US election prediction thread

[TimG]

No the real question is will the Republicans continue their obstructionist ways in spite of the need for action?

It takes two to tango. So far the democrats have been just as obstructionist when it comes to the scared cows. Also remember that ObamaCare will make the problem even worse as the unintended consequences start to kick in around 2015. Obama has the opportunity to lead by example and politically undermine the obstructionist republicans. The question is will he or will he insist on the nonsense that raising taxes on a few rich people is enough to fix the problem?

[Smallc]

The question is will he or will he insist on the nonsense that raising taxes on a few rich people is enough to fix the problem?

But see, that's the thing, he never said that. He made a deal for 10 parts spending cuts, and 1 part tax increases, and Boener couldn't deliver because of the crazies in the House.

[TimG]

But see, that's the thing, he never said that. He made a deal for 10 parts spending cuts, and 1 part tax increases, and Boener couldn't deliver because of the crazies in the House.

But he did not address the structural issues when it comes to medicare and social security while piling on with the Obamacare entitlement. Edited November 7, 2012 by TimG

[Smallc]

But he did not address the structural issues when it comes to medicare and social security while piling on with the Obamacare entitlement.

You're right, but he at least made an effort to start to address the problem...but no one would meet him even 10% of the way.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The real question is whether Obama will govern like Chretien and make the unpopular tough choices to get the financial house in order. Or will he simply make the problem worse by ignoring it?

No, America has reached a tipping point for dependence on goverment outlays at many levels, from defense to daycare. I realized this when what I thought was a damning statistic in 50% food stamps (SNAP) growth over President Obama's first term, but it hardly made a dent. Americans use to hold much didain for those on the welfare "dole" as exemplified by very visible food stamp script and buying limitations at the check out line, but not any more. It is now accepted as mainsteam American collectivism and demanded as a right, not unlike healthcare in Canada.

There will be no turning back to the previous American character that is suspicious of government and fiercely independent. The former traits that built a nation and are no longer seen as necessary. Government can do it all from the womb to the nursing home.

Edited November 7, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[TimG]

You're right, but he at least made an effort to start to address the problem...but no one would meet him even 10% of the way.

Except the position of any reasonable republican should be no tax increases unless structural reforms are part of the package. In any case, what matters is the next budget - not the last.

[Smallc]

There will be no turning back to the previous American character that is suspicious of government and fiercely independent. The former traits that built a nation and are no longer seen as necessary. Government can do it all from the womb to the nursing home.

You're displaying a fundamental lack of understanding. You can have fiscal sanity and at the same time a healthy social democracy. People can want more government and at the same time want to pay for that government. I would ague that it is in fact that suspicion of government that has created the problem in the US. How can you make work something that you don't trust?

[Smallc]

Except the position of any reasonable republican should be no tax increases unless structural reforms are part of the package.

That's not really a reasonable position, as tax increases have to be part of the structural reform.

You fill a hole with a shovel, not a pitchfork.

[TimG]

That's not really a reasonable position, as tax increases have to be part of the structural reform.

That is why I used the word 'unless', It implies that tax increases should be acceptable as long as structural reforms are part of the package.

[Smallc]

That is why I used the word 'unless', It implies that tax increases should be acceptable as long as structural reforms are part of the package.

But again, the Democrats were willing to make massive compromises to so many social programs. The Republicans weren't willing to move an inch. Entitlement reform is long term project. Filling the fiscal hole can start now.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Smallc

[sharkman]

That's not really a reasonable position, as tax increases have to be part of the structural reform.

You fill a hole with a shovel, not a pitchfork.

A pitchfork? \

At any rate, you fill a hole by using actual dirt. Until Obama realizes this there will be more gridlock.

[Smallc]

A pitchfork?

Republicans stood in the way of even starting to shovel dirt. Obama as signed $1T in spending cuts over the next 10 years (according to him). This deal would have made it far more.

At any rate, you fill a hole by using actual dirt. Until Obama realizes this there will be more gridlock.

Just as long as it isn't black dirt. Then too many Republicans don't want any of it.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're displaying a fundamental lack of understanding. You can have fiscal sanity and at the same time a healthy social democracy. People can want more government and at the same time want to pay for that government. I would ague that it is in fact that suspicion of government that has created the problem in the US. How can you make work something that you don't trust?

Yes, this is called collectivism and for decades was anathema to the original American character. Trusting government did not lead to the American revolution or the ensuing rapid expansion of a nation and civil war. The American experience is/was very different from Canada's.

[Smallc]

Yes, this is called collectivism and for decades was anathema to the original American character.

Maybe not, but, this isn't the year 1776 either. The world, and the dynamics of the said world, are very different now.

Edit: It isn't necessarily collectivism either. There is a middle ground.

Trusting government did not lead to the American revolution or the ensuing rapid expansion of a nation and civil war.The American experience is/was very different from Canada's.

Again, so what? This is the year 2012. A change in a America doesn't make fiscal sanity an impossibility.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Smallc

[TimG]

But again, the Democrats were willing to make massive compromises to so many social programs. The Republicans weren't willing to move an inch. Entitlement reform is long term project. Filling the fiscal hole can start now.

I don't want to have to dig into the details of long dead budget proposals to argue about them. My understanding is the dems offered a lot of smoke and mirrors rather than real change. If you are actually correct and it was a real effort then they can table it again,

[Smallc]

Boener agreed to the deal. That's the thing. It obviously wasn't bad. The Tea Party killed any chance of doing anything about the fiscal hole in this congress...unless something can be done in the Lame Duck.

[Black Dog]

No, America has reached a tipping point for dependence on goverment outlays at many levels, from defense to daycare. I realized this when what I thought was a damning statistic in 50% food stamps (SNAP) growth over President Obama's first term, but it hardly made a dent. Americans use to hold much didain for those on the welfare "dole" as exemplified by very visible food stamp script and buying limitations at the check out line, but not any more. It is now accepted as mainsteam American collectivism and demanded as a right, not unlike healthcare in Canada.

There will be no turning back to the previous American character that is suspicious of government and fiercely independent. The former traits that built a nation and are no longer seen as necessary. Government can do it all from the womb to the nursing home.

An approach that serves every single other western democracy very well.

Yes, this is called collectivism and for decades was anathema to the original American character. Trusting government did not lead to the American revolution or the ensuing rapid expansion of a nation and civil war. The American experience is/was very different from Canada's.

This is ridiculous. Collectivism is very much embedded in the U.S. character from the first Pilgrims (who pledged themselves to "combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.") to the very concept of the Union. All of America's greatest accomplishments were achieved in the name of the great collective know as America. Had early Americans held the "fuck you, I got mine" belief that passes for individualism today, you'd be looking at buying your bags of milk with one of these today:

Edited November 7, 2012 by Black Dog

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe not, but, this isn't the year 1776 either. The world, and the dynamics of the said world, are very different now.

Edit: It isn't necessarily collectivism either. There is a middle ground.

Call it whatever you wish...clearly it is different from a social order that holds the individual as paramount. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" does not equate to "peace, order, and good government".

Again, so what? This is the year 2012. A change in a America doesn't make fiscal sanity an impossibility.

Under current conditions (reality), fiscal "sanity" is not possible. The scope and scale are not directly comparable to 1990's Canada and unilateral cuts by Chretien/Martin.

Edited November 7, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

Call it whatever you wish...clearly is is different from a social order that holds the individual as paramount. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Is nothing but a slogan. Slogans don't balance budgets.

Under current conditions (reality), fiscal "sanity" is not possible.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not Americans have embraced 'collectivism'.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't want to have to dig into the details of long dead budget proposals to argue about them. My understanding is the dems offered a lot of smoke and mirrors rather than real change. If you are actually correct and it was a real effort then they can table it again,

Agreed, there is no need to continue the debate at that level when a fundemental difference exists in what the role of government could/should be. The spending monster runs unabated at every level.

[Bonam]

Just as long as it isn't black dirt. Then too many Republicans don't want any of it.

Continued strawman cries of racism where they are completely unrelated to what any of your debate opponents in this thread have said are unproductive.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is nothing but a slogan. Slogans don't balance budgets.

The Americans will not balance the budget. The best it can do is reduce deficits and monetize the resulting debt.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not Americans have embraced 'collectivism'.

Fine...you bristle at the term "collectivism", while my government still owns a large chunk of General Motors.

[Smallc]

Continued strawman cries of racism where they are completely unrelated to what any of your debate opponents in this thread have said are unproductive.

But the problem is, they aren't strawman cries. We want our country back, he's not one of us, this is the most radical president in history, he wasn't born here, he's a socialist, he's a communist, he's the most divisive president in American history. I'm sorry, but all of this is rooted in the fact that he's black and has little if anything to do with his policies. Until that's acknowledged....

On Bill Maher, a couple of weeks ago, Michael Steele told a story about when he was running for the chairmanship of the RNC. There were actually people at the debates rolling Oreo cookies down the aisle at him. Racism is alive and well in the Republican party.

[Smallc]

The Americans will not balance the budget. The best it can do is reduce deficits and monetize the resulting debt.

Then that demonstrates a fundamental failure in America.

Fine...you bristle at the term "collectivism", while my government still owns a large chunk of General Motors.

And you continue to not understand that positions are nuanced and not black and white.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Smallc

[Black Dog]

On Bill Maher, a couple of weeks ago, Michael Steele told a story about when he was running for the chairmanship of the RNC. There were actually people at the debates rolling Oreo cookies down the aisle at him. Racism is alive and well in the Republican party.

That's an old story and usually blamed on Democrats. there's no evidence it ever really happened, though.