advertisement

TODAY'S QUESTION: Who should be the 2012 Republican presidential nominee?

Monday, March 28, 2011 | 10:26 a.m. CDT; updated 6:06 p.m. CDT, Monday, March 28, 2011

The race for the 2012 presidential election is already under way. A CNN/Opinion Research survey about the election included questions asking Republicans whom they would support in the campaign.

The survey found that 10 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they would support Donald Trump. The highest percentage of support is for former Arkansas governor and 2008 presidential primary nominee Mike Huckabee at 19 percent, followed closely by Mitt Romney at 18 percent. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich got 14 percent support and former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin received 12 percent.

Trump announced he will headline a GOP dinner in June in Iowa but has not yet said if he will run for president.

According to the Federal Election Commission, 96 people have filed a statement of candidacy to register as a presidential candidate.

The survey found that about three-quarters of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents favor President Barack Obama being nominated again next year.

Who should run for Republican presidential nominee in 2012?

 


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Jill Schilling March 28, 2011 | 12:03 p.m.

Herman Cain. He is the best candidate to lead this nation out of the stagflation in which we are currently trapped.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 28, 2011 | 12:41 p.m.

@ Jill

The US is not experiencing stagflation at the moment. Inflation for 2010 was 1.64% and it was -0.34% in 2009 marking one of the lowest inflation eras in US economic history. Stagflation is when an economy experiences slow economic growth with simultaneous high inflation rates. The US economy has not experienced stagflation since the early 1970s.

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock March 28, 2011 | 1:33 p.m.

For those who missed my typo in the survey, that should be Newt Gingrich, not "News" Gingrich.

Unfortunately, once a survey is deployed like this, it can't be fixed. So, since we've already had more than 300 responses, I'm going to keep it out there with the ugly typo -- even though it's killing the copy editor in me.

Apologies as well to Mr. Gingrich.

Jake Sherlock
Opinion editor.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 28, 2011 | 2:33 p.m.

"The US economy has not experienced stagflation since the early 1970s." Sorry, Jack, Carter Administration caused it and it lasted as long as he did, 1980. When you stop printing money to pay for excess Congressional spending,as Reagan did, you can stop inflation. If Congress keeps spending as O'neal and the D's did, you borrow it as Reagan did. With excess spending by Congress,two choices, print it or borrow it. Inflation or deficits.

It appears Obama is giving us "both barrels".

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 28, 2011 | 3:03 p.m.

Someone most certainly has the right to know where those fine candidates should be sent!!!

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 28, 2011 | 3:13 p.m.

Frank

Stagflation that occurred during the 1970s started in Q3 of 1973, several years before President Carter took office. It was caused by the OPEC oil embargo. Stagflation ended in Q3 of 1975 when the GDP growth rate got back to 3.1% which also occurred before President Carter took office.

I think that you may be confusing stagflation with inflation. Average GDP growth during the Carter presidency was 3.2% per annum. Stagflation is when an economy has high inflation AND slow economic growth. 3.2% GDP growth per year is not slow by any means.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 28, 2011 | 3:14 p.m.

"Someone most certainly has the right to know where those fine candidates should be sent!!!"

This is just a shot in the dark, but Iraq?

(Report Comment)
david adair March 28, 2011 | 3:16 p.m.

Herman Cain is the best with Sarah Palin next.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote March 28, 2011 | 4:26 p.m.

I'd like a candidate that would honestly address our debt problems. For instance they could say no extension to the Bush tax cuts, no Medi-care Doc fix, and no ACA repeal. Viola, our medium term debt problems are much more manageable. Unfortunately, it would appear that supply side apostasy is the kiss of death for the party faithful (see Bush I). Thus we have a field of candidates whose flavor of kool-aid is strictly Laffer Tea.

Who's the brewmeister for that intoxicating elixir? None other than this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNZYCPUIu...

He hasn't improved with age, and neither has his theory.
P.S. He also doesn't pay his gambling losses

(Report Comment)
Mark Flakne March 28, 2011 | 4:44 p.m.

Gary Johnson

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 28, 2011 | 4:58 p.m.

Jack - This from P. Krugman,NYT,Jun 3/09, The Stagflation Myth.

"Stagflation was a term coined by Paul Samuelson to describe the combination of high inflation and high unemployment. The era of stagflation in America began in 1974 and ended in the early 80s."

To be honest, I had not heard or read that our problems before then, had ever been referred to as Stagflation so you get some credit, but a prize winning economist like DR. Paul Krugman can't be wrong, can he?

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle March 28, 2011 | 5:01 p.m.

I'll 2nd Gary Johnson.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 28, 2011 | 6:05 p.m.

