Geez, this guy's going to take us back to the regulation and tax structure of the 1950's. And we all know what an economic disaster THAT was...

That comment is ridiculous even by JR's standards. It's silly on so many levels that just reading it has given me a headache. I'm going to take some aspirin, if that's okay with Howard Dean and JR.

Gee Chris, I hadn't thought of it that way. Well, in light of that well-reasoned and thoroughly substantiated criticism, I think I'll stand by my comment.

First of all, these sonsabitches are all (Republican and Democrat alike) extremely presumptuous in running other people's business, just on the level of principle. Howard Dean can scrape up some money and start a business and run it into the ground however the hell he wants. He needs to be a lot more respectful, however, of other people's property.

Even without regard to principle, more taxes and more regulation mean less prosperity and less jobs. At some point, politicians cannot MAKE businesses create jobs or do anything if it's not profitable- they'll just shut down. Even a Democrat should be able to understand that at this point.

This is not the 1950s. The world is far more interconnected now- and far more prosperous. People are far wealthier now than they were 50 years ago. No, I don't want to go back.

Why was your statement ridiculous? For starters: it is nonsensical based on the article--you pull the 50s out of thin air, dishonestly linking excessive government regulation with an era of economic prosperity. Does Mickey Suslov do your newsletter?

Also, you are a leftist, and you are advocating a return to an era of much smaller government--no EPA, no medicare, generally a smaller welfare state, no foolish drug war. You also seem to be ready to chuck the 64 civil rights act over the side (though I'd agree that the race quotas and unionization of teachers would be great reforms to reverse were the chance to arise).

Dean's world would impose unprecedented new regulation and also return us to the regulatory and taxing spirit of the LBJ-Nixon-Ford-Carter era, which was a lousy era for many things, especially economics, though a great era for the automotive (first half), musical, and cinematic arts.

Your implication seems to be that the 50s were some sort of age of paradise and that that somehow would have been BECAUSE OF overregulation. It had more to do with our demographics and industriousness (and our massive economy relative to the immediate postwar world) than JR's beloved excessive regulation.

Yes, the marginal top tax rate was higher (which the left would endorse), but the overall tax burden was much smaller.

Interesting that the same people who would excoriate me for shopping at evil Wal-mart are the same people who want to regulate small businesses out of existence.

I suppose this will be slightly more difficult to ignore, but I am confident that JR will manage.

I simply dispute the assertion that more regulation always leads to less "prosperity". The article itself quotes Lieberman as saying these policies would "turn back the economic clock". So I picked an era of regulation to show, reducto ad absurdum, that it didn't equate with economic catastrophe.

This is indeed a very different era, but that doesn't automatically mean that everything valid then is invalid now. Whether Dean's policies will harm or help this country is certainly open to debate; but it's a debate that should probably involve more than just dogmatic assertions of "principle". Now, I'm not an expert in economics, but so far as I can tell neither of you is any more conversant in it than me. Let's face it, you two have a history of partisan hyperventilating, divergent ranting, and name-calling rather than reasoned argument. I'm sorry, I just don't respect your opinions enough to be swayed by your self-righteous hostility.

So I guess in some sense you're right, I will try to ignore you. ;-)

JR,

You randomly picked an era uniquely unsuited to supporting your point--that's why it's ridiculous. I said your point was ridiculous. You inferred that you are ridiculous, and perhaps you would know.

Responding directly to someone doesn't mix well with your threat to ignore, does it?

You and your lefty friends might want to practice civility before accusing other people. You are most often the ones who respond to divergent views with your isms and phobias and, in your case, snide asides. One of your lefty captains devoted 2 days of his weblog to savaging me for the sin of supporting the war--after you condemn him and his ilk, I'll stop with responsive rhetoric.

Focusing on "small businesses", as the critics do in this case, is looking through the wrong end of the telescope - big business is the problem, and that's what Dean is talking about:

...his "re-regulation" campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out "re-regulating" the telecommunications industry, too.

