Political Roundtable - Part VI

[dckingsfan]

BA- I hope you don't think I am endorsing the TP - I hope I have made it clear I don't agree with their politics or strategy. Burn everything isn't good for anyone. My point is that their are fanatics on both sides.

Unions have been helpful to this country... I am not questioning that - I think most level headed folks would agree. I think that now they are firmly wedded to one party - with the goal of getting those party officials elected to increase their pay. And it is mostly to help the public unions - that is going to cause a lot of municipalities to go under. And they are willing to burn the municipalities to get what they want - not so good for America at this point.

I also wasn't blasting the general environmental movement that most Americans share - who doesn't want clean air and clean water? But you are telling me that there isn't any representation for the more extreme side in government? I will just point you to the EPA and some of the recent stunts they have pulled.

I would also argue that they hijacked the last stimulus - which was heart breaking.

But this is how it always goes... if you say that both sides are at fault, then whoever you are having the conversation with decides you are against their party. Sigh...

[barelyawake]

No, I don't think you are attacking my side. I am sick of the news media attempting to portray both sides as equally at fault in our government's inability to function. I do not believe that to be the case. I do believe both sides have avoided long term entitlement reform. For that, I can fault democrats and republicans equally. But, it is hard to walk into a discussion over entitlement reform when one side wants to kill all entitlements. And democrats also were hoping to get a vibrant economy back before dealing with long range debt issues so that we have clearer understanding of the real challenges we face (rather than those inflated by a recession where taxes aren't flowing in and so many are in need of government assistance).

That said, please explain what you mean about the EPA "stunts" and "hijacking the last stimulus bill."

[dckingsfan]

No, I don't think you are attacking my side. I am sick of the news media attempting to portray both sides as equally at fault in our government's inability to function. I do not believe that to be the case.

OK, let's just leave it at that...

[hands11]

Until proven differently by future facts, this is playing out as a predicted.

Boehner allowed the TPs to hang themselves as long as he could so they would learn their lesson first hand. Only 2 hrs remaining. But he stepped in to bring it to the floor.

Boehner voted for it.

4 minutes remaining in the vote and 221 votes still not cast. Rs at 44 to 79.. Doesn't look like they are going to fully gang up on the TPs. What a shame. Looks like they haven't fully given up yet.

Gotta get to 216 .. at 171 now.

2 minutes left and 105 Rs still haven't voted. Amazing. Only 55 Dems left to vote.

45 second left at 209. lol
216 hit at 18 seconds left..

House Vote.

Rep For 58 Against 107
Dem For 164 Against 0

Interesting. Zero on the clock but they can still allow them to vote.

Rep For 87 Against 143
Dem For 200 Against 0
Totals For 285 Against 143

10:20 PM 10/16/13 House passes the Senate bill. Off the President to sign.

Boehner should have just earned a lot more power to negotiate with the Dems moving forward. Lets see how that works out. I wish there were more Rs voting for it but that was a decent chuck. Should have been closer to 150 Rs. That would have been a statement. But this is some progress. I hope.

24 billion dollar wasted. Was that worth the TPs learning a lesson. Maybe. We will see. That could be a drop in the bucked if we can get some good things done now. Lets hope for the best.

[barelyawake]

Ok, I'm fine with leaving it. However, let me tell you that if by hijacking the stimulus you mean we spent too much on green energy research, I'd respond that we didn't spend enough. And that which we did spend (outside of solyndra -- which is a whole topic unto itself) has yielded some great advancements. We are only going to dig ourselves out by hitting on the next Internet (which was developed by the government). That next Internet boom is green tech, med tech or something similar. And it will probably come from government research. The more we put into research the better, just as NASA spawned off so many innovations that spurred private section growth and jobs.

[Ruzious]

I just had a really scary thought.

What if Mitt won. Where would we be today ?

Thank you President Obama and Dems for winning last election. Yes, elections still do matter.

So what would have happened with Mitt as Pres. What would the path forward look like ? Scary to imagine.

The irony is that Mitt started the precursor to the ACA and basically proved it can work.

[hands11]

No, I don't think you are attacking my side. I am sick of the news media attempting to portray both sides as equally at fault in our government's inability to function. I do not believe that to be the case. I do believe both sides have avoided long term entitlement reform. For that, I can fault democrats and republicans equally. But, it is hard to walk into a discussion over entitlement reform when one side wants to kill all entitlements. And democrats also were hoping to get a vibrant economy back before dealing with long range debt issues so that we have clearer understanding of the real challenges we face (rather than those inflated by a recession where taxes aren't flowing in and so many are in need of government assistance).

That said, please explain what you mean about the EPA "stunts" and "hijacking the last stimulus bill."

You nailed it as you also did on the R&D investment stuff. R&D isn't a 100% success proposition. And like building huge dams or interstate highways, there is some stuff government can do that individual companies won't. Mapping the genome. So sad so many people have been taught to hate the government when all it really is, is our business with our elected BODs that have a business statement as outline in the Constitution

No way the Dems could put that on the table given the environment. You saw what the Rs did last election and the one before over medicaid and Dems didnt even cut benefits. They were using savings created by efficiencies. And even then Obama has started talking about chained CPI. Totally against what any Dem left of center would even consider. Thats leadership.

Obama will not and should not put reform for those things on the table unless Boehner can deliver on tax loop holes. The amount of taxes corporation contribute is insanely low as a percentage of taxes collected. People that want this mess cleaned up need to want everything on the table. Hard to see the Rs really ready to do that. Lets hope I'm wrong. Probably going to take Rs losing more seat during the mid terms.

We could be getting a lot closer to getting some long term issue solved, just not sure it happens before 2015 and that only if Rs lots a good chunk of seats. But we can make other progress.

[popper]

Good God.

“An nescis, mi fili, quantiliâ prudentiâ mundus regatur?”

or,

An nescis mi fili, quantilla prudentia regitur orbis

[montestewart]

Good God.

“An nescis, mi fili, quantiliâ prudentiâ mundus regatur?”

or,

An nescis mi fili, quantilla prudentia regitur orbis

Popper, you sound like one of them there fancy lads

[popper]

I wish I looked that good Monte. Unfortunately, I'm old and ugly. I look like a larger version of Boris Karloff if you can stomach that image.

[dckingsfan]

Ok, I'm fine with leaving it. However, let me tell you that if by hijacking the stimulus you mean we spent too much on green energy research, I'd respond that we didn't spend enough. And that which we did spend (outside of solyndra -- which is a whole topic unto itself) has yielded some great advancements. We are only going to dig ourselves out by hitting on the next Internet (which was developed by the government). That next Internet boom is green tech, med tech or something similar. And it will probably come from government research. The more we put into research the better, just as NASA spawned off so many innovations that spurred private section growth and jobs.

Research funding is good... but maybe not in a stimulus package that is supposed to yield near-term results. The stimulus package was misdirected as was ACA when we were trying to dig out of a hole. I am fine with funding green research.

And as a small business owner, I would say we can dig ourselves out of the hole faster by having government get out of the way - not by increasing the hurdles.

But alas, business people for the most part do not have a party.

[Induveca]

But alas, business people for the most part do not have a party.

Amen

[fishercob]

I wish I looked that good Monte. Unfortunately, I'm old and ugly. I look like a larger version of Boris Karloff if you can stomach that image.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWsKR2xg6HE[/youtube]

[hands11]

Ok, I'm fine with leaving it. However, let me tell you that if by hijacking the stimulus you mean we spent too much on green energy research, I'd respond that we didn't spend enough. And that which we did spend (outside of solyndra -- which is a whole topic unto itself) has yielded some great advancements. We are only going to dig ourselves out by hitting on the next Internet (which was developed by the government). That next Internet boom is green tech, med tech or something similar. And it will probably come from government research. The more we put into research the better, just as NASA spawned off so many innovations that spurred private section growth and jobs.

Research funding is good... but maybe not in a stimulus package that is supposed to yield near-term results. The stimulus package was misdirected as was ACA when we were trying to dig out of a hole. I am fine with funding green research.

And as a small business owner, I would say we can dig ourselves out of the hole faster by having government get out of the way - not by increasing the hurdles.

But alas, business people for the most part do not have a party.

What is very important to businesses are reliable markets. Both government spending and consumer spending. My business is targeted to state and local law enforcement. There is also a fed factor in there as well both directly and via federal grants to states. We do really important work that help keep society safer and at less cost, but it has everything to do with government spending. Often you have to spend money to save money and to get better results. Any business owner or top level manager knows that.

What helps the most people is a steady economy. I would much prefer a steady 3% growth vs 7% one year and 2% another. This crisis to crisis mode of governing we had since the ending of the Bush presidency isn't good for most businesses nor people.

As for the ACA. It might not be perfect but they had to get something on the books so they can start experimenting with what will work. Kind of like Clinton with don't ask don't tell. It wasn't perfect, but it was a start and it had a ton to do with where we are now.

Progress not perfection. We kicked this healthcare reform can down the road for to many years. Rs had the power to do something and didn't.

As for hearing about doctors leaving their practices. Well good luck to them. To many of them were in it for the wrong reasons anyway and they were the ones holding us all hostage the last 30 years with the system they designed. New doctors will replace them. Ones that aren't in it only for the money. I don't mind people making money at all. Hell, I like it when my company does really well. But we don't rig the system to screw people along the way. Our system of doctors and insurance companies had twisted the markets to maximize profits. Again, free market capitalism is not the right model for all markets. Usually a hybrid is a better model. Sometimes a pure government model is the best model. There is no one size solution for everything. Those that preach free market capitalism for everything are one trick ponyies. Just like tax cuts are not the right answer for everything. That a zealots solution. I want solutions, not ideology.

Our healthcare system was a good ol boys club. I look forward to what it can become now that we are trying something new. Its about time.

[hands11]

But alas, business people for the most part do not have a party.

