Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

[nate33]

Ronald Reagan wouldn't be a Republican anymore.
Or at best would be on the outside looking in after the primaries.

This is simply false.

This whole argument that Republicans have drifted to the extreme right is false (except perhaps in the area of foreign policy, if one argues that neoconism is to the right of conventional conservatism). Tax brackets are higher now than in the 80's. Non-military per capita spending is way higher than it was in the 80's. How can anybody argue that we have drifted right?

[Wizardspride]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2

The U.S. economy is recovering well
By Fareed Zakaria, Published: October 24

The International Monetary Fund’s latest World Economic Outlook makes for gloomy reading. Growth projections have been revised downward almost everywhere, especially in Europe and the big emerging markets such as China. And yet, when looking out over the next four years — the next presidential term — the IMF projects that the United States will be the strongest of the world’s rich economies. U.S. growth is forecast to average 3 percent, much stronger than that of Germany or France (1.2 percent) or even Canada (2.3 percent). Increasingly, the evidence suggests that the United States has come out of the financial crisis of 2008 in better shape than its peers — because of the actions of its government.

Perhaps the most important cause of America’s relative health is the Federal Reserve. Ben Bernanke understood the depths of the problem early and responded energetically and creatively. The clearest vindication of his actions has been that the European Central Bank, after charting the opposite course for three years with disastrous results, has adopted policies similar to the Fed’s — and averted a potential Lehman-like collapse in Europe. (Mitt Romney’s two most prominent academic advisers, Glenn Hubbard and Gregory Mankiw, seem to recognize this, but Romney apparently doesn’t. As recently as August the Republican presidential nominee repeated his criticisms of the Fed and promised to replace Bernanke at its helm.)

[dobrojim]

Ronald Reagan wouldn't be a Republican anymore.
Or at best would be on the outside looking in after the primaries.

This is simply false.

This whole argument that Republicans have drifted to the extreme right is false (except perhaps in the area of foreign policy, if one argues that neoconism is to the right of conventional conservatism). Tax brackets are higher now than in the 80's. Non-military per capita spending is way higher than it was in the 80's. How can anybody argue that we have drifted right?

I'm sorry. This is pure fantasy. For one thing, tax brackets are lower now than they were
when Reagan was Prez.

http://top-federal-tax-rates.findthedat ... 84-vs-2012

But more to the point, on a whole range of issues, the Republicans have
moved strongly to the right.

[nate33]

Reagan got the brackets lowered to 28% before he was done.

And what issues have the Republicans moved right (again, excluding foreign policy where we probably differ on what constitutes "right")? Government is bigger than it has ever been despite Republicans having more power in the past 25 years than they did in the prior 50.

If anything, it's the Republicans who have drifted left.

[dobrojim]

RR actually negotiated and raised taxes several times while in office.

Today's Republicans are all more loyal to Grover than to good governance.

[dobrojim]

Have people looked into his record in MA. What a disaster he was. Mr bipartisan did 700 vetos in 4 years.

And those same MASS folks now favor re-electing O over Mittens by a huge margin.

Now Colin Powell, quite possibly the last reasonable Republican in America, comes out again
for Barack. Of course he's only doing because they're both black

http://cbsn.ws/QHOMeF

http://tinyurl.com/8quaayx

See...of course it's the Dems who are 'playing the race card'.

[Nivek]

Monkeying around with the electoral map and the state poll data. It looks like a tough road for Romney.

As of now, Obama is likely at 201; Romney at 191. Swing states would be:

- Nevada
- Colorado
- Iowa
- Wisconsin
- Michigan
- Ohio
- Pennsylvania
- New Hampshire
- Virginia
- North Carolina
- Florida

If I award each state where a candidate has a 75% chance of winning (or better) according to Nate Silver's projections, I get 271-206 in favor of Obama with Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, New Hampshire and Florida still listed as toss-up.

