btw: Michael what happened to your blog, Liberty & Justice, it seems to be down? ps- how about them Cardinals!

To fund the programs that Edwards is proposing will take much more than taking out the tax breaks for companies and people that, quite frankly, have done nothing to deserve them. It should take 100’s of billions of dollars to fund the new entitlements that Edwards wants. $500 billion in additional taxes each year shold definitely have a negative effect on the economy.

Sorry but just . taking out the tax breaks for companies and people that, quite frankly, have done nothing to deserve them will not generate enough money to fund the massive new entitlements that Edwards is proposing even without the all but certain cost overruns.

The only way that Edwards can balance the budget is with massive tax increases along with the adverse economic impacts of the raises.

I’m now going to make the astonishing suggestion that the best recent example of how to do this has been provided by none other than your CaliBlogger’s favorite punching-bag, George W. Bush.

As Jon Stewart would say: Wha’?

But think about it. Bush’s widest appeal had nothing to do with his stands on gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research or any of the other issues he used to solidify his wingnut base.

Indeed his main appeal to the non-insane center was that they liked him despite his stands on those issues.

They liked him because that, agree with him or not, you both knew where he stood and knew that his beliefs were honestly held.

Whether you actually believe in Bush’s actual sincerity (and I, for one, do not) his ability to at least appear sincere has been his most attractive feature. The guy Americans would, famously, most like to have a beer with.

And that seems to me to be Edwards biggest potental plus with moderates.

I can argue that his positions on energy, health and the economic insecurity being increasingly felt by the US middle-class are not so far from the center as some might think. But we can have that argument another time.

But specific policy positions aside, it seems to me that Edwards has learned the critical lesson, sincerity sells.

And he also seems to have tweaked his campaign style to reflect that fact. Just look at his announcement.

Gone is the finely tuned stump speech, nuanced and honed as a lawyer’s closing argument. No bunting. No marching bands. And frankly, no triangulation.

Just a YouTube video.

Just a guy you’d like to have a beer with.

As far as his liberalness as a candidate – part of the problem is that Republicans and many moderates (sorry) too easily fall for propaganda. If the actual independent believes anything on Fox News, he/she is not going to vote liberal. So the issue is really: “Can people ignore propaganda and vote on change and issues, as well as party definitions.” There is nothing wrong with being a liberal until Neil Cavuto tells them there is. Edwards’ conservative state status may help him overcome some of those issues among moderates.

http://www.librocrat.com

Remember, from a politicians point of view, borrowing pushes some of the pain into the future (especially if borrowed from foreign countries. To raise taxes to pay for new programs put all of the costs in the current year along with all of the economic impact.

Greendreams,

Remember, every deficit budget during the Reagan and Bush I administrations was approved by a Democratic majority house. Aren’t Tip O’Neill, Jim Wright, and Tom Foley just as responsbile for the deficits of the 1980’s as Republicans since the Constitution gives the House control of the budget?

I do not quite see how sensible voters could vote for someone who is NOT dedicated to eradicating the deficit.

Michael, look back at Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations. The GOP proved, sadly, that we don’t really care about the deficit or the debt. We intend to use it up, lambast anyone who cares about the debt as “tax and spend.” We have become so selfish we are content to pass all that debt on to our kids. I believe the voters can be manipulated time and again to vote against their interests. What pragmatic solutions are possible in such a scenario.

This is a pretty erudite crowd yet there are plenty here who fully support uncontrolled corporate greed at any cost, the elimination of all environmental, labor and consumer safety regulation; unfettered control of politics by corporate “free speech;” the current assault on civil liberties; even the establishment of a permanent aristocracy that doesn’t pay for public services or other government obligations (as long as none of their income is from actually working) and the right of the rich to hand that untouched wealth tax-free to their children.

I think the only pragmatic solution to all this is to remove the toxic effect of money on policymaking and corporate control of media to create an electorate that is informed rather than manipulated, and elect leaders who work for the public good rather than constantly pandering to their financial supporters.

Do you think the war is going to go better?

I don’t think so.

That is the foundation for my guess: Many, many people will be so sick and tired of President Bush that they won’t vote for any Republican–and they’ll be willing to vote for any Democrat.

Either a centrist candidate like Clinton will win, or a candidate like Giuliani or McCain, who project toughness on the issue of national security. The outcome is dependent upon what is happening in Iraq, and if we have had another attack on our soil.

I don’t think a candidate like Edwards, although he is charismatic, will appeal to mainstream voters.

It seems to me that those of us in the middle are listening for more insight about how we pay for improving government operations. The Left wants an improved safety net and the right doesn’t want to pay for it. So what’s the pragmatic compromise? I posted a similar question just yesterday.