him an easy opponent for the 2008 election, but it looks that he is out of the race. He is so unlikeable that even moderate republicans can not stand him and his numbers went down wherever he campaigned (except FL).

>I wish the GOP would pick him as the candidate, as his links to corruption will make him an easy opponent for the 2008 election...

Even against Hillary? She doesn't seem in the best position to exploit Rudy's less-than-savory business associations.

Guiliani would collapse within days. His corruption-links are all over. Hillary has been tested and she did not collapse. She would win hands down. But I think the republicans will pick McCain. And he would lose in a landslide, no matter who the democratic nominee is. Anyway, I have endorsed Romney. See below:
http://blueandwhite96.blogspot.com/

Two points, Barry; (1) I do applaud Huckabee's support for the Fair Tax, while I doubt his resolve and question his ability to "get it done."...AND (2) I don't revile Rudy, in fact, I'd support him over most Democrats (and certainly ALL "Liberal Dems), although I don't believe his stances and Hillary's differ substantially on the major issues I care most about.

I acknowledge, as anyone with eyes must, that Rudy's NYC revival was nothing short of miraculous. I lived through it while working in the South Bronx. His policies were so effective, that "business" for many of NYC's busiest Fire Companies dropped drastically before the end of his first term!

I'd deliberately transferred from Harlem to the South Bronx to get into one of the busiest firehouses in the city - the busiest for many of those (Dinkins) years.

And Rudy's miracle wasn't just in terms of crime reduction, he did indeed create a business-friendly environment and drastically reduced city individual and business taxes.

Of course ALL "business taxes" are paid by us individuals as consumers, as those taxes, like any other "cost of doing business" are passed onto the consumers, where they belong.

My problem isn't and has never been with Rudy's record, it's been with his temperment, at times his judgment (Kerik & von Essen, for instance) and his all too often over-bearing persona.

I don't write him off, though there are reasons that I wish I could, but to me, he's a lot like Hillary - filled with flaws, but still a very effective politician.

I should add to; "...AND (2) I don't revile Rudy, in fact, I'd support him over most Democrats (and certainly ALL "Liberal Dems), although I don't believe his stances and Hillary's differ substantially on the major issues I care most about..." that tax policy is certainly one of those areas of differences, despite the fact that Hillary is the biggest Supply Sider Democrat in the race.

One positive thing that's come out of the past quarter century is that you don't see anyone arguing the crazy idea that "tax rate increases actually increase tax revenues," they are now almost universally seen as a way to "slow down the economy."

That's the primary reason I prefer the Supply Side Republicans over Supply Side-doubting Democrats. While I'd much prefer actual tax cuts that were deep enough to CUT government revenues, forcing the government to actually do "more with less," I understand that at least at this point, the Supply Side "revenue enhancers" are the best we're going to do.

Without question, the GOP tax policy view is an upbeat and optimistic vision for the future, one in which cutting the government is seen as a necessity, almost as much as getting out of the private sector's way.

While I'd really like to one day see the Fair Tax (or something very much like it) so that the "truly rich" (those people who don't rely on income for wealth) to pay a little more of their share, while spreading the overall tax burden around a little more equitably.

Plus, don't forget Rudy's foreign policy experience, which eh again summed up last night to derisive laughter--again--from me: I threw Arafat out of the UN celebration, I made sure Castro didn't come to NYC and I gave the Saudi prince his check back.

As for taxes and gov't spending, David Brooks pointed out today that "Supply-side economics had a good run, but continual tax cuts can no longer be the centerpiece of Republican economic policy. The demographics have changed. The U.S. is an aging society. We have made expensive promises to our seniors. We can’t keep those promises at the current tax levels, let alone at reduced ones."

Tax cuts ARE good, but on a continual basis? If so, why not slice the rates every single year and see what that yields. Or cut 'em down to 2 or 3 percent and see how that goes. Cuts were badly needed in 1981 (why do Reago-stalgic Repubs always manage to forget that the Gipper in 1982 signed a huge tax increase?).
As for government spending cuts, again--WHERE? Cutting a few bureaucrats saves a few hundred thousand bucks--not a few hundred billion bucks. And for today's GOP to be touting itself as the party of small government is a howler (Medicare RX costing hundreds of billions; Homeland Security bureaucracy costing hundreds of billions; useless Dept of Education with its budget swelled by Bush & Co.; Dept of Energy (which does what exactly) still in business; pork barrel spending out the wazoo; two wars that have been "funded" with smoke and mirrors...