@ Frank

The "Era of Stagflation" and "stagflation" are two different concepts. Stagflation is a economic term coined by lain Macleod in 1965. It has a strict definition of a period with high inflation rates and low economic growth rates. Samuelson coined the term "Era of Stagflation" referring to an economic period of high unemployment coupled with wild swings in economic growth and moderate to high inflation. Both the highest quarterly economic growth rate and the lowest quarterly rate since 1960 occurred during this period.

The US did have major economic fluctuations from 1973 through the early 80s but neither Carter or Reagan had anything to do with causing or stopping it. It was not 6-8 straight years of stagflation; it was periods of inflation overlapped with wild swings in GDP growth and high unemployment.

I don't think you would be able to find a respected economist in the world that did not attribute the majority of the blame on supply shocks of commodities, especially oil. They will come up with other reasons they think may have attributed to it but I bet they all agree the vast majority of it was from the OPEC oil embargo. I would also venture to bet they would all agree that no politician did anything to correct it. It was actually one of the best arguments for capitalism; the market corrected itself like it is supposed to.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking March 28, 2011 | 6:51 p.m.

Jack, one question I would ask is are the inflation numbers from the '70s and the inflation numbers today directly comparable? Do they include the same commodities and prices? I believe they figure inflation differently now than they did in the '70s, and if so, we could have more "stagflation" (again as a result of high oil prices) than would seem at first glance.

DK

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 28, 2011 | 8:13 p.m.

DK

There are two ways of measuring inflation; base and chained. The chained method uses a different basket of goods each period. The one you commonly see is the base inflation estimate. As with anything else comparisons over different eras should be taken with a grain of salt.

Stagflation is a possibility but it is not here currently. If oil price continue to rise (which they probably will) the inflationary pressure on the US economy will be much stronger than it was after the OPEC oil embargo and that would lead to higher prices across the board and low economic growth.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 28, 2011 | 8:18 p.m.

Jack - Tho some have considered "slow economic growth" in the stagflation cause, I now read about, inflation has always been connected with near full employment (everyone having too much money and throwing it around driving prices up. Inflation with high unemployed (recession)not imagined. Our situation fits the mold of stagfl. Our economy is growing but we still have 9% unempl. Hate to paste everything but this explains it. "The explanation for the shift of the Phillips curve was initially provided by the monetarist economist Milton Friedman, and also by Edmund Phelps. Both argued that when workers and firms begin to expect more inflation, the Phillips curve shifts up (meaning that more inflation occurs at any given level of unemployment). In particular, they suggested that if inflation lasted for several years, workers and firms would start to take it into account during wage negotiations, causing workers' wages and firms' costs to rise more quickly, thus further increasing inflation. While this idea was a severe criticism of early Keynesian theories, it was gradually accepted by most Keynesians, and has been incorporated into New Keynesian economic models." You may respect those mentioned above but most do and there is no mention "ofsupply shocks of commodities" here. I saw, " if inflation lasted for several years, workers and firms would start to take it into account", during the Carter years. Gov't announces rate of inflation, firms add that on,plus a few more just to make sure. No shortage of anything but fear stops hiring and unemployment is huge.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 28, 2011 | 8:18 p.m.

I'm curious to how many of the 71% of Missourian readers who voted for Palin actually want her to get nominated and be president compared to liberals who clicked her name in the hopes that the Republicans actually do nominate her so Obama wins in a landslide.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 28, 2011 | 8:40 p.m.

Frank,

"Inflation with high unemployed (recession)not imagined. Our situation fits the mold of stagfl. Our economy is growing but we still have 9% unempl."

Inflation in the US is very low at the moment; in fact it has been less than 2% on average over the past two years. Without inflation you can not have stagflation, thus we do not have stagflation.

GDP growth rates have averaged 2.95% over the past 6 quarters which is a respectable growth rate for an economy our size and in comparison to historical averages. Without low growth rates you cannot have stagflation, thus we do not have stagflation.

Our situation does not fit the mold of stagflation.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 28, 2011 | 9:23 p.m.

Jack - Under 3% growth will not touch our 9% unemployment. When the Fed finally gives up we will see the inflation.

That is the mold. Call it what you will, our country will be hurting until gov't spending is cut, taxes are cut and a GDP of 5% or more is achieved.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield March 28, 2011 | 9:38 p.m.

Chris, this April 18, will you be saying no to the tax cut extension by calculating what you would have paid if they were ended and then sending the extra money to the feds?

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 29, 2011 | 6:48 a.m.

Frank

I love how you did not even now what the term meant just a few hours ago and now you are telling me how it works. Your lunacy and lack of logic never ceases to amaze me.

You truly have no idea what you are talking about. To be fair though you get your info from a bunch of talking heads who do not know what they are talking about. It is like the blind leading the blind.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking March 29, 2011 | 8:42 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"Call it what you will, our country will be hurting until gov't spending is cut, taxes are cut and a GDP of 5% or more is achieved."

