Californians, who's voting for Arnold

[johnc]

Here is an example let’s suppose that the CEO of a huge international multibillion dollar company

 

The CEO analogy never works (whether Republicans or Democrats use it) because governments don't have any competitive pressures.

 

I agree that Governors have little tactical control over what goes on in the state, but that's because the Gov is supposed to play a strategic role - leadership. He's supposed to be the guy shouting, "Take that hill!" while the offcers and men actually do the fighting.

 

Ronald Reagan is perfect example of a good leader. He set a direction and inspired people to move. He wasn't (isn't) an intellectual, he didn't have a grasp of all the facts, but he had a vision and could inspire others to share that vision. Agreement with the direction is not the point I'm trying to make, the ability to lead and inspire is what is needed most in this state.

 

That's my beef with Davis and its something Davis apologized for repeatedly during the campaign. He himslef said that he spent too much time in the last 5 years talking with lobbyists and lawyers and not enough time talking with the people.

 

Its time to try another direction. We need a leader willing to kick our butts and I think a good movie analogy for Arnold's first year will be Kindergarden Cop, not Terminator.

[TomoHawk]

If Arnold is in office, who does Hollywood have to do the acting?

 

 

Arnold? ba-DUM-dum!

 

*ahem*

[SleeperZ]

Now I won't get to see Terminator 4 anytime soon.

[TomoHawk]

That's what I thought. With Arnold out of the acting business for the next few years, hHollywood will have to go to someone else fortheir action-hero.

 

Maybe Stallone? who else is there?

[Tim240z]

That's what I thought. With Arnold out of the acting business for the next few years' date=' hHollywood will have to go to someone else fortheir action-hero.

 

Maybe Stallone? who else is there?[/quote']

Angelina Jolie!!!!

 

Tim

[Afshin]

The CEO analogy never works (whether Republicans or Democrats use it) because governments don't have any competitive pressures.

 

So you expect me to believe that running a company with the single goal of increasing market share and profit is more complicated than running the entire state of California with millions of people with so many ethnicities and different needs, poor people, working class, rich investor's, thousands of schools, health care budgets and billions upon billions of annual expense.... because it is not in competition?

 

Anyways, I will stop now because we disagree on too many things like Reagan having done a good job (oh boy do I disagree ). These debates/topics are fun but can go on forever ending the fun and then getting ugly. Politics online is tricky since it is too easy to offend each other even when not intended.

Of note, anyone who thinks they are completely right is the first one to be clearly wrong. These are all subjective perspectives and most of the time there is truth on both sides, its more a matter of how we see it and prioritize various issues (however, I’m still right

 

Well John, I certainly hope that you are correct about your feelings and confidence in Arnold. I have no reason to be against him just as I have no reason to trust or have confidence in him. I'm still holding on to my collector's edition DVD of T2.

 

In reference to TomaHawk's dilemma, I think Hollywood is looking for fresher blood than Stallone, perhaps the Rock. I haven't seen any of his movies, but they seem to be in line with Conan, isn't how this all started. He better not be the next Governor .

[Afshin]

Tim240Z wrote

 

Angelina Jolie !!!!

 

 

Boy do we agree now, she is an absolute Goddess. I think I may have finally found faith (I guess i'm still going to burn in Hell :flamedevil: ). Off course I realize that I'm not enough man for her so, for the first time, I am willing to be fully dominated.

Since I have no Kingdome to offer: my beautiful red turbo for a night with Angelina (yeah yeah, I know it won't cut it. At least I'm trying)

[Guest ZMFDM]

Currupt politicians, mean currupt governments, Canada does have a great health care system, but there are lots of other areas lacking, because of embeseling :|

[johnc]

So you expect me to believe that running a company with the single goal of increasing market share and profit is more complicated than running the entire state of California with millions of people with so many ethnicities and different needs, poor people, working class, rich investor's, thousands of schools, health care budgets and billions upon billions of annual expense.... because it is not in competition

 

Exactly, elected politicians don't have to execute, they just have to sound like they are doing something. There's no downside to failure (other then getting recalled). And even then, your failure has to be especially bad to get your butt kicked out the door.

 

The only constiuent they really aswer to are thier donors and the political party they represent. You don't think Bustamante really cares about the California Indian tribes and their problems? I'll bet lots of money that the only part of any Indian reservation he's set foot on is in front a slot machine in an Indian casino.

 

In the corporate world CEOs get booted all the time. Even such disasters as Enron, Worldcomm, Tyco, Adelphia, etc. are the exception much more then the rule. In the political world its reversed.

 

Well John, I certainly hope that you are correct about your feelings and confidence in Arnold.