The problem is caused largely by the Republicans, particularly in the House, being especially appreciative to their campaign donors. Democrats don't have clean have clean hands, either, but they don't control Congress at the moment and might be considered less culpable (for the moment).

The Republicans are on a "spend-and-borrow" binge.

For instance, the Energy bill (likely to be passed in January) is largely a Republican pork barrel, so bad even the legislators are embarrassed. It includes a nice bi-partisan addition for ethanol subsidies mostly driven by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, but with equal support from Republicans, that largely goes to agri-business (are there any small family farms left?) (I'll skip the part about how farmers in other countries are being put out of business thanks to these subsidies, so we can't import cheaper food.)

The Medicare bill just signed is projected to cost $400 billion in money that goes to big pharmaceutical companies, HMOs and insurers. It's so bad even Trent Lott is now saying "There's going to be some fiscal restraint that's going to be required." But he voted for the pork. (And note that spending projections are notoriously low, so this could run to a $ trillion or two.)

The war in Iraq is costing $100 million a day, but reconstruction is going to cost even more. (War costs are a significant factor in making the GDP numbers look so "good.")

And all these programs increase the deficit which increases the national debt, on which you're already paying $1,000,0000,000 a day in interest. Really. A billion dollars a day. (Anyone think there might be a better way to spend the money?)

And company profits are up, while average household income is down. Employment is down except in the government. You've heard of the corporate scandals and the stock market scandals and the recent mutual fund scandals.

Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

So Dean is on the right track.

It's not a partisan issue, it's a matter of quality of life. And so far, we're all losing.

So Hal, you think that HOWARD DEAN would be an improvement on restraining deficit spending? Granted, Bush et al have really sucked in this area. This is part of why I'm a Libertarian rather than a Republican. Still, how much better would even the best Democrat be in this area?

There have certainly been big subsidies to fat cats, and I'd be in favor of cutting bunches of that stuff- starting with the agriculture subsidies that not only inflate our deficits, but suppress all the third world farmers who want to sell us stuff. Again though, do you really think that a Democrat would do better?

Yes.

Well, in a simplistic way, if we look at the last 20 years, it seems the Dems have done a much better job of it, if you just look at size of the deficit under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II.
So, yes, i think just about any Democrat would do better.

The common right tactic of decrying Dems as spenders vs. Republican savers has never been true, statistically. But a billion here, a billion there, who's counting?

"Again though, do you really think that a Democrat would do better?"

I was rushing out the door when I gave you the one word answer, so here's a bit of expansion on it.

The object now has to be to get a rein on the habits of the "spend-and-borrow" crowd.

To do that, you have to come with someone who can be elected.

That eliminates everyone except the Democrats. Greenies, pinkos, Naderites, Perot-istas need not apply (even the _thought_ of what Nader did to this country still makes me grind my teeth).

But it can't be just any Democrat.

After watching hours of the Dems "debates" there are clearly a number of dwarfs that aren't in contention. Of the contenders, Gephart is "the Old Europe" of pols - while his special interests are different from Republicans' special interests, he's "politics as usual." Lieberman is a Baby-Bush-Wannabe and I wonder why he stuck a Dems label on his forehead. Kerry is smoother about it than Gephart, but seems ot be just as opportunistic and we don't need politics-by-weathervane. Clark can't stand on his own but could make a good VP to strengthen the ticket.

So Dean still doesn't look so bad. And if the opposition is already starting on him with stories like this one, he may be better than that.

JR is the kind of guy the Diva likes -- witty and brusque.

Props to Hal, too. The Medicare bill was a sweetheart deal for corporate health and drug entities, not a break for consumers as the Bush administration claims. Figures. The big, nasty corporate way is how the Frist family got their hands on all that money.

Even Barger is somewhat acceptable.

Let's hear it for the men of Blogcritics!

"Somewhat acceptable?" Oh, Diva, you make my heart go pitter patter.

XOX