How are we going to cut $1.5 trillion from our budget (or even 1/10th of that)? And while also cutting taxes?

Pigs do not fly.

DK

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 29, 2011 | 9:16 a.m.

Jack Hamm - It is a mistake for one to attempt a civil, intelligent conversation with the likes of you. "Lunacy and lack of logic" occurs when you twist and fantasize with your facts in your feeble attempts to show the socialist threat of today as something reasonable. You threw out "Lain MacLeod" without mentioning he was British Prime Minister, in 1965, and coined the term in regard to the dire situation that socialistic country found itself. You blame our '70s anemia on the OPEC oil embargo which only lasted one year. When you run out of falsifications you can only turn attention to my perceived lack of intelligence and as usual further advertise Your ignorance, by berating the sources of information that don't "twist and fantasize" with the facts as you must do. Two grammatical errors in this tirade. my-my.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote March 29, 2011 | 9:22 a.m.

@Jimmy,

No (I already paid my taxes). I don't find merit in your argument; following your advice would not change our burgeoning deficit problem. In contrast, congressional inaction with respect to ACA, Doc-fix, tax cuts (they will expire absent legislative action) will cut our mid-term debt approximately in half. Where specifically do you suggest we look to trim the federal budget? Note the Doc-fix will cost in excess of $300 billion through 2020. The ACA is revenue neutral through 2020, but is estimated to save .5% GDP thereafter. The tax cuts cost in excess of $3 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. I have yet to see a Republican plan that approaches those numbers. If you are interested in where the money goes, here's a tax payer's receipt (adjust the amounts proportionally to your income): http://www.democracyjournal.org/assets_c...
Do tell what you will be cutting to save approximately $4 trillion in the next 10 years.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 29, 2011 | 9:33 a.m.

Mark - Since you apparently are with the bunch that will not believe that tax cuts increase production, put more people to work, paying more taxes therefore increasing revenue for the Gov't. Neither will you, I guess, bother to look at how our budget was balanced 4 years in a row before W. Bush arrived. The pigs are on the left and will not leave the trough. That is another necessity on the road to a balanced budget, leave no Democrat in office, that can block it.

(Report Comment)
David Sautner March 29, 2011 | 9:49 a.m.

If Donald Trump seriously runs for president I'm going to die laughing. Atlantic City was rated as one of the worst places to live on Earth. Casinos next to abjectly impoverished slums wow.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 29, 2011 | 10:03 a.m.

"Lunacy and lack of logic" occurs when you twist and fantasize with your facts in your feeble attempts to show the socialist threat of today as something reasonable.”

Yes, Frank when you can’t compile a thought past “republican good, liberal bad” and claim there are socialist conspiracy theories for world domination you qualify for lunacy and lack of logic.

“You threw out "Lain MacLeod" without mentioning he was British Prime Minister, in 1965, and coined the term in regard to the dire situation that socialistic country found itself”

What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

“You blame our '70s anemia on the OPEC oil embargo which only lasted one year”

We are talking about the impact of the embargo not the actual embargo. You understand that economic shocks can have long lasting effects right? After all you love attributing bad things to democrats sometimes up to decades after they are out of office. Or is this another example of only applying things to people and things you don’t like and don’t agree with your narrow world view?

“When you run out of falsifications you can only turn attention to my perceived lack of intelligence and as usual further advertise Your ignorance, by berating the sources of information that don't "twist and fantasize" with the facts as you must do.”

It is not a perceived lack of intelligence; it is a lack of intelligence.

“Two grammatical errors in this tirade. my-my.”

Looks like we can add counting to your list of elementary education concepts that you need to work on.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 29, 2011 | 10:32 a.m.

Jack H. - You have answered my post with absolutely nothing, but, further insult and you believe you are making some sort of sense. "Lunacy and lack of logic" lives here with you. Your life, you live it.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking March 29, 2011 | 10:48 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"will not believe that tax cuts increase production"

If there was something to produce, other than credit bubbles, I might agree with you.

Since when has the budget been balanced under any recent president but Clinton for a couple of years (and that was only because of the dot.com bubble)?

"put more people to work, paying more taxes therefore increasing revenue for the Gov't"

Some approximate numbers:

Our deficit will be about $1.5 trillion dollars this year. Dropping unemployment from 9% to 4% (even you have no plan other than vague ideology for doing this) would put about 10 million people back on the tax rolls. Each of them would have to contribute an average of $150,000 each to balance the budget as it is now. Median income is something around $50,000/year. Where's all this money going to come from? What huge chunks of government do you suggest cutting to fill the gaps?

Specifics, Frank. I think we have a huge economic problem that isn't going to be solved by just "cutting taxes".

DK

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 29, 2011 | 12:01 p.m.

