and then a smug egotistical rant about how smart you are that you're going to cash in on exactly what I'm talking about; bleeding of public resources into the hands of rich, arrogant, entitled investors. No doubt you're already invested in the companies currently sucking at the government teat, Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlisle etc. BTW, I didn't disparage socialists, though I'm not one. I just thought Klein's description of the history of the terms you questioned was useful. Want the same thing from a non “socialist” author? Try Wikipedia, or answers.com.

neo, whew. take a breath. OK, you didn't say 'how will obama?' you said Obama in the candy store. I actually agree with some of your points, certainly about fiscal responsibility. In fact, NO Dem touches the GOP in raiding the treasury, so we'll have a far better candy store proprietor. I do expect Obama will return as has every president except Reagan, Bush and Bush, to paying down the debt as a % of GDP. And I expect his priorities on “discretionary spending” to be far better than McSame.

You're right about China, too. We created the China that threatens us today, through the same neocon policies, privatization of public resources and enrichment of the few (most Chinese billionaires today were former Communist party leaders) and impoverishment of the many (so we can have a sweatshop labor force making our WalMart trinkets).

Our national ascendancy was based on a strong middle class, which we created through investment of government dollars in education, infrastructure and housing. The shift to neoconservative “trickle-down” policies has trashed the middle class and weakened our future. The GOP would do more of the same, while the Dems will favor social investment over diversion of middle class resources into rich pockets.

NO I didn't. I asked no such thing. I claimed and I believe accurately that Obama will want his turn in the candy store and the budget process be damned. The trickle down economic theory only works in an ever expanding economy that is actively pursuing immigration in massive quantities.

Tax and CUT are the key to stagnating growth and balancing the budget. However Obama has shown no proclivity to cut spending only to raise the taxes on the rich while giving it back to the poor. The Robin Hood principal which

WILL DO NOTHING to end our budget madness.

No your wrong I do not ask the question of where the money will come from. I know where it will come from………………….CHINA.

Our tax system is ridiculously complicated and self-contradictory.
On the one hand, we do have relatively high corporate taxes, but on the other, we offer such geneorus loopholes that some of the wealthiest corporations get away with paying next to no taxes. Lowering tax rates and closing loopholes should go hand in hand, if taxation is to make any sense at all.

Runasim,
Personally, I welcome the Democrats and Obama.
I will even vote for Obama.

For investors, the next bubble?
Look for companies that receive the majority of their income from the US Government.
Alternative energy, long term care (senior citizens) – that is the ticket.
A ticket I plan to cash after a nice contribution to a couple people in Congress.

I am banking (literally) on the Democrats taking over Congress and the White House.
Long term care and Rehab (geriatric) facilities are currently a loser, bought for a deep discount.
Some are bought for nothing out of bankruptcy, just a good amount of liquidity.

I am currently losing money on these facilities, but that will change.
Your Congress critters will give us all the funding we desire, and win your votes at the same time.
$100,000 is nothing compared to the millions that we will make.
The big payoff will come when our much larger competitor (hedge fund you all know) buys us out.
Luckily, for us, they were a bit late to the game.

So, I will say thank you in advance for your tax dollars.
We will never pay the taxes you intend us to, but we might just provide better care for the elderly.

I am not that much of an asshole, but I do thank you for your support – and money for birthing fees.
I Love You Guys – Progressives!

They have succeeded spectacularly at lining their pockets and those of their corporate sponsors at the expense of vast numbers of people in every country they have “liberated.” The latest of these of course is Iraq, in which the oil wealth of that country, once publicly owned is now being transferred to the multinational oil companies. Additionally, in Iraq the “neocons” have succeeded in privatizing one of the last remaining functions of government, national defense, shifting huge amounts of tax dollars to companies including Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, McDonald's, KFC and others.

In the case of the credit crisis as well as the war, the debt is passed on to the public. These bailouts have been happening for decades. Citibank, Chase, Ford, GM; all have been bailed out of financial crises by the tax dollars of countries all over the world. The national wealth of these countries, including our own, has been shifted into the hands of the already rich and powerful, while the private debt from bad corporate policies and outright corruption and theft, has been shifted to the public.

Neocon, you ask “how will Obama” pay for programs that benefit most people, rather than only the rich and connected. Well, that will be damned difficult, because our tax dollars, once pledged to creating better opportunity for many, is now pledged to paying the interest on the obscene debt created by these irresponsible policies. The question is not “what will Obama do?” It's “what will WE do?”

Recent example: You can explain 24/7 what the benefits of trade are, but if the benefits are not experieced, the public turns agaisnt trade. In turn, their backlash reaction can be worse, in the long term, than their current experiences.

The same is true regrarding astronomical CEO compensation. Regardless how it's explained, perceptions result in an anti-corporate sentiment.
Public rancor creates political pressure , and that can result in cures that are worse than the disease.