Amen

And why would "business owners" as a group have a party. You act like they are something that is monolithic.

Business owners are in lots of categories. Small, Large, international, by markets, etc. etc.

I know plenty of business owners who are Dems because they want a strong America, a functioning government, equal right, balanced sustainable markets, less debt and clean air. Hell, they are parents. They want to leave something nice behind for the future generations.

[hands11]

Hmm. Interesting framing.

This Congress was known as the Do Nothing Congress. The Rs as the party of No

Now they are getting labeled to Destructive House. Political Terrorist. An Insurgency.

Scary stuff.

We have to get back to our system of politics where elections matter.

You want something done. Run on it and win a national election. Whoever wins can get a mandate that way if they win by enough. Hey, Bush ran on cutting taxes and staying on a war footing. I thought it was a fools errand to do that when we had a surplus and were paying down our debt but he and the Rs won. So thats what we got. Dem ran on a balanced economic agenda, healthcare, etc. They won. Rs need to respect that and allow the peoples votes to count.

Rs want something different. Run on it and win a national election by enough to gain a mandate.

Not saying one side needs to totally fold if they lose, but they have to limit their opposition techniques to respect the elections that happened.

[dckingsfan]

What is very important to businesses are reliable markets. Both government spending and consumer spending.

-- and REGULATORY CERTAINTY!!!!!!!

My business is targeted to state and local law enforcement. There is also a fed factor in there as well both directly and via federal grants to states. We do really important work that help keep society safer and at less cost, but it has everything to do with government spending. Often you have to spend money to save money and to get better results. Any business owner or top level manager knows that.

-- I now know why you want government to grow -- geez!!!

What helps the most people is a steady economy. I would much prefer a steady 3% growth vs 7% one year and 2% another. This crisis to crisis mode of governing we had since the ending of the Bush presidency isn't good for most businesses nor people.

-- Wait, what? We are stuck at 2%, 3% doesn't even keep up with the kids coming out of college mush less folks that are immigrating here - ugh!

As for the ACA. It might not be perfect but they had to get something on the books so they can start experimenting with what will work. Kind of like Clinton with don't ask don't tell. It wasn't perfect, but it was a start and it had a ton to do with where we are now.

-- Oh my, really. Regulatory uncertainty is a growth killer - if you are in business you HAVE to be able to see that - geez.

Progress not perfection. We kicked this healthcare reform can down the road for to many years. Rs had the power to do something and didn't.

-- Now wasn't the time, not with a massive recession in place. You want regulatory certainty to come out of a recession - and that isn't what happened. If you have a medium size company, the health care planning took tons of time and you had to think twice or three times before hiring.

[hands11]

This pretty much covers some of the stuff I have been writing and its right from the mouths of Republicans. Where were the sane Republcians that aren't in office anymore so they don't have to worry about being primaried.

Except summary of how we got here over time and where we are.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/53161669#53161669

Just heard TP Gomer on Fox's Kelly hot blonde show say one reason they went after ACA like they did was they know Dems were about to pivot onto immigration reform. Hey, at least he was honest.

[Zonkerbl]

The next "internet" is not going to be green energy. It's going to be transgenic animals that can be used to cheaply produce substances that are ridiculously expensive to produce in a laboratory. It will be a truly transformational (and possibly horrifying) technology. Either that or nanotech, but I think leveraging what nature can already do will end up being easier. Also the advances in, gosh, I'm not even techie enough to know what to call it, curing diseases by cataloguing your dna genotype, whatever the heck that's called. Generally all the advances we're making understanding and manipulating DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16554357

This is why politicians shouldn't "pick winners." In an advanced economy like ours all the true entrepreneurs are in the private sector. U.S. politicians are idiots when it comes to stuff like this.

I don't trust the President to pick winners and I shouldn't have to. The role of government is to create an environment where markets can function the way they are supposed to. That's what regulations try (and largely fail) to achieve.

[barelyawake]

The next "internet" is not going to be green energy. It's going to be transgenic animals that can be used to cheaply produce substances that are ridiculously expensive to produce in a laboratory. It will be a truly transformational (and possibly horrifying) technology. Either that or nanotech, but I think leveraging what nature can already do will end up being easier. Also the advances in, gosh, I'm not even techie enough to know what to call it, curing diseases by cataloguing your dna genotype, whatever the heck that's called. Generally all the advances we're making understanding and manipulating DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16554357

This is why politicians shouldn't "pick winners." In an advanced economy like ours all the true entrepreneurs are in the private sector. U.S. politicians are idiots when it comes to stuff like this.

I don't trust the President to pick winners and I shouldn't have to. The role of government is to create an environment where markets can function the way they are supposed to. That's what regulations try (and largely fail) to achieve.

The federal government aren't good at picking winners and losers? The list of innovation that either came from government or were sponsored by government is just about the entire list of society changing inventions -- computers, jets, telegraph, satellites, long distance telecom, human genome project, medical research, microwaves, fracking, etc etc etc etc....

If nanotechnology is the new internet, which is very possible, it'll come via government sponsored research.