Mark - Please get off the "under Clinton" baloney. I have posted this 'til I'm blue in the face. Clinton's plan was to "reduce the deficit" and the D' Congress passed it by one vote. Raising gas tax, with holding highway funds while calling them "cash on hand", "his" deficits were 200B$ annually and projected for that amount from then on. The R' Congress passed the Tax Payers Relief and the Balanced Budget Acts of 1997. Clinton, after 8 months according to N Gingrich finally signed them. The Budget was balanced for 4 years, paid 490B$ off of the debt and Congress stayed out of SS until they publicly announced they would break their promise because of the War.

Open your scientific mind and accept all the facts. Of course tax cuts won't do it. SPENDING cuts are bigger in today's atmosphere. All the liberals are asking the conservatives "what would you cut?", as tho that might show the necessity of us continuing down the road to the status of a 2nd rate country. I am willing to wait and see how it is done this time and will, unless, one of the great minds of the left, around here, advises how it should be done. So far, their input has only been "we can't get there from here", or the worst possible scenario, elect more D's.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 29, 2011 | 12:35 p.m.

You know that I would advocate seriously cutting the amount that we have been SENDING TO IRAQ!!!

Not that anyone would notice...

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 29, 2011 | 12:58 p.m.
(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 29, 2011 | 3:18 p.m.

"I have posted this 'til I'm blue in the face."

Frank, I can post all day that the sky is purple but that does not make it true. If you want to live in fantasy land then by all means do so but do not expect the rest of us to disembark from reality with you.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 29, 2011 | 4:34 p.m.

Instead of this idiotic trash, why not just prove me wrong?

(Report Comment)
Matt Wilkinson March 29, 2011 | 5:56 p.m.

@frankc - Fact Check - Iain McCleod was not and never has been a British prime minister. And the United Kingdom is hardly a "socialistic" country, then or now. I think @Jack Hamm is correct, you exist in some kind of unreality bubble.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 29, 2011 | 6:44 p.m.

Matt Wilkinson - Quite right, MacLeod was a *politician* who spoke to Parliament about British stagflation. Wonder why that historical genius, J. Hamm, did not note the error?

If you believe the United Kingdom is not, nor ever has been a "socialistic" country,You are in the "bubble". You and Jack in there together? Maybe you could get beyond Fact Check and actually read some historical fact. For starters, try, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...

(Report Comment)
Eric Cox March 29, 2011 | 10:33 p.m.

Ron Paul, pure and simple.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking March 30, 2011 | 8:11 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"The R' Congress passed the Tax Payers Relief and the Balanced Budget Acts of 1997. Clinton, after 8 months according to N Gingrich finally signed them. The Budget was balanced for 4 years, paid 490B$ off of the debt and Congress stayed out of SS until they publicly announced they would break their promise because of the War."

I'd be careful about attributing all that surplus to any one act of government. That period was also a time where there was a lot of capital in the market for Internet startups. An overheated, venture-capital-laden, optimistic period is going to generate a lot of revenue for a while, but if there's no real productivity to sustain it, the bubble pops and the revenue goes away. Same as the overheated real estate bubble that popped in 2008.

Here's a summary of outlays vs. revenues from CBO from 1968 to 2007.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historica...

You'll notice the level of spending keeps rising even as revenues catch up and surpass it between 1998 and 2001. You'll also notice deficits decreasing in 2006 and 2007 even as spending increased. If government spending is so toxic to economic performance, why did this surplus even happen?

Money paid in taxes does not vanish from the economy. There's nothing magic about private spending that makes it any worse or better for the economy than government spending. In fact, the federal government has requirements to make most purchases from US companies, where private firms often buy whoever gives them the best bids. So is it better for government money to be spent on American made goods, or private money on foreign made goods? How many companies,(e. g., the defense industry) that employ US workers would fail without government contracts? Be careful what you wish for, because in such a globalized world, our industry is at a competitive disadvantage without some sort of support.

DK

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 30, 2011 | 9:04 a.m.

"Wonder why that historical genius, J. Hamm, did not note the error?"

For two reasons Frank. First, If I corrected every fallacy and factually incorrect statement that you made I would have time for nothing else in my life. Second, it was not pertinent to the topic at hand as I have previously stated. I brought up MacLeod only to say that he was the one that coined the phrase stagflation contrary to your assertion that Samuelson coined it. It was an attempt to help you distinguish between "stagflation" and the "Era of Stagflation" which you were obviously confusing. Why he said it or to whom is irrelevant to our topic.

Your wiki link about socialism in the UK is a joke and if you would actually read it (you have to understand it too, that's the tricky part huh?) you would see that article does not claim the UK is socialist. BTW, wiki has an article for Socialism in the US also. Is the the US a socialist country Frank?

