traveler said:
My understanding of the matter is that each cut in spending is effectively going to cut down on consumer spending, which will, in turn, cut down on GDP and taxation, leading to an increase in the deficit. So, it seems to me like the whole idea of spending cuts, in this current environment, is pretty counterproductive. (I will point out that the majority of my reading on this matter comes from Krugman, so take my opinion as you will knowing that.)
That's correct. Reductions in government spending slows an economy. As do taxes. What Republicans won't tell you, though, is that the distributions of spending and taxing matter. Spending on the poor (i.e., those who must immediately turn around and spend what they are given) enhances an economy (creates demand) more than spending on the rich (i.e., those who already have what they need to do whatever they want and can just stick the extra money in their bank accounts).
Similarly, tax raises on the rich slow the economy
less than tax raises on the poor, if it slows it at all. As Warren Buffet said, higher taxes never dissuaded him from investing. After all, what else is he going to do with the money? And taxes on the rich are currently so low that increases even in this environment probably wouldn't do anything to slow the economy. In fact, it may help, because the government could use that revenue to spend on the poor, and get the money re-circulating in the economy (increase demand). Raising taxes on the bottom half is just stupid. Given America's huge income inequality, there's no money there, and it reduces demand.
As far as businesses go, a business will expand not when it gets money for nothing, but when it gets orders for its services or products (and that notwithstanding whether it has money--it will borrow if it has to).
traveler said:
It indicates that there's enough room in the party for two different platforms, sure, but, given that this split should only exist for the duration of the primary, I still don't see why it's suicide. Would the party not unify after the primary and be just as strong as before? (This seems to be common wisdom that I'm just not getting, so I'm trying to point out specifically why I don't understand it)
I don't think there's anything to understand. You are theoretically correct that it doesn't matter, but in practice it does. It uses resources that would not otherwise be used, and can cause political damage that wouldn't otherwise be caused. As long as we don't have a parliamentary system, I would prefer primary challenges to be the norm, but it's one of the flaws of the two-party system that they aren't.
That's why electoral reform is pretty fundamental to people who want to see change.
