Originally Posted by Marge
So...the Dems have to explain some "simple" plan to get back in power, but the repubs can keep spending and spending into oblivion and that's ok? I don't get it?
Also what Arnie says means little to me. He is passing bond issues that Grey Davis, the man he supposidly was this vast improvement on, supported. He has raised more special interest money than anyone in history, and yet he was going to sweep those bad boys out of SAcramento. What he is is a salesman. Simple as that, nothing more, nothing less. And while that has it's place, he is no great Govenor nor leader.
I do think the Dems need to get their message clearer. But as far as Social Security I think their message is, "What the seniors (and future seniors) need is what matters". I think with the repubs it's "What Roosevelt did is bad...get rid of it" even if that isn't completely logical...
Not a simple plan but merely a better way to communicate the idea. Since we are talking about Krugman, let me offer you a quote of his from his book the Accidental Tourist "It [Supply Side Economics/Bush Tax Cuts] appeals to the prejudices of extremely rich men, and it offers self-esteem to the intellectually insecure." That in my opinion kind of sums up the entire tax cuts alone is going to spur the economy "plan". The plan by the Republicans is the claim that tax cuts is going to pay for itself, which empirical evidence simply do not show.
My point is that it is time for the Democrats to take the offensive in terms of economics. I know the platform of Democrats with regards to its social issues but if we turn to economic platform, it seems that there is a lack of a clear message.
I thought the Clinton free trade route was really good. But it lacked a good publicity campaign when it was implemented. I believe that to a certain extent the long growth in the 1990s came about through NAFTA, which came about in 1994.
In my opinion you need a plan or message that
1) Directly benefit the person.
2) This benefit would somehow also help the entire economy and make US stronger.
3) The disadvantages of this plan is either minimal or is short term or would be resolved in the long run.
A) "Evidence" of some sort that shows the plan work just like the Reagan growth was "attributed" to supply side economics.
B) The plan should appeal to both Rich people and also a large part of the masses.
Three simple statements that encapsulates the plan. What is it? I have no idea. I think free trade could be possible but one has to get past the initial bad blood the public has on outsourcing, competition from foreign companies etc. Although Bush has been quite a free trader. The key moment would be next year 1 January 2005 when the quotas on textile import expires, which could very well mean the significant destruction of the US textile industries. Bush has flinched with regards the first wave (very small) earlier by restricting imports on certain clothes (Bras and underwear? if I recall).