 

Honestly, I don't have much confidence in Arnold doing a good job. Its just too difficult to get anything accomplished in a state as complex as Caleeeeforeneeia. I'm just hoping he doesn't do as bad a job as Davis.

[Heavy Z]

Ronald Reagan is perfect example of a good leader. He set a direction...the ability to lead and inspire is what is needed most in this state.

 

This Couldn't be truer!!! More and more, America is unique among the developed world in that we place more value on showmanship than credentials. Give it to us quick and flashy, no time or patience these days to read the fine print. Most aren't interested in doing the legwork that goes with being informed, but they surely love their "opinions."

 

Reagan is one of those guys, remembered with esteem and grace. The good days. What do I remember of this man? Do I remember the deal he secretly worked with the Iranians before he was officially president, selling them weapons in exchange so they'd release our hostages - you guessed it - the moment he was being sworn in? I don't, but I do remember him looking really courageous later on when he proclaimed "I don't negotiate with terrorists."

 

Do I remember that he started a war in El Salvador by creating a resistance movement from thin air, secretly funded with that Iranian arms cash because he didn't want to bother going through the proper channels (i.e. congress and the people) for approval? Nope, I do remember though that those Iran-Contra hearings were really boring.

 

Do I remember that the U.S. debt was $1.2 trillion when Carter left office(an accumulation of many years and presidents), and that in 12 years he and Bush senior were able to quadruple that amount? No, but he did re-commission some cool battleships despite what those tax 'n spend liberals had to say about it.

 

He was a good looking actor and will be remembered fondly. Will we look back in 20 years and remember Arnold the same way?

[JMortensen]

I've heard lots of complaints about Reaganomics, but the best support for it that I've heard is that the GDP to debt ratio improved while the overall debt was increased.

 

It seems to me that I would rather have my company 1.2 trillion in debt, and made 7 trillion dollars in sales, than 500 million in debt and making 2 trillion in sales.

 

I don't know enough about this to make a knowledgable statement about it, but all I hear is rhetoric spewed from the left about "raiding" social security (which is supposed to be raided according to even Democrat economists that I've seen interviewed) and increasing debt. The more I learn the more confused I get.

 

Let's give Reagan a little credit. He did take down Russia, and I think he pretty much did that all by himself and maybe that was worth the debt. I watched some interviews with Gorbachev, who seemed fairly non-plussed with Reagan's tactics. I still think you gotta hand it to the president who sits down across the table from Gorby and starts their first conversation "So let me tell you what is wrong with your system of government."

 

I don't know how much of a rah-rah leader he was either. Seems like he was really involved in day to day operations, especially in his first term.

 

Jon

[Heavy Z]

I've heard lots of complaints about Reaganomics, but the best support for it that I've heard is that the GDP to debt ratio improved while the overall debt was increased.

 

In 1980, we were the world's largest creditor, by 1988 we were the world's largest debtor. Today we spend $1 billion a day just to pay the interest on the debt. That is nearly our defense budget just on interest. Taxes could be lower on all of us were this not such a drag on the system. This leads to your next point about raiding social security. When funds are tight, the people are taxed out, and the U.S. can only borrow so much by law, then a popular place to go for both parties has been to borrow money from all those social security dollars that we pay in each month. They write an i.o.u. and then it's off to the races. None has been repaid so far, maybe the next generation will pick up the tab...oh I forgot, they'll be busy with revenue shortages as baby boomers retire. Do we dare spend less?

[JMortensen]

http://www.parida.com/reaganomics.html

 

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html

 

Two totally different perspectives.

 

I'm still lost.

 

Jon

[Heavy Z]

I've heard lots of complaints about Reaganomics, but the best support for it that I've heard is that the GDP to debt ratio improved while the overall debt was increased.

 

Check over what the second article you posted says:

 

"Reagan left three major adverse legacies at the end of his second term. First, the privately held federal debt increased from 22.3 percent of GDP to 38.1 percent and, despite the record peacetime expansion, the federal deficit in Reagan's last budget was still 2.9 percent of GDP. Second, the failure to address the savings and loan problem early led to an additional debt of about $125 billion. Third, the administration added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover. The share of U.S. imports subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1988. "

 

This article questions your support - it indicates that the GDP to debt ratio increased(worsened) rather than improved. BTW I agree with some of the trade barrier ideas, they can help keep jobs in the states if managed correctly.

 

And from the first article:

 

"Ronald Reagan left us a national debt of about $3.5 trillion or $3,500 billion. The national debt when Ronald Reagan took office was about $1 trillion. That included in it all the debt run up for the Revolutionary war, the Spanish-American war, the Civil war, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war and all the Social wars of the 1930's and subsequent years. In other words it took the United States from 1776 until 1980 or more than 200 years to accumulate a national debt of $1 trillion.It took Reaganomics only 8 years to increase the national debt from $1 trillion to about $3.5 trillion! Given the spending habits established by the legacy of Ronald Reagan the national debt is now about $5.5 trillion! The interest cost on the national debt now run about $250 million a year! When RR took office they were about $53 million a year."

