PA-Muhlenberg: Obama with a moderate lead

[Democratic Hawk]

Because Romney is competent.  If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency.  If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion.  Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.

You're not seriously describing President Obama as a "radical ideologue" surely?

[Democratic Hawk]

Because Romney is competent.  If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency.  If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion.  Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.

Spending isn't the problem, its unfunded spending. Deficit = the shortfall between spending as a % of GDP & revenues as a % of GDP. And, ultimately, only a balanced approach involving spending cuts and tax increases, especially on the primary beneficiaries of the supply-side tax cuts which added trillions to the gross federal debt (and that ain't the middle class, given that median US incomes declined under the stewardship of GWB), would be the responsible path to take. Bill Clinton - by far the most economically successful post-1981 - proved that much and, at least, George W Bush rode into the Oval Office, he was able to prevent the GOP in Congress from cutting taxes too recklessly

Ever occurred to you Republicans that had it not been for US median incomes declining during the 'Noughties', there may not have been a sub-prime crisis, which as events unfolded proved nothing short of near catastrophic for both the US and wider global economy?

Prosperity needs to be broad-based, which is why capitalism needs to be fundamentally different coming out of the 'Great Recession' then it was going in

I'm not adverse to some tax cuts as a counter-cyclical measure but with that must come an understanding that a day will come when they have to be raised. My point being if the answer was to cut, cut, cut and cut taxes each and every time a downturn came along, where would it end .... ?

Indeed, "The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility. They're on an anti-tax jihad -- one that benefits the prosperous classes" - David Stockman [Director of the Office of Management and Budget, (1981–1985)]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

For all the Bush 43 tax cuts ($3 trillion added to the gross federal debt), the US economy yielded the fewest number of jobs of any presidential term this side of Herbert Hoover; while a modest, by comparison, $800 bn ARRA has countered the effects of a much more severe downturn; indeed, some economists consider that the ARRA was too conservative a response but mindful of deficits, I suspect, is why Obama opted for it

TARP, meanwhile, was George W's one saving grace. I'll give him that. Because its clear to me were it not for the actions of government, central bankers and policy makers in the wake of the 'Crash of 2008', a reprisal of the Great Depression would have been inevitable

[Democratic Hawk]

Probably need to be more capitalistic going forward, agreed.

I said prosperity needs to be more broad-based not less . The 'Crash of 2008' has, totally and utterly, discredited the neoliberal mantra espoused by Friedrich von Hayek

[Democratic Hawk]

Probably need to be more capitalistic going forward, agreed.

I said prosperity needs to be more broad-based not less . The 'Crash of 2008' has, totally and utterly, discredited the neoliberal mantra espoused by Friedrich von Hayek

How? The experience of this problem, which was started by government FORCING banks to lend to people they HAD always judged (correctly) to not be creditworthy bolsters my argument (or one Hayek would make), not undermines it.  A big government+crony-ist time bomb goes off and you side with them? why?
Also,
Is Obama pro big government?... yes
Is Obama a crony-ist?... yes
Don't support the problem you claim to care about solving. 

The 'Crash of 2008' has for me, at least, laid bare the dangers of wealth becoming increasingly concentrated at the very top

I'm not adverse to a liberal economy providing it comes with 1) extensive positive rights and 2) a strong welfare safety net. As a left-leaning Christian Democrat, I've always been of those convictions - and, among developed nations, the US and UK are among the most unequal in terms of wealth distribution. That is why prosperity needs to be more broad-based

Classical liberalism is no more relevant in the 21st century than Jeffersonian small-producer populism

[Democratic Hawk]

Bush was ahead of were Obama is in most key indicators and everyone keeps acting like Obama is like Clinton (triangulating, moderating, centrist-ish)... he isn't.  

If we have populist protectionists, on the left, neoliberals, on the right and welfare-state liberals in the center, the president's record, if anything, is moderately center-right

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was not radical (certainly not at a cost of $800bn); the Consumer Protection and Wall Street Reform Act is not radical. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which - shock horror - raises revenues to pay for it) is not radical

If there's any radicalism around, right now, its on the right (i.e. the Tea Party, which seems oblvious to the fact that its the 21st century, not the 18th); the US doesn't have a meaningful "left", so any socialism (left) - conservatism (right) dichotomy is a false one

[Democratic Hawk]

The connection between "distribution of wealth" and the crash of 2008 and/or macroeconomic conditions is entirely subjective based upon one's own biases and beliefs. I do agree that it might be indicative of something else that could be a drag on the economy, like problems in the education system. The best ideas for solving those problems are a combination of ideas offered from both sides. I would say there is a higher concentration of good ideas on the Republican side then the Democrats, though. But that too is a subjective opinion.

I'd be minded to agree if the the eve of the 'Crash of 2008', which begat the Great Recession, did not correlate with that of the 'Crash of 1929', which begat the Great Depression, in that respect

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't dispute there are factors far beyond the government's control but the 1990s was one of prosperity, relative to the 'Eighties' (the only great achievement being slaying the inflation dragon but that came at significant social cost) and 'Noughties'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rights considered positive rights, as initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak, may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, national security, military, health care, social security, and a minimum standard of living

Of course, liberals [be they classical (Smith), new liberal (Keynes) or neoliberal (Hayek)] will disagree on the extent to which the state and market should play in securing those

Apparently, according to Pew's typology, I'm a 'New Coalition Democrat' and we tend to favor proative government, be pro-business and be pro-labor. But then as a left-leaning Christian Democrat, I've never believed that the interests of capital and labor are necessarily irreconciliable. Such a position could be considered neo-corporatist. And in the wake of the 'Crash of 2008', I've become somewhat enamored with the German social market model (its their variant of the 'Third Way'); indeed, Northern Europe, in general, seems to be , fiscally, well-managed. Southern Europe, on the other hand, ... well

I'm wary of austerity, certainly in the UK, given unemployment is running at 8.4%, though had we a more 'social democratic' (Nordic) or 'Christian Democratic/conservative' (social market) welfare safety net it wouldn't concern me as much. Its pretty impressive that Austria has reduced its budget deficit to 2.6% of GDP, with 4.2% unemployment (the lowest in the EU)

If I was ever to do research it would be on the welfare state

I can honestly say that never in my life have I cast a vote on the promise of tax cuts and the Conservative Party has been dead to me since the reintroduction of mass unemployment in early 1980s

[Democratic Hawk]

The 'Crash of 2008' has for me, at least, laid bare the dangers of wealth becoming increasingly concentrated at the very top

To be fair I should think that for most sentient people the instability and problematic nature of liberal/neo-liberal oppression has been apparent since about 1890 or at least 1929.  The fact that we took another deep drink of the poison since 1980 is testimony to how little

I'm just pretty concerned at the extent to which, among developed nations, both the UK and US are among the most "unequal"so I'm kind of left-wondering, what if not ...

My left-leaning Christian Democratic convictions, however, are well-established; indeed, it was the reintroduction of mass unemployment during the 'Monetarist Recession' which poisoned any chance of being a Conservative