Here are Silver's odds for who wins those states:

- Colorado -- Obama: 56.8%
- Iowa -- Obama: 68.3%
- Virginia -- Obama: 54.3%
- New Hampshire -- Obama: 68.8%
- Florida -- Romney: 64.7%

But even if Romney ran the table on those states, it wouldn't matter unless he could pry away one of those 75% likely Obama states. The "weakest" of those is Ohio at 74.8% (sue me, I rounded up ). If those states all go the way Silver projects, Obama could get to 303 electoral votes.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[hands11]

Ronald Reagan wouldn't be a Republican anymore.
Or at best would be on the outside looking in after the primaries.

This is simply false.

This whole argument that Republicans have drifted to the extreme right is false (except perhaps in the area of foreign policy, if one argues that neoconism is to the right of conventional conservatism). Tax brackets are higher now than in the 80's. Non-military per capita spending is way higher than it was in the 80's. How can anybody argue that we have drifted right?

You're cherry picking.

Baby boomers are retiring and we an in the midst of a recovery from a Republican lead depression. I wouldn't be surprised if Non-military per capita spending is higher.

Reagan would be a lefty compared to todays Republicans. But I have no doubt he could act his way into being whatever they wanted. Hell, if Mitt can do it so could Reagan. Reagan was a professional actor. Republicans seem to respond well to fairy tails. FDR nailed them on that years ago. I see little that has changed.

[hands11]

Hmm. Just heard an interesting idea.

Instead of doing an electoral vs popular vote system, do a hybrid.

In this scenario, the person that won the popular vote would get some extra number of electoral votes. This way smaller states would still be in play but candidates would still want to run nationally.

The trick is figuring out the number to award.

[penbeast0]

...
For the life of me, I don't understand why you don't trust a state to make the right choice but you do trust the feds. To me, it seems intuitively obvious that the states are more likely to be in tune with the local population to provide exactly what the local population wants.

The one caveat is that States don't have the ability to print money so they can't obfuscate the cost of social programs. This means States will provide less extravagant social programs. Ultimately, this is the correct policy because the current federal run welfare state is fundamentally unsustainable and will lead to an economic collapse in the not too distant future. In short, the ability to print money has given the federal government (and voters) improper price signals on the cost of programs. When reality reasserts itself, there will be a lot pain. All the promises made to the elderly will be broken.

I don't trust states not to implement racist social policies because I lived through the 60s and 70s. The balanced budget requirments in state constitutions is the only reason I might trust the states more than the feds -- I'm a long-time Libertarian and occasional Ron Paul supporter but I don't trust my governor (Rick Scott in Florida) as much as I trust President Obama. The popular option is not always the right one.

As for the promises to the elderly, they should be broken/adjusted (and yes, I'm over 50) as circumstances change. Life expectancy and health costs (particularly for people who are in their last year of life) have risen appreciably faster than social security and medical benefit eligibility. I don't see balancing the budget as unreasonable any more than I see making a teenager pay for his or her own car insurance and cell phone bill as unreasonable.

[penbeast0]

Oh and Hands, any kind of "adjustment" in politics is just an invitation for the politically better connected to cheat. Keep it simple and straightforward . . . elections, taxes, laws, Supreme Court decisions . . . avoid giving opportunities for rent seeking behavior as much as possible.

[hands11]

...
For the life of me, I don't understand why you don't trust a state to make the right choice but you do trust the feds. To me, it seems intuitively obvious that the states are more likely to be in tune with the local population to provide exactly what the local population wants.

The one caveat is that States don't have the ability to print money so they can't obfuscate the cost of social programs. This means States will provide less extravagant social programs. Ultimately, this is the correct policy because the current federal run welfare state is fundamentally unsustainable and will lead to an economic collapse in the not too distant future. In short, the ability to print money has given the federal government (and voters) improper price signals on the cost of programs. When reality reasserts itself, there will be a lot pain. All the promises made to the elderly will be broken.

I don't trust states not to implement racist social policies because I lived through the 60s and 70s. The balanced budget requirments in state constitutions is the only reason I might trust the states more than the feds -- I'm a long-time Libertarian and occasional Ron Paul supporter but I don't trust my governor (Rick Scott in Florida) as much as I trust President Obama. The popular option is not always the right one.

As for the promises to the elderly, they should be broken/adjusted (and yes, I'm over 50) as circumstances change. Life expectancy and health costs (particularly for people who are in their last year of life) have risen appreciably faster than social security and medical benefit eligibility. I don't see balancing the budget as unreasonable any more than I see making a teenager pay for his or her own car insurance and cell phone bill as unreasonable.