The day federal government spending is actually CUT (not just reduced increases) is the day that Duncan Hunter and Dennis Kucinich are their parties' standard bearers.

"Plus, don't forget Rudy's foreign policy experience..." (KlubKleb)


An experience I'm sure you'd agree is precisely on par with Hillary's, Huckabee's, Edwards', Thompson's, Obama's and Romney's equally limited FP "experience." So, perhaps that issue should be taken off the table here?


"As for taxes and gov't spending, David Brooks pointed out today that "Supply-side economics had a good run, but continual tax cuts can no longer be the centerpiece of Republican economic policy. The demographics have changed. The U.S. is an aging society. We have made expensive promises to our seniors. We can’t keep those promises at the current tax levels, let alone at reduced ones."

"Tax cuts ARE good, but on a continual basis? If so, why not slice the rates every single year and see what that yields. Or cut 'em down to 2 or 3 percent and see how that goes." (KlubKleb)


That's NOT what Supply Side economics postulates!

Artie Laffer proved that tax cuts down to about the 20% rate actually INCREASE tax revenues, because those with higher incomes and thus, more disposable income respond to incentives by deferring more of their incomes when tax rates rise, and taking more income upfront, as tax rates lower. Of course, with those policies, tax rates must constantly fluctuate - the top rate is currently 36%.

Besides, seniors are living longer and healthier lives now-a-days and probably should be working far past 65, or even 70 years. Work is good for people...and most Americans seem to love to work!

Sadly, the Keynesians have no equivalent of Arthur Laffer, perhaps because even John Maynard Keynes (ironically enough, just like Karl Marx) was NOT an actual economist.

Suffice to say, tax rate cuts down to around the 20% mark do tend to increase revenues, BUT the only real argument against Supply Side policies is that they've proven to be a cynical ploy, that's enabled spendthrift politicians on BOTH sides to keep on spending, instead of managing the people's pottage adroitly.

The antedote to the failings of Supply Side policies (still more bloated government) is MORE Libertarian economic policies and LESS support for and faith in big government!


"The day federal government spending is actually CUT (not just reduced increases) is the day that Duncan Hunter and Dennis Kucinich are their parties' standard bearers." (KlubKleb)


All the more reason to vote for the most rabid anti-government types available....simply put, "Because you CAN." And you can, because there really is no downside to doing so!

The reality is that the inertia of the federal leviathon alone pushes it forward, so the most rabid anti-bureaucratic, anti-government candidates would at best, probably only slow it down. In fact the lure of corruption and easy money has consistently proven too hard for even the most forthright men to resist.

In fact, come to think about it like that, isn't it irresponsible to vote any other way, except FOR the most anti-government candidates (the ones promising only to "tear it all down")?!

Look, your argument that the Liberal Democrats deserve a chance and "couldn't do much worse," would hold SOME water IF only the Pelosi/Reid Congress had been an improvement over the last Republican Congress - the Hastert/McConnell Congress...alas it's actually been worse!

I largely agree with the polls that gave the previous 109th Congress (voted out in 2006) a 36% approval rating, while giving the 110th (Pelosi) Congress ratings as low as 14%. That's, in my view, a fair assessment. In effect, a "C" (possibly a C-)for the less than stellar 109th and a "D-" for the completely inept 110th.

It seems as simple as this; "The antedote to government excess isn't a Party, or politicians whose platform only offers even MORE government excess," and no, there are no "points for honesty," in such matters.

It's like Bush told Clinton during their debate, when the price of gas had gone soaring over TWO WHOLE DOLLARS a gallon: "If I were president, I would sit down with OPEC and jawbone them down, blah, blah, blah."

This is a fine example of how you can safely ignore anything any Republican candidate has to say.

Even Republican voters know that it's all bullshit, just to get them elected.

If government is responsible in any way for gasoline prices anon-y-mouse, then it's CONGRESS that's most responsible, as Congress controls the government's purse strings.

The Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007 and gasoline prices are higher than they've ever been this time of year.