All countries have socialistic aspects of its society and economy since the inception of capitalism; even the US. You are trying to claim that regulated capitalism is socialism when they are very far apart in reality. If your assertion was true then the US has been a socialist country since its inception. What is your solution for dealing with market failures without regulation or social programs?

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 30, 2011 | 9:30 a.m.

Mark F. - What you refer to as "An overheated, venture-capital-laden, optimistic period" was created by those deadly tax cuts! If, somehow, you could remember that Government is not a "geyser" that must spew on forever and can be controlled by those whom wish to do it,we could get somewhere. The Republicans did not reduce spending, but they controlled it and did in fact reduce our debt and stayed out of SS while doing it.

"There's nothing magic about private spending that makes it any worse or better for the economy than government spending." Comparisons between the two eras, R Congress and Obama, D Congress, prove this sentence false. The across the board tax cuts for everyone allowed the American people and their new found wealth to create the " overheated, venture-capital-laden, optimistic period", you so coldly refer to. Obama, on the other hand, has spent nearly 1T$ to "stimulate" the economy and has created nothing except many new Democrat millionaires. In fact he and N. Pelosi have created 5.2T$ in new debt for us. Can I say, that is the "magic" of government spending?

No Democrat Administration, or Congress has ever, to my knowledge, done anything as close to correcting the faults in our Federal Gov't., than the '94 R' Congress. Because of 9/11 wars and W. Bush, you and the rest seem more willing to carp and critisize, than to see Republicans improve anything. If you truly want a solvent stable economy for our country, I think this is a mistake.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking March 30, 2011 | 10:36 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"What you refer to as "An overheated, venture-capital-laden, optimistic period" was created by those deadly tax cuts!"

Please refer to the CBO link above and see what happened to it. When the dotcom bubble popped (2002-2003), deficits wiped out any reduction in the national debt in two years. Nothing was gained - money just got shifted around and the end result was a recession. No new wealth was created. The only way we create wealth is through exploitation of energy sources to make products of value, and the more of them we can export, the better. We cannot meaningfully increase our energy supply, and we import a lot more things of value than we export. The result is a hollow economy that's prone to increasingly severe ups and downs.

Government policy has remarkable little effect on GDP growth or lack of it. Actually, what do you think is more destructive - Congress spending billions of dollars on military equipment or infrastructure, or Goldman Sachs spending billions of dollars on bad debt?

The increase in the deficit under Obama is just a symptom of the real problems with our economy. Bush started it, and I suspect McCain, or anyone else in the White House, would have done it also. Since they're politicians, and since it's more palatable borrowing than it is to let the economy shrink back to its natural level, they come up with bailouts. It's like a private citizen who handles his debt by getting another credit card, and it's not at all just a one party thing.

DK

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 30, 2011 | 11:59 a.m.

Mark - You write like Harry Reid sounds, "the deficits came and no jobs were created", He was referring to Reagan. In fact, 19M jobs were created and the deficits "came" because Democrat controlled Congress kept and increased spending. Republicans erred with W. Bush at the helm after 9/11 and allowed the excesses you so eagerly point out. Harry says "deficits came", you write, "deficits wiped out "any" reduction in the national debt in two years. When have you ever acknowledged "any" reduction in the debt before? Truth is, Congress created both the surpluses and deficits of the times, we are writing about. You are jaded with politicians (R's at least) and that is fine, but to only criticize the party that purports the change that all know we must have in our gov't is not fair and in my view, is not needed by anyone.

Can't let your "Bush started it", stand. Typical liberal comment, everything starts where they prefer. FDR started it. Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and the Democrat controlled Congress' until Clinton "started" it before Bush.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 30, 2011 | 12:50 p.m.

"You are jaded with politicians (R's at least) and that is fine, but to only criticize the party that purports the change that all know we must have in our gov't is not fair and in my view, is not needed by anyone."

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

(Report Comment)
Matt Wilkinson March 30, 2011 | 1:00 p.m.

@Jack Hamm - "..pot calling kettle black" Bang on target. That's FrankC's MO.

(Report Comment)
Matt Wilkinson March 30, 2011 | 1:35 p.m.

@frankc Sorry Frank but you are still wrong. UK is no USSR. UK is much more like USA. I think I can speak with some authority as I spent 18 years of my life under Mrs. Thatcher and a further 10 years under new labor.

Jack Hamm is absolutely correct. All societies have socialistic aspects and I believe that you and me and everyone else in the USA are beneficiaries of the socialistic aspects of US style socialism - highways, military, schools, medicare, medicaid, social security - Oooh I'm beginning to sound like Monty Python. I suspect from other posts I've seen from you that you are enjoying the fruits of taxpayer supported programs.

Frank, lighten up, come back from unreality, enjoy your dotage communing with your fellow humans.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 30, 2011 | 1:49 p.m.

"I suspect from other posts I've seen from you that you are enjoying the fruits of taxpayer supported programs."