States balancing their budgets is not as clear got as it may seem. You might want to look into that topic deeper.

But in general they do. And since that is the case, they have wider swings in budgeting. That will hurt when providing services year over year.

Also, when the states hit their biggest short falls, the fed steps in and bails them out with block grants.

Its not a clear cut as people make it. When Governors say I balanced X amount of budgets, that is cherry picking what actually happened. Many of those Governors balanced their budgets with Fed help that we all owe. Borrowed money from China or debt put on us and future generations. Or they cut services that a federal safety picked up. Again. Put on the Federal dime.

Things are rarely as simple as people make them but it makes for good sound bites.

[hands11]

Oh and Hands, any kind of "adjustment" in politics is just an invitation for the politically better connected to cheat. Keep it simple and straightforward . . . elections, taxes, laws, Supreme Court decisions . . . avoid giving opportunities for rent seeking behavior as much as possible.

What post is this in response too.

Keep it simple.

[barelyawake]

I'm so sick of this false equivenlacy argument, I could puke.

Obama using drones is bad. But, it is not equal to a neocon party who want to remake the world by attacking Iran (and causing a world war).

Just so you know, I'd vote for a Libertarian candidate. One who could rollback the prison state, legalize drugs, reform taxes, audit the fed, stop traffic cams, and rollback the encroachment of our rights.

But, said Libertarian party needs to replace the defunct Republican Party. Because that party is filled with neocons, religious zealots and corporate nut hangers. And frankly the neocons and Ayn Randites of the world truly do remind me of the nazi party (and I'm not one to continually throw around the Hitler analogy).

My advice, vote for Gary Johnson and force a real debate.

[Wizardspride]

Click on the link to view the video.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/10/26/colin-po ... f-racists/

Colin Powell’s former chief of staff: ‘My party is full of racists’



Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff during his time as secretary of state, decried John Sununu’s comment that Powell only endorsed Barack Obama because they are both black. “To say that Colin Powell would endorse President Obama because of his skin color is like saying Mother Teresa worked for profit,” Wilkerson told Ed Schultz.

Wilkerson said on The Ed Show that though he respects Sununu, a top Romney adviser and surrogate, “I don’t have any respect for the integrity of the position that he seemed to codify. Look at me, Ed, I’m white. I’m not black. Colin Powell picked me because of the content of my character and my competence.”

He added that he thinks Sununu’s remark was an “unfortunate slip of words,” but that it speaks to larger problem in the Republican party.

“My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people, not all of them, but most of them, who are still basing their decision on race,” Wilkerson said. “Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists. And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that’s despicable.”

[penbeast0]

Hands,

The simplicity v. opportunity for political rent seeking came in response to your comment about a hybrid electoral system. And, while I realize the states balanced budgets often use some form of trickery to get there (just as the federal budget estimates often do to get to their rosy scenarios), the discipline of having to actually try to balance things out keeps the politicians more honest. If politicians at the state level want to try Keynesian public spending stimulus tactics, they have to create a "rainy day" fund when revenues are surging instead of just spending it all. It's the real world which means it's messy, political, and often self-serving or even corrupt but it's still appreciably better than the federal budgeting attitude.

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

I have said, with respect to authorization bills, that I do not want the Congress or the country to commit fiscal suicide on the installment plan.

I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times.

Senator Everett Dirkson.

[hands11]

If this was just one nut bag in a party, that would be one thing, but this is a big part of this party as it exists today. None science, religious Taliban zealots and multinational corporate raiders and people that believe in Trickle Down Economics. And let not forget the Neocons. What Apple Pie American doesn't want to see them back in power?

A party whos spokes people include Sarah Pallin, Donald Trump and John Sununu. Hey, whats not to like?

http://savannahnow.com/column/2012-10-2 ... IwUbVH6dHM

“I struggled with it myself a long time but I came to realize that life is a gift from God, that I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen.”