In fact, with gas prices currently running some 35 cents per gallon higher than they did this time last year, we're probably looking at $4/gallon gas in places like NY when the "Summer Blends" kick in around March 1st.

The Democrats have controlled Congress for a full year now and gasoline prices have gone higher, if the U.S. government's to blame, then it's Congress that must shoulder the bulk of that blame and its incumbent upon those folks who believe government's responsible (folks like YOU) to now seek to get those Democrats (who've by your own account "made things worse," as gas prices ARE indeed higher) out of Congress.

Of course, more knowledgable folks, such as myself, must be granted an exemption on all that, as I KNOW why gas prices are higher and will continue to climb even higher, and I've already explained all that (look it up).

Hey! Come to think of it, the Congress really COULD do something to positively impact gas prices,l at least those prices after March begins - eliminate the mandated switch those inane "Summer Blends." It would save 50 cents or more per gallon!

It would also hurt people (like me) who invest in oil futures based on that cyclical event....BUT, it's not going to happen.

BTW, now's the time (the next few weeks) to start looking to buy those oil futures to hold until May...it's easy money.

Four dollars a gallon? Again with that annual prediction? Don't bet on it.

I've never made any such price "predictions." In fact, this is a price estimate based on current prices ($3.39/gallon in NY) and looking ahead to the Summer Blend add on (btw 50 & 60 cents per gallon every March 1st).

There hasn't been a single year since the summer blends were mandated that gasoline prices did not spike significantly after March 1st.

And THAT (along with the gas tax) is one of the only ways that government action impacts gasoline prices.

It CANNOT, for example, do anything to curb the demand for oil by the rapid industrialization of the two most populous nations on earth (China & India), which is the primary factor in the rising price of oil (demand increasing faster than the supply has expanded).

Not you; i was referring to some prognosticators in the media..

"Not you; i was referring to some prognosticators in the media." (Fred)

Sorry about the assumption, Fred. I know that there are many people in the media who've predicted $4/gallon and hihger gasoline for years....I hope that doesn't come to pass and there are many, many reasons why it shouldn't. Gasoline SHOULDN'T go much higher than what it currently sells for and COULD go for significantly less.

One of those "many reasons," is that when oil goes above $85/barrell, it becomes a lot more practical to take oil from oil sands and shale oil and refine that.

America is sitting on untold stockpiles of shale oil and has huge and most believe, as yet untapped and unfound oil sands deposits.

Canada already has MORE OIL, in oil sands, than all of Saudi Arabia has oil! That's why Western Canada (Alberta, especially) is booming right now.

Still, the mandated summer blends predictably raise gasoline costs here in the U.S. after March 1st.

With gasoline prices already high (flirting with $100/barrell) due to greater demand than expanding reserves can keep up with. It would seem that this year, those summer blend costs COULD easily spike gasoline near or above $4/barrell by late March or early April, before they fall again around May.

I don't LIKE that, I certainly don't WANT that, but that seems to be what we're looking at, given current conditions and the fact that nothing's been done about the mandating of those various "summer blends."

It's Clinton's fault.

Ain't no President big enough to impact the world price of oil....NONE.

Even the smallest commodities speculator investing in oil futures can rightly claim to have "more power" over the price of oil than any sitting U.S. President or Western Prime Minister (UNLESS any of those are, in actuality, big time oil speculators themselves, but all Western governments prevent/outlaw that...so).

Now, could some Sheik or some King somewhere have more impact on the world price of oil than a market speculator?

Without question. People, and by extension, markets tend to quake and tremble when a Sheik or King enters a room, the same can't be said of a mere President or Prime Minister. I mean really, what are those? They're certainly not royal titles, that's for sure.

Still, supply and demand even washes Kings, Queens and Sheiks overboard.

Take for instance, that the primary cause of the curent rising price of oil has been a global demand that has exceeded even our expanding oil reserves.

The rapid industrialization of China (1.2 billion people) and India (1 billion people) will tend to do that.

So, what can we the people do about the rising price of oil?

Well, investing in shale oil and oil sands development companies is a step in the right direction and they ARE booming right now.

What can our government do about rising oil prices?

Not much. We're NOT an OPEC country and we're not going to convince many OPEC nations to cut their own throats.

As usual, once again, the solution is to be found in the private sector.