I have personally also always had the suspicion that Frank lives off of a government check.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 30, 2011 | 5:38 p.m.

Matt Wilkinson - I've only been commenting on Newspapers a few years and I made myself a rule. That I would not play "dueling intellects" with pseudo-intellectuals as some seem content to do. Yet here I sit, writing to two nit-wits(you and hamm) about whether UK is "socialistic". Not that it will matter to you two,but I meant leaning to, or similar to socialism. You reject the history of socialism in that country. Friedrich Hayek wrote Road to Serfdom to warn British about their leanings toward central planning which leads to socialism. They instituted gov't provided housing and health care long ago. If not for M. Thatcher they no doubt would still be heating those "council houses" with coal burning fireplaces.

You reject all this. Why? Because Hamm says so and you have lived there. This does not even reach the level of "pseudo" intellectual. If one could hear you two, I'm sure it would sound like two magpies sitting on the wires, in the wind.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 30, 2011 | 5:47 p.m.

"I've only been commenting on Newspapers a few years and I made myself a rule. That I would not play "dueling intellects" with pseudo-intellectuals as some seem content to do."

But Frank, how else does one enter a discussion with you?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking March 31, 2011 | 8:22 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"In fact, 19M jobs were created and the deficits "came""

But most of those jobs have since gone away (if it was that many to begin with). An overheated economy (which I still don't think can be shown to be due to the relatively minor tax cuts) will tend to add jobs, that go away when the economy cools off again. It's the same with stimulus funds - jobs constructing infrastructure (or whatever) end when the infrastructure is built, or the funds run out. There's no continuing production of value.

"When have you ever acknowledged "any" reduction in the debt before?"

The reductions haven't been enough to matter. The economic growth leading to the surplus was simply unsustainable.

"Democrat controlled Congress kept and increased spending. "

The rate of increase in spending before and after the surplus weren't significantly different. Why did increases in spending not matter before, and matter so much after? Probably because taxes and spending had little to do with the surplus, or deficit.

"Can't let your "Bush started it", stand."

If it wasn't clear, I was talking about the bailouts to the banks, which Bush proposed. These bailouts enjoyed wide bipartisan support.

["We've got to protect our phoney baloney jobs, gentlemen!!! Harrumph!! Harrumph!!!"
(Wm. J. LePetomane)]

"You are jaded with politicians (R's at least) and that is fine"

I'm jaded with pretty much all of them, and even more jaded with the idea that the President, or Congress, can materially influence the course of the economy. Sure. they can spend money they don't have (and would have less of if taxes were cut), and make things a little better for a while, but that doesn't fix the fundamental problems.

DK

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 31, 2011 | 9:35 a.m.

Mark - The jobs, 19M reported then, now down to 17 or 16M, when anyone will mention them, were good permanent private sector jobs averaging over $20,000 annually. This study performed because two Ohio university professors published their study showing, yes, the # of jobs claimed was accurate, but they were only minimum wage jobs. If,Harry, "those jobs have since gone away" I don't know where they went, do you?

"The reductions haven't been enough to matter." For the first time in at least 50 years, someone, anyone, reduces our debt, but it doesn't matter to you. If taxes and spending have nothing to do with surpluses and deficits, what do you suppose does? Bush did not propose any bailouts. The proposal was devised by Obama people, Treas. Geithner and former Treas. Lawrence Summers written for law by Pelosi staff and passed by Democrat controlled Congress, then reluctantly signed by W. Bush.

After all this, you are still stuck on "jaded with the idea that the President, or Congress, can materially influence the course of the economy." They have Everything to do with the economy and thus, our lives, but, I have nothing else add, so I give up.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 31, 2011 | 10:40 a.m.

"Bush did not propose any bailouts. The proposal was devised by Obama people, Treas. Geithner and former Treas. Lawrence Summers written for law by Pelosi staff and passed by Democrat controlled Congress, then reluctantly signed by W. Bush."

Frank, TARP was put together by Secretary Paulson of the Treasury and signed into law by President Bush. TARP was not "designed" by "Obama people". Were there democrats involved with TARP? Absolutely there were just like there were regressive involved with TARP. Your method of blaming everything on the other guy is childish. I know you won't believe me but maybe video of Paulson testifying before the Senate Banking Committee urging them to pass TARP will change your mind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RWBfDCQ9...

Don’t forget about the auto bailouts that came out of TARP too;

“On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program that Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson, deems necessary to avert the financial crisis. This has allowed President Bush to extend the use of TARP funds to support the auto industry, a move supported by the UAW”

Was Bush following orders from Obama, Geithner and Summers when he did this one?

Frank, you said this yesterday on this website...

"You are jaded with politicians (R's at least) and that is fine, but to only criticize the party that purports the change that all know we must have in our gov't is not fair and in my view, is not needed by anyone."