The problem with Akin goes beyond simple ignorance. This man is also on the House Committee on Science and Technology. This isn't some corner nut job. They put him on the science Committee.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/gop-hous ... %E2%80%99/

Hey. I at least respect these people for honestly expressing their views in a consistent way. If you believe life begins at conception and that every pregnancy is Gods will, then you have to believe in what connects the dots and as ugly as it is, you have to believe God wants some women to get raped so he can give them a baby gift.

Seems odd though. By this logic if God is all powerful and controls all these things, couldn't he arrange some flowers and dinner and consensual sex. But wait, shouldn't they have to be married first. I thought that was the proper God protocol. So why would God be arranging this out of wedlock sex ?

I would love to see an extended interview where these people have to walk though the logic of their non sense views. Best way to explain what they think is that they want us to return to the dark ages where when the lightening flashes we think God is angry. Droughts are Gods punishment because we are sinners. These people really are our version of the American Taliban.

[hands11]

Hands,

The simplicity v. opportunity for political rent seeking came in response to your comment about a hybrid electoral system. And, while I realize the states balanced budgets often use some form of trickery to get there (just as the federal budget estimates often do to get to their rosy scenarios), the discipline of having to actually try to balance things out keeps the politicians more honest. If politicians at the state level want to try Keynesian public spending stimulus tactics, they have to create a "rainy day" fund when revenues are surging instead of just spending it all. It's the real world which means it's messy, political, and often self-serving or even corrupt but it's still appreciably better than the federal budgeting attitude.

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

I have said, with respect to authorization bills, that I do not want the Congress or the country to commit fiscal suicide on the installment plan.

I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times.

Senator Everett Dirkson.

So what does that have to do with the hybrid electoral idea where the popular vote gets some number of electoral votes?

As for how state balanced there budgets, I was simply pointing out that they are not all held to the same standard and that states do have the Fed to fall back on so its not like they are as responsible as some people make them out to be. And lastly, you want it that way to a large degree. You don't want states hiring and firing year over year depending on economic conditions one year. Yes, they should have a rainy day fund to help smooth out the economic ups and downs, but that can only get them so far. The Fed should help as a safety net. One of the largest dragging forces on our economic recovery is state and local government layoffs. If they are lay people off at once because of one bad year, it has a snowball effect.

Auto/manufacturing is recovering
Housing is forming a bottom and recovering - that took time since we mostly did a free market approach
But state and local government employment is dragging because they don't have the funds this year or last because of the economic disaster that hit in 2008.

With those other areas recovering, states they will have more money moving forward so things stabilize and rebound so they will look even better next year.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/bud ... ments.aspx

This recovery feels very similar to where Clinton was after his first term only Obama walked into something many times worst then what Clinton did and Clinton walked into a bad situation. If we want to work toward getting thing balance and steadily grow our way back to a stable situation, we need to sit with the Dems and Obama.

A second term will not be easy. Lots of tough issue to tackle. But I trust them to navigate the situations.

Some infrastructure spending.
Some increased taxes
Some spending cuts
Some redirecting of funds from the military industrial complex to real investment in our future.

If adding two wars and the Bush Tax expenditure added 500 billion to the annual deficit then ending them should do the reverse. Much of the annual debt problems will get solved by erasing Bush's policies.

They can get it done is a balance way. Much better approach then to just lower everyone taxes and hope the markets work it out all on its own. That isn't going to work. Successful organization have a plan.







Infrastructure spending will help the public job market as well as the private market. It will increase RealEstate values. They increase property taxes. That help S&L governments. That hires more police, firefighter and teachers.

Trickle Up Economics. The multiplier effect. Build from the middle up. Its a proven winner.

[fishercob]

nut bag

[hands11]

So MItt ends things the way he started them. Another outright lie in an ad that he refuses to take down even after he is busted on it being a total lie. Crysler is not moving manufacturing over seas to China.

Just more Mitt Turd Blossom tactics covering up for what is actually his weakness and Obamas strength. He actually did by the largest auto part company, take auto bail out money, then close down all but one plant and shipped all of manufacturing over seas.

What a total scum bag.

Oh, and his Olympics success. He used his connections to get 1.3 Billion from the Fed. About 500 Million more then the last one. Way to go Mitt. It was priceless watching McCain on the Senate floor going off about the money being Pork and threatening to filibuster.