Good piece from the WSJ - what the "silent majority" is thinking

The public sector provides what the private sector will not (or cannot). What's the great insight there?

dude, there is no great insight here, which is what makes your comments all the more ridiculous. we already have significant central planning and public involvement in the economy. you keep arguing that we have to choose between 'free enterprise' and 'central planning,' missing the obvious point that any successful system of free enterprise requires significant central planning.

So let's take your rather extreme reading of my comments and say there is a pie divided into "free enterprise" on one side and "central planning" on the other. Which side do you think Team Obama, Pelosi, etc. want to get bigger? Do you think that is good for the country? How do we pay for it?

east_cider, you're as blind to your own rhetoric as Limboss is:

"If you go out of your way to punish that "someone else," whether it be a person or a corporation, that job is at risk over the long term."

You plainly state that:

1) Raising taxes is "punishment"
2) Most people owe their livelihoods to someone / something greater than themselves
3) Wealth trickles down.

Wealth does not "trickle down." Once upon a time CEO's were paid far less than they are today. The world survived, as did the middle class. Wealth did not trickle down during the time of the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Morgans, or Astors, either. That is the entire reason why the progressive income tax was introduced - it's very easy to make money when you already have money, very hard when you don't.

Wealth didn't trickle down during the Great Depression. It never does. How could it, if you make $1 million a year and pay your maid $10,000? Sure she owes her job to you - and you probably think she should be kissing your feet. But the truth is, she's starving.

east cider - did you answer who the conservative republican is with the pre 1981 conservative ideals?

east_cider, that quote to which you refer, the one in which Obama's many supporters do not think his plans will help the economy that much? Well, I think that shows even greater support (and, quite frankly, intelligence. People must have time to think these days). They're right. They won't, and can't, have that much of an effect. We're way too deep in a negative spin cycle to just sally forth out of it. Obama can only try to make the landing softer.

HR, got what you were saying. Yes, dogmatism can be tiresome. Perhaps he should start advocating anarchy? east_cider, I think it's the question of what the private sector can and can't (or will not) do. Greenspan was convinced that the private sector would act in its own long-term self-interest in monitoring risk assumption. That was a big, bad mistake.

east_cider, clearly i believe that the policies being proposed by the president are in the interests of the country. we are going to pay for them with a combination of deficit borrowing (at very low interest rates) and higher taxes on high earners. the pie analogy is not helpful. the question is not whether we should have more or less central planning, but rather that we need better central planning, which is what i believe the president is going to provide. we had an enormous increase in the power of the government under george w. bush, and unfortunately most of it was completely wrongheaded and failed us. other expansions of government power, such as enforced school desegregation, medicare, social security, flood control, vaccination programs, etc. have been beneficial.

you can't be so blindly ideological.

"there is a pie divided into "free enterprise" on one side and "central planning" on the other. Which side do you think Team Obama, Pelosi, etc. want to get bigger?"

I don't think that Team Obama, Pelosi, or anybody else for that matter wants "Central Planning," as it doesn't work. And I've never heard any of them espouse central planning. Show me one example of where they have.

That is yet one more example of Limbaughesque black and white thinking: EITHER free enterprise OR central planning. Nothing in between. It is indicative of a primitive form of thinking, called "splitting." Look it up.

Re-regulation of failing industries is not "central planning." It is setting up a set of rules to play by. What game, economy, society, etc., does not have a set of rules?

It is legitimate to argue about what those rules should be, how far they should go, but to state that the institution of a single rule constitutes "central planning" is inane. There is a vast area of action between completely unfettered markets and central planning, and that "middle" is where most of the world is.

Steve, there are a few income tiers between CEOs and maids. I certainly fall in there, and I assume you do as well.

Here's a good definition of "splitting":

"Splitting is a Freudian defence mechanism in which an object or idea (or, alternatively, the ego) is separated into two or more parts in order to remove its threatening meaning. Freud referred to splitting as a mental process by which two separate and contradictory versions of reality could co-exist.Ref This conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defence mechanism present in all narcissists and codependents. They see people and situations in black and white terms, all bad or all good, with no shades of gray."

Here's another one suffered by Limbaugh:

"Paranoia is a functional disorder characterized by symptoms of delusions of jealousy, and delusions of either grandeur and / or persecution, which can't be explained by other psychological disorders. Intellectual functioning is not impaired. The paranoid is quite capable of coherent behaviour within his or her delusional state. Narcissists often suffer from paranoia."

And another:

"Denial is a defense mechanism that simply disavows or denies thoughts, feelings, wishes or needs that cause anxiety. It is used purely for unconscious operations that function to 'deny' that which cannot be dealt with consciously."