Why don't you try following your own advice and drop the "regressive good, progressive bad" routine.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm March 31, 2011 | 10:42 a.m.

"...then reluctantly signed by W. Bush."

Bush does not seem to agree with you Frank...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZrmPkmOc...

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger March 31, 2011 | 12:18 p.m.

That's a telling video, Mr. Hamm. What say you, Frank?

I suspect that if W had another year left, he would have done pretty much what Obama did with the post-TARP bailouts.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle March 31, 2011 | 2:02 p.m.

LOL the "dueling intellects" quip again...

Frank is, by far, my favorite discussion board chew toy, but our exchanges unfold like a 'discussion' with CleverBot. At least I don't need to tune in to R,B,H&Co directly; Frank delivers it here. I do get a kick out of the vast left-wing, Carter-centric conspiracy theories though. Ironically, as far as conspiracy theories go, just about any financial anything you could try to blame on Carter is actually rooted in Volcker's ascendancy to the Fed. And remember, Reagan is the true father of modern $Trillion dollar government deficits.

I think governmental policy has more of an impact than DK does, but I do agree it's "not big," and the effect is very, very slow. It's taken 30 years since a shift of national policy toward heavily favoring wealth accumulation ("trickle-down") to reach the point where just 400 people at the top have as much wealth as the bottom 155,000,000 combined. The trajectory of US wealth distribution over the last 30 years has been different enough from other economically mature nations to clearly implicate governmental policy.

It's this change in wealth distribution, hollowing out the nation's economy and concentrating all the wealth into a few huge ineffective pools, that distorts economic activity and causes economic turmoil.

But... this article is about the GOP presidential nominee. I would continue to support Gary Johnson, simply because he's capable of thinking outside the box without being a complete loon.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 31, 2011 | 3:32 p.m.

Hank - Bush stated on nat'l tv after signing the law containing TARP, that he signed reluctantly, that every one of his advisors were certain that a financial melt down would occur. Apparently some socialism is necessary to save capitalism. paraphrase. I say, why would someone post an interview 2 years later in which he agreed he had to abandon free market system to save the free system, and was satisfied because His half of TARP funds have been repaid.

Paul Krugman from a reprint in Huff Post said that Geithner and Summers devised TARP. This states Paulson, Geithner, and Bernanke were creators-

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flow... We know that Summers earned $800,000 explaining program to bankers, and that Geithner had few supporters for Treas. Sec. but Obama required him because he was only one able to administer TARP. Paulson backed away when Geithner changed distribution of funds.

Fogle dislikes my repetition, but parades his tired old "destruction of the middle class" numbers, again. Will someone try show & tell him that we have 3 branches of gov't and TWO of them have to do with spending money, not just poor ol' Reagan?

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle March 31, 2011 | 6:02 p.m.

So, Frank, who should be the 2012 Republican presidential nominee? Sorry if I missed your answer in an earlier post.

Or, have your masters not told you who you're supposed to endorse yet?

BTW, where did I say anything about the middle class? I think it's you who sees the term "income distribution" and immediately equates that to the "destruction of the middle class." It's just a knee-jerk reaction to what you *think* I said, or implied.

The significant change in income distribution in the US over the last 30 years is a verifiable, demonstrable fact. How and why we've ended up here is open to debate, and what the change has done to the way our economy functions is open to debate. I'm stating my opinion in the debate about how it has affected the functioning of our entire economy in general, not how it has affected the "middle class" specifically.

Over the last 30 years, our economy has become more and more susceptible to bigger booms and busts. Each bust has been bigger. Each recovery has been weaker. The rolling 10-year change in employment has been on a general downward slope for the last 30 years, and has been in an absolute nosedive for the last 10. This is a fundamental change in our economy.

Who cares about the middle class, beyond them being a part of the equation? The fact remains that, as wealth distribution in our economy changes, the way the economy functions changes as well.

Do you think the changes have all been good? I don't.

Gary Johnson is one of the only candidates, R or D, that has proven his ability of real critical assessment and thinking, and the ability to propose radically different solutions to problems than the "old party line." We need more of that.

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 31, 2011 | 7:01 p.m.

Derrick F. I no longer try to guess which candidate will win anything until I can vote. I haven't been too successful in the booth either. Bush is one of a few. We knew when he promoted "Compassionate Conservatism", we might be in trouble with him.

You force me to state again, I don't care what you write. I am only sorry I gave you another shot to spew your stuff again. Must note, however, your concern with the "bigger booms and busts". Why must you relate your rhetoric only to the busts? Could that be because we should have "stability" in earnings and equality in wealth? Don't bother.

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger March 31, 2011 | 7:53 p.m.

Mr. Hamm asks, "I have personally also always had the suspicion that Frank lives off of a government check."