 

This was written back in '98, and the yearly interest figure is incorrect. In 1998 we paid $363,823,722,920.26 in interest charges. Thanks for both articles, they helped to make my point.

[JMortensen]

My wife has food poisoning and is at the moment, so I'm probably going to be up all night... bad sturgeon. She liked the taste the first time...

 

http://www.geocities.com/ecocorner/intelarea/rb.html

 

"On the evidence so far, the success of this strategy has been, if by no means complete, greater than usually understood. Under pressure of the deficit, spending as a percentage of GNP peaked in 1983 and showed a gradually declining trend for the remainder of the Reagan Presidency."

 

Maybe that's what I had heard. Government spending in proportion to GDP, not debt in proportion to GDP.

 

You completely avoid addressing any of the supposed benefits of that system. The question to me is "Do the benefits outweigh the costs?"

 

If you only look at the debt, the whole situation seems a no-brainer. In my personal experience, though, I can tell you that I am happier and have a better outlook on the future now despite the fact that I am as heavily in debt as I have ever been. The debts that I incurred allowed my wife to go to college and for me to start a business which is now making a profit, and that is more important than the currently accumulated debt totals. I had no debt for the first 5 years that I owned credit cards by the way. Always paid up, but I wasn't going anywhere in life.

 

Again, I don't claim to be an expert here, but here are some benefits listed in some of these articles:

 

1. Collapse of USSR

2. Largest peacetime expansion of any economy ever

3. GDP growth per worker increased from .8% to 1.8%

4. Productivity in manufacturing increased 3.8% per year

5. Unemployment declined from 7% to 5.4%

6. Inflation dropped from 10% to 4.2%

 

Some cons:

 

1. Went from 1 trillion debt to 2.8 trillion

2. Introduction of trade barriers

 

Was it worth it???

 

Jon

[Heavy Z]

The good stuff of Reaganomics, let's have a look:

 

1. Collapse of USSR - Now rather than a single strong government keeping all those nasty weapons under lock and key, you have a situation so desperate that nukes have been sold to who knows who, bio-agents are easily obtainable, and local military officials still have their fingers on the button(do you know where those nukes are still pointed?). Russia is a mess, we could've taken their advice and hired their scientists for pennies on the dollar, but after spending so much to topple the USSR we preferred to gloat over our victory. Some of these scientists are now employed in countries hostile to us. Also, the middle east was a strong ally of ours during that period, rather than the situation we now find ourselves in. A lot of people in the know would question your presumption that we are any safer now, if a nuke goes off in America it's still highly likely that it'd be stamped "made in the USSR."

 

2. Largest peacetime expansion of any economy ever - I should hope so with all that spending. On a smaller level, I could get a bunch of credit cards and charge my way into what would look to be prosperity - new car, furniture, vacations, etc. Also, some of that prosperity is obviously due to increased defence contracts - the same as using my charge card to make my wages seem higher.

 

3. GDP growth per worker increased from .8% to 1.8% - Hooray!

 

4. Productivity in manufacturing increased 3.8% per year - Productivity is on the rise even in today's stalled economy, all this means is that businesses found a way to be more profitable(i.e. reduce # of employees, outsource to 3rd world countries, etc.). This mostly helps out stock prices.

 

5. Unemployment declined from 7% to 5.4% - Good, although as your second article points out this was partially from defence spending.

 

6. Inflation dropped from 10% to 4.2% - Always helpful.

 

Sure it wasn't all bad, but I cannot emphasize enough the consequences of runaway spending. You ask, was it worth it? Well, in addition to paying over a billion a day in interest(which is money we pay and get zero in return for), we must borrow $1.5 billion every day to keep the U.S. afloat. These loans mostly come from Asia and are secured by using federal land as collateral. Do you like the idea that foreign countries hold the pink slip for much of our natural resources? Do you like the idea that foreign countries could bring us to our knees if they cut off our credit? As the dollar slides lower, we will pay even more in intrest for these loans. Think of it as a guy who doesn't make enough to cover all his debt, so must forever borrow to keep his standard of living. This is where higher taxes come in. If you are a republican, the idea of paying higher taxes should repulse you. Know that Reagan lit the fuse that'll ultimately demand higher taxes from us all, and in many ways Clinton didn't curb spending much either, but he did get the budget balanced.

[JMortensen]

OK, thanks for the input. I appreciate your viewpoint.

 

Jon