An economic theory, then, is only as good as the degree to which it addresses the negative column of the consequences in a particular locality (country).
People struggling to pay their bills in the US won't break out champagne bottles to celebrate China's gains.. That's one reality it's very dangerous to ignore. It's just plain foolish, IMO.

People matter. No society can escape that reality for long without paying a heavy price.

I'm not hung up on labels, and in fact I believe the correct term would be “corporatism.” The dominant belief of neoconservatives or “fiscal conservatives” is that businesses should be freed from government regulation as much as possible, that nothing should be done by governments (“shrink it to a size that can be drowned in the bathtub” as G. Norquist put it) and that any form of social spending is “socialism.”

cfpete, are these policy goals neoconservative, or neoliberal?

Milton Friedman called himself a “liberal,” but his US followers, who associated liberals with high taxes and hippies, tended to identify as “conservatives,” “classical economists,” “free marketers,” and, later, as believers in “Reaganomics” or “laissez-faire.” In most of the world their orthodoxy is known as “neoliberalism,” but it is often called “free trade” or simply “globalization.” Only since the mid-90s has the intellectual movement, led by the right wing think tanks with which Friedman had long associations – Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute called itself “neoconservative.”

The Shock Doctrine, N. Klein, p 17

Im willing to raise taxes. Im willing to institute a national sales tax to pay down the debt. On the other hand the rest of you just want your turn with your hand in the candy jar.

Well good luck America we will simply go from GWB the moron who could not spend enough to Barak Obama who will try hard to outdo GWB.

And all the while we will rail in righteous indignation about cutting the budget and demanding fiscal responsibility as long as its the other side who concedes.

Nice try but I think its time to put IT ALL on the table and become a responsible nation.

I find it comical that I ask for a balanced budget while pointing out that Obama has not even mentioned anything about balancing the budget and the basic response is

Well the GOP did it so we get to do it too………..which is precisely my point. Thanks for confirming what we already suspected.

Obama in the candy store.

Neoconservatism is based on three pillars: privatization (turning over public resources to private control), deregulation of business (unfettered corporate capitalism), and deep cuts in social programs. The end result, universally, is an increasing wealth gap, a transfer of public wealth to private wealth, and a transfer of private debt to public debt. This is the record in every country in which “neoconservative” economic policies have been tried (usually implemented by force): Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay, Iran, South Africa, China, Russia, Poland and others.

The neocons will accuse liberals of being socialists or communists, criminals, traitors, “America haters” or anything else to attempt to draw support away from them. The fact is, the neoconservative economic movement is deeply anti-democratic. Think about it. There is a much greater number of people (voters) who are below the average wealth than are above it (billionaires tweak the average upward far more than poor people pull it lower). The majority's self-interest, obviously, lies in policies that provide more for them, that is a reduction in the wealth gap. It is only those very few who benefit from the wealth gap who knowingly vote for policies that reduce opportunities for everyone but the very wealthy.

So, those who support neoconservative policies are either complicit (that is, they know these anti-democratic policies are bad for most, but are good for them, and thus support them), gullible (they believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that “a rising tide lifts all boats”), and the distracted (those who are led by fear of Communists, drugs, street crime, “Islamo-fascists”, terrorists or minorities; or those who are ignoring their own self-interest in order to confront a perceived threat from pregnant women seeking abortions, gay people seeking marriage etc.).

I know this comment will be controversial to some, and I am truly interested in those who support neoconservatism offering a well documented alternative view. I'm also very interested in whether those who regularly talk in neocon-speak are complicit or gullible. I have some theories about that, which I won't share.

Which is why I oppose Barak Obama and his democratic congress who have shown no inclination to balance the budget and instead are waiting their turn at the treasury to spend their mindless brains out.

St Ronnie increased the National debt 189%, Mr Voodoo Economics 56% and Shrub another 63%.

When St Ronnie came into office the debt was under a trillion dollars, when he left it was close to three trillion Dollars.

When Mr Voodoo Economics came into office the debt was under three trillion dollars, when he left it was over four trillion Dollars.

When Shrub came into office the debt was under six trillion dollars, when he left it was over nine trillion Dollars and climbing.

And you have the balls to complain about Democrats?

US National Debt: by Presidential Term, per Capita, and as Percentage of GDP

Not confident at all. I think we ran a very sensible monetary policy from about 1985 to about 2002.

Which is why I oppose Barak Obama and his democratic congress who have shown no inclination to balance the budget and instead are waiting their turn at the treasury to spend their mindless brains out.

It was my hope this election that it would be a vote for fiscal responsibility and instead it just looks like another set of spoiled kids in the candy store. Just the initial in front of their names will change. Lord help us.