Surely you didn't dodge this, did you FC?

(Report Comment)
frank christian March 31, 2011 | 9:22 p.m.

social security,big deal to you, hank? Republicans need to fix it. If that hurts me, ok. You think Harry and the D's have the answer, leave it alone? The way they operate when SS is gone, so will be our Republic. Have to wonder if some on our left are not shooting for just that occurrence. Some?

(Report Comment)
Matt Wilkinson March 31, 2011 | 9:35 p.m.

Frank, sounds like you don't want Harry and D's to wreck SS - good for you - and (some) lefties plans to subvert the republic crumble to dust - yeahhh. Frank you're so full of paranoia.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle April 1, 2011 | 12:07 p.m.

Frank, I did not "...relate [my] rhetoric only to the busts." What part of my statement "Each recovery has been weaker." don't you understand?

If the booms had been anywhere near as fruitful for the population in general, as the wealthiest fraction of a percent, the wealth gap would not be growing. If trickle-down economics actually worked, the wealth gap would not be growing.

Fact: The wealth gap HAS grown. Tremendously. Even if the booms are all produced by the glory of Republicans, they aren't helping this particular economic issue.

BTW, I didn't ask you who you thought would win. I (and the article) asked who you think should be the nominee. I (and a number of others here) don't have any trouble stating who I think *should be* the nominee, despite having the exact same predictive handicap as you.

In other words, you ARE still waiting for your masters to give you instruction and permission on who to support.

C'mon Frank, you're a consumate political animal. You favor *someone*. Who is it?

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle April 1, 2011 | 12:13 p.m.

10-year rolling history of job creation: http://www.fogles.net/mostuff/10-year-em...

Courtesy Left Business Observer, issue #130. http://leftbusinessobserver.com/

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield April 3, 2011 | 11:24 a.m.

@ Chris: No need to make this complicated. Simply cut all — no sacred cows — federal programs by whatever percentage is necessary to match tax revenue so there's no longer a deficit.

Next, slash entitlements. For example, effective immediately, no Social Security unless you've paid in for a minimum of 30 years. If you drop out of high school, you should automatically be barred from receiving Medicaid, TANF and any other welfare for the rest of your life unless you later obtain at least a GED.

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance April 3, 2011 | 1:27 p.m.

When is Frank going to burn his SS checks and medicare card in protest? That's what a real teabagger would do. I am tired of Frank sponging off of us workers! :p

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith April 3, 2011 | 2:03 p.m.

Regarding cutting, indeed slashing, programs and dollars at the federal level, maybe it's time to again trot out a parable from 19th century children's literature.

There was a cat that was making life miserable for various small creatures. The small creatures decided something must be done to drastically reduce the cat's depredations.

The small creatures weren't stupid: they realized that so long as the cat could sneak up on them, the cat had an advantage. So they came up with an excellent - indeed, absolutely elegant - solution: bell the cat, meaning to place a bell collar around the cat's neck.

But nobody was willing to "bell the cat."

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 3, 2011 | 3:43 p.m.

T. Dance - I bet you are tired. It must have taxed your little brain to the max, to come up with that inane comment.

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger April 3, 2011 | 3:53 p.m.

To return to the original question, to wit, "who should be the Republican 2012 candidate," frankly, I have no idea. But unless the Rs, whoever they may be, get their ducks in line pretty quick, they won't have chance in the election. They are not unlike the Democrats of the past, often described as a firing squad in a circle. The old guard is suspect--we're referring to Republicans here--and the tea-party folk will not abide the likes of Romney. The social conservatives won't have much to do with that old two-timer Newt, and mainline conservatives (ones with brains) won't abide the likes of Bachmann or Palin. I don't know, maybe Pawlenty? Whoever gets nominated, that person will come out of the convention pretty worn down, I expect, following all the primary struggles.

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance April 3, 2011 | 4:12 p.m.

It's not inane if it is true Frank. Put your money where your mouth is, stop your SS checks and burn your Medicare card.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 3, 2011 | 6:52 p.m.

t dance - Been readin' Democrat underground again? So, bigtime,explain to me why after paying in since I was 14 I should now refuse SS? Be specific, then 'splain what you are doing for your country, besides voting for democrats.

(Report Comment)
frank christian April 3, 2011 | 8:36 p.m.

hank o. You seem to have this coming election figured out, really well. You have pointed out each R' that some will not vote for. Do you assume that less than 100% acceptance of any of those you've mentioned will be votes for Obama? I don't think you can count on too many "stay at homes". The large majority of us know what he is doing to us, even tho those on the left will not/cannot admit it.

Are you wavering? I didn't think you considered any Conservative as being "ones with brains"

(Report Comment)
yourgott isttot April 26, 2011 | 4:47 p.m.
This comment has been removed.

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements