Political Roundtable - Part V

[W. Unseld]

On the Virginia election, I've learned a few things from buddies who still work in state elections and handle mailers, take with a grain of salt:
1. The GOP stopped funding Cooch as of October 1st. The GOP spent more than twice as much in the previous Virginia election.
2. For whatever reason the Chamber of Commerce sat this one out compared to the last few gov. elections.
3. B/c of these two combined facts, Cooch's campaign went "dark" for over a week during the home stretch on tv.
4. Sarvis's largest funder was a democrat bundler out of Texas. Shame on the dems, BUT shame on the R's b/c no one figured this out until a few days before the election. Even if they had figured it out a few weeks earlier there might have been time to embarrass Mcauliffe over this or at least drain Sarvis' votes.
5. Cooch jumped over the Lt. gov. who was much less controversial than Cooch.

The GOP funding stuff seems like infighting, not sure why the chamber sat out but on the one hand given all of that it was incredibly close, on the other hand some of this was self inflicted.

I would bet had the GOP run Bolling they would have won and I would bet had the Dems run Northam as gov instead of Lt. gov it wouldn't have been close.

[dckingsfan]

The GOP funding stuff seems like infighting...

And that is really the point, no? They are to busy fighting to lead.

They don't have a good growth strategy - they didn't do a good job molding the first stimulus bill.

The focused on the ACA instead of getting real spending relief during the last government shutdown fiasco. So, they have put fiscal restraint on the back burner for less important fights.

They haven't championed business... either small or large. And where they have, it was only to protect special interests and tax relief that "mostly" wasn't needed.

They didn't have a solid healthcare plan, so just had to run against another bad plan.

[dobrojim]

maybe the chamber sat it out because of either:

1. ideological extremeness - Whatever issues McAu had or has, I don't think extreme
ideology was one of them. Of course if you're an extreme ideologue yourself,
you probably vehemently disagree. As someone on the opp side, I say keep thinking
that way please. They were worried his ideology would interfere with his governing effectively.

2. or simply that he was going to lose. Why waste money on a loser?
Of course it is possible that that belief was a self fulfilling prophecy.

[hands11]

barelyawake, it's true that health care costs must be reduced. The problem is that Obamacare won't do that. It's going to raise costs.

A) If that is the case, that is because of the lack of a public option.
B) That is not the case.

But, Nate, the arguments above mine were that healthcare reform was a frivolous exercise which was unneeded and a waste of focus when what we need to focus on is growth. Indy said healthcare reform was a made-up issue like third world republics use to distract the public on fake issues that don't actually effect the economy. That stance is nonsense. Lowering healthcare costs is one of the, if not the single, greatest things we can do to spur growth.

You are right, healthcare reform would in fact help the growth of the economy, but the ACA didn't reform the underlying problems. In fact, it is going to subtract from economic growth. It was the wrong focus at the wrong time. Add to that a poor stimulus bill and we dug ourselves a hole.

Well that depends on how you evaluate the right time or not. It was never the right time. Thats why nothing was getting done.

So one approach to solving a problem, specially given our political system, is that you get what you can get passed when you can get it passed. Now you have crossed the highest hurdle. You have a foot in the door. You're framing of the house is going up.

From there, you can now fix things. The law is going to do a lot of good things for people and the economy because it creates certainty for the people. It also allows people to be more mobile in moving between jobs. It also always talent to not go bankrupt over unseen illnesses. That's good for markets because it allows them to function more efficiently.

The parts that manifest as negatives can get addressed later by those that want to make the law better instead of destroy it for political gain.

There are no perfect solutions and people do come at problems to achieve different outcomes. That gets battled out in the political world where those interest are represented.

The people...most want stability and more shared risk and reward. The people like social security. They want to know that even if everything doesn't work out in their lives, they will have something to get by on. And knowing that can encourage risk and innovation which is good for the economy and markets. See people, they want to be happy, healthy and enjoy their friends and family. Social Security was a good program and it has been tweaked along the way. What would have made everything even better from a government spending perceptive would have been the Lock Box idea Gore had. But that didn't happen.

Businesses, they mostly want to maximize profits. Specially publicly traded ones.

This is where the balance needs to be found.

[dckingsfan]

A) If that is the case, that is because of the lack of a public option.
B) That is not the case.

But, Nate, the arguments above mine were that healthcare reform was a frivolous exercise which was unneeded and a waste of focus when what we need to focus on is growth. Indy said healthcare reform was a made-up issue like third world republics use to distract the public on fake issues that don't actually effect the economy. That stance is nonsense. Lowering healthcare costs is one of the, if not the single, greatest things we can do to spur growth.

You are right, healthcare reform would in fact help the growth of the economy, but the ACA didn't reform the underlying problems. In fact, it is going to subtract from economic growth. It was the wrong focus at the wrong time. Add to that a poor stimulus bill and we dug ourselves a hole.

Well that depends on how you evaluate the right time or not. It was never the right time. Thats why nothing was getting done.

Sorry, no free pass on that one... we were coming out of a recession almost depression. Obama took his hands off the wheel and his eye off the road to play with his ipad (ACA) and favorite aps (renewable energy based Stimulus)... and he crashed. It was stupid then - and it hindsight it looks even dumber. I believe he just didn't understand business and the economy. And because of his lack of understanding, he has made some very poor decisions.

[dckingsfan]

Businesses, they mostly want to maximize profits. Specially publicly traded ones.

True - and when businesses are profitable, 1 of 3 things happen.

1) Costs for goods and services go down

2) Dividends go up - which result in more personal taxes

3) Companies hire personnel

I will add that they pay more taxes - you could argue it isn't a fair share - but it is still revenue into the public coffers.

I believe that Obama shares your view - and is still stymied by why his policies aren't working.

[Zonkerbl]

And apparently the results were closer than expected:

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

Republican party's shutting off the coffers to Cooch was supposed to slam the door shut on the Tea Party and instead he did better than expected. The plot thickens.

[dckingsfan]

And apparently the results were closer than expected:

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

Republican party's shutting off the coffers to Cooch was supposed to slam the door shut on the Tea Party and instead he did better than expected. The plot thickens.

He did do better and they did slam the door shut - I guess a little of both.

[dckingsfan]

For those that think Europe's system is in good shape:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2424954420

[dckingsfan]

And something positive about France:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1742048532

[popper]

Scary stuff in link below - QE1-4 has been a disaster for all but the 1% and Wall Street bankers, politicians and corporate elite. There are some very astute comments following the article.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0751473884

[dckingsfan]

Scary stuff in link below - QE1-4 has been a disaster for all but the 1% and Wall Street bankers, politicians and corporate elite. There are some very astute comments following the article.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0751473884

This is so true - if you want to talk about the biggest boon to the 1% - here it is. And yet it goes largely ignored. The bailout of the banks - and the continued QE - just stuffs the pockets of those that are wealthy.

So sad!

[dckingsfan]

And this

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3997395918

Speaking of entitlements, the long-term budget outlook is still grim without reform. Medicaid payments rose 5.9% in 2013, Medicare climbed 5.6% and Social Security 5.3%—all more than double the rate of inflation.

Combine the costs of higher education, the costs of financing that education and then burdening the young with the above and we are killing our 30 and under folks.

[dckingsfan]

So basically we have under this administration and legislature:

A huge but ineffective stimulus (mostly around non job producing green energy):
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3500813210

A fed QE that has helped the 1% but not much more:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0751473884

A mistimed ACA - no link necessary

And an inability to tackle the real problems that are getting ready to bite us:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3997395918

And Democrats and Republicans inability to lead or work together gives us:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

I guess there is some humor in there somewhere...

[nate33]

Scary stuff in link below - QE1-4 has been a disaster for all but the 1% and Wall Street bankers, politicians and corporate elite. There are some very astute comments following the article.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0751473884

This is so true - if you want to talk about the biggest boon to the 1% - here it is. And yet it goes largely ignored. The bailout of the banks - and the continued QE - just stuffs the pockets of those that are wealthy.

So sad!

Plus infinity.

[dckingsfan]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/whats-bill-clinton-obamacare

Hmmm, does that mean Hillary will run against the ACA? She should start ramping up her campaign in 6 months - that could get pretty uncomfortable.

[popper]

The link below is a really good short video of a discussion between Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue on the free enterprise system. Well worth a look if you haven't already seen it.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/14/that- ... ant-video/

[Induveca]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/whats-bill-clinton-obamacare

Hmmm, does that mean Hillary will run against the ACA? She should start ramping up her campaign in 6 months - that could get pretty uncomfortable.

Saw that as well.....thought the same thing. No better way to kill party unity, and eventually Obamacare, than for Bill Clinton to force a policy change via the media. He just gave all democrats the "ok" to attack Obama.

[barelyawake]

You understand that the President has already embraced the policy Clinton was speaking of (allowing people to keep their plan). That was his original goal with the grandfather clause, and has publicly said he would sign legislation doing so. So, there is no dispute between the two camps' policies.

And if Hillary runs against Obamacare it will be for single payer -- which certainly would not split the party.

[dckingsfan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyKZk4YxfPw

Made me laugh a little...