And a final one:

"Character assassination is an intentional attempt, usually by a narcissist and/or an enabler, to influence the portrayal or reputation of someone in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative, unethical or unappealing perception of him or her. It typically involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts, the spreading of rumors and deliberate misinformation to present an untrue picture of the targeted person, and unwarranted and excessive criticism."

Just watch Limbaugh, east_cider, read your own posts, and analyze.

east cider you continue to be on the wrong side of history - formerly you supported Bush and the disasterous Republican policies that crushed our economy. Now you are swimming against the tidal wave of Obama's efforts to right the wrong your party did to our country.

"Steve, there are a few income tiers between CEOs and maids."

That is an example of "denial" - denying what I (and you) said. You said the CEO class (the top 2% whose taxes will rise) are being "punished"; I said that his maid already was being punished. You completely ignore all of the points.

Examples? How about nationalizing the student loan industry, capping pay for bank employees, cap and trade credits, redistributionist tax policy, mortgage cram downs, card check, ...

lol, ok east_cider. just go watch some more fox news. you just don't know what you are talking about, and when confronted with your own ignorance and inconsistency you change the subject. this is silly.

Thanks for playing. Good luck with the central planning, comrade.

"Do you think that is good for the country? How do we pay for it?"

These are both good questions. The administration is not going to fix the economy without spending money. Steve has spoken at length (and quite effectively) about the Keynesian theories on this spending and this is widely considered the best course of action given the circumstances.

How we pay for it of course will be through a mix of tax increases, loopholes closed, tighter spending and an increase of tax revenue as jobs are created.

An interesting point that many conservatives like to make today is a fear of debt for our children. I applaud this sentiment, but now is not the time to worry about debt, as we are trying to fix this giant mess. And frankly, the time to show concern about debt was when the last administration spent on anything and everything, waged 2 wars off the books, cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and further diminished tax revenues by having an 8 year job-creation deficit of 11,400,000 jobs. Yes, an 11,400,000 jobs-created deficit. So staggering it deserves to be repeated.

Aboutready - great point about a mix of ideas with strong regulation.

Finally, for those who believe Rush's false theory (aka as the only kind he has) that the stock market doesn't like Obama and the Democratics. History shows quite clearly (there are those pesky facts again)that the stock market under Democratic administrations has consistently outperformed the market under Republican administrations by 20% for the last 100 years. Let's not pass judgement after 5 weeks.

Oh, e_c, you are so easy!

1) Nationalizing the student loan industry.

It was already nationalized through Sallie Mae guarantees. All the former policy did was allow banks to charge huge origination fees and often usurious interest rates for loans that were in any case provided by the government, guaranteed by the government, and not extinguishable through bankruptcy.

You'll have to come up with a better one than that. The change will allow the government to save billions in subsidies to banks, thus lowering taxes.

2) capping pay for bank employees.

That did not happen, and it will not happen. What happened was that for banks RECEIVING GOVERNMENT CAPITAL, cash bonuses were capped. They can still be awarded in restricted stock payable once the government is repaid.

Covenants like that are common any time one entity lends money to another. Honestly, the TARP banks are lucky they're even banks at all. Reagan would have done a Resolution Trust Corp. on them, wiping out everyone.

3) cap and trade credits.

That is a policy supported by the Economist Magazine among others, as an effective way to reduce pollution. Pollution is one of those externalities that cannot be priced; this sets a pricing mechanism for it. It is truly a market solution for something that otherwise is not factored in by the market.

4) redistributionist tax policy.

An extra $30,000 in income tax on a $1 million salary is "redistributionist"? That's cool!

5) mortgage cram downs

Mortgages can already be crammed down if they are a) commercial; and b) for second homes. Only mortgages for owner-occupied homes can't be crammed down by a bankruptcy court. Almost all other types of loans can be, including HELOC's.

In fact, mortgages were subject to bankruptcy rules until the 1980's. If Lehman can declare bankruptcy and get out of its debts, why can't a homeowner? It makes no sense.

Bankruptcy law is written into the Constitution, by our founding fathers. All you "original intentists" should be happy with it.

6) card check

I see the anti-union bias. The proposal is that workers can decide whether they want an election or card-check. WalMart and many others have harassed union organizers for a long time. Union organizers have been fired and blacklisted. It's about time that it be easier for people to organize. Ken Lewis made millions last year; your average teller makes $15 an hour. Maybe it would be a good idea to pay Ken a few fewer millions, and up your average teller pay to $17 an hour.

TRICKLE-DOWN!