Topic: Republican Presidential Primary News & Discussion Center 2012
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Still haven't seen an answer (unless I missed it, previous answers that might have been 3-5 months back I've missed and don't feel like digging up) but what is the 60-87 trillion$ for US debt that I see bandied about in Austrian Economics/Libertarian circles?
IP: Logged |
posted
That sounds about right for the total cost of all US entitlements if they were to be fully funded with today's promised benefits for everyone alive today.
I might be off on that somewhat, or what it entails, but I remember reading a figure like that recently and it involved unfunded entitlements.
And I'm reposting this from the previous page so no one misses it (how many people go back to the previous page to check for missed posts?)
posted
Uh, Samp, I'm running for *President* so I think what that means is that all of the, uh, batshit crazy things I've said over the past decade should just be given a free pass, because it has nothing to do with me running for *President*.
God what a maneuver. How simple. How powerful. Wow utterly stupefyingly dumb.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That sounds about right for the total cost of all US entitlements if they were to be fully funded with today's promised benefits for everyone alive today.
I might be off on that somewhat, or what it entails, but I remember reading a figure like that recently and it involved unfunded entitlements.
And I'm reposting this from the previous page so no one misses it (how many people go back to the previous page to check for missed posts?)
Bout time we saw some classic, old school pandering and ridiculous promises.
You know, gas prices were below $2.50 near the end of 2008. Of course, we had to have a near-collapse in order to get there.
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
sincerely signed, a man who can now never win a republican primary
You say that like he had a chance before. Huntsman splashed big with the press, but his poll numbers never moved out of the low single digits. He's got more attention from that single twitter post than anything else he's done since announcing back in July.
I think there's some evidence that he's running for Secretary of State rather than President. That or he's trying to play a long game and position himself for 2016. Or he's totally clueless. I'm undecided on the matter.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's more likely is positioning for Veep slot.
McCain's problem in 08 was that he wasn't conservative enough, so he picked a woman that would go on to be the queen of the Tea Party to shore up his right flank.
If someone like Perry or Bachmann gets the nomination after openly courting the far right in the primary, Jon Hunstman becomes a great bone to throw to centrists leery of an ultra-conservative in office.
Personally I never really understood VP politics like that. I know that's how candidates and campaigns think of them, but the VP rarely has any sort of effect on my vote. In 08 specifically, McCain being so old, with health problems, and Palin being anathema to me, that would have seriously turned me off. But in general, the sort of balancing effect that campaigns tend to try for never holds sway with me, and I can't imagine it does with others either.
What centrist would look at Bachmann and say "Oh my, she's pretty extreme! Thank goodness Jon Huntsman is there to balance her out, I'm sure she'll follow his lead."
Regardless, I think that's where he's headed. Either that or he's delusionally sacrificing Iowa in hopes of a strong showing in New Hampshire. If he comes in fourth I'll be impressed. If he comes in third, I'll be absolutely shocked.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
At 8 pm on 9/7, Obama wants to hold a special joint session of congress to outline his "new" jobs proposal (early indications are that it's mostly a retread of last year's proposals for business R&D tax cuts, tax cuts for hiring new works, innovation tax cuts, and some other tax cuts).
Coincidentally, there happens to be a major GOP primary debate scheduled at the same time. There's a reason they call it the bully pulpit!
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Coincidentally, there happens to be a major GOP primary debate scheduled at the same time.
The primaries are for the base and the base isn't watching Obama.
You don't think Obama's team was playing politics with the scheduling choice? The debate was going to be nationally televised on at least MSNBC, but I don't imagine it will be now (at least not in its entirety). To me it seems like a pretty blatant attempt by Obama to deny air time to his opponents, but maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good heavens. Isn't it enough that the President bends over backwards on policy? Now you want him to arrange his schedule to suit the Republicans as well?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Good heavens. Isn't it enough that the President bends over backwards on policy? Now you want him to arrange his schedule to suit the Republicans as well?
If he'd asked for the time slot before the debate was scheduled, you'd have a point. And maybe it truly was just the best time for him personally. But I think it's fairly naive to assume there isn't an element of political gamesmanship in the scheduling.
I'm not complaining, per se. I'm just pointing out the President occasionally plays political games, just like all successful politicians.
<edit>For the flip-side, note the remarkable correlation between Sarah Palin's recent visits in NH and Iowa and the announced schedules of GOP candidates. She announced a trip to NH right after Romney's campaign released their plan for his candidacy announcement in NH. She showed up at Ames right during the straw poll, drawing considerable attention away from the candidates. She's throwing a hissy fit over Christine O'Donnell doing the same thing to here in Indianola, IA this weekend. It's just part of politicking, something Obama is "pretty good at."</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the sake of argument, let's take it as a given that Obama is throwin' an elbow in terms of media time.
My question really, as a registered Independent, is, "So what?" There's 'throw a monkey wrench into Republicans connecting with their base in a given event' and there's 'intentionally sabotage Congress to ensure nothing gets done, and pin it on the President and Democrats in order to win an elections.
One crowd is throwin' elbows, and frankly the other crowd is doping and Tonya Harding-ing. They all play games, there's no denying that. And I'm not sayin' you (Senoj) are claiming there's an equivalency there. I just like to point out that there, well, isn't when things like this come up.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I understand the concept of "bully pulpit" (Thank you, Theodore!) the notion that anyone could claim to be bullied by the President just makes me sad. We could only be so lucky.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm betting this has less to do with halting coverage than it does with keeping the GOP fray busy while he drops a policy speech.
I think every debate is great for Obama. Sure, the base beats up on him, but they also beat up on each other, and the more they do, the weaker they become and the more fodder he has to attack them with later. They should have a debate every day.
I think this is more about wanting to keep them focused on the debate, and quiet, while he gives a policy speech, so they have to focus on the debate and not attacking him. What will be interesting is if Bachmann and Paul even attend the debate.
If he's doing this big speech just to say what he's been saying, a lot of people will cry foul, but on the other hand, he spent an entire month in June pushing various policy initiatives, like the Infrastructure Bank, and the media didn't pay attention to him at all. Some of this might be recycled policy, but it's only because no one was watching the first time, and now he's really using the power of the pulpit to make sure people pay attention.
I'd like to see a big push for targeted stimulus, but, I doubt he'll even try. The sad thing is, he has no concept of dreaming big and then settling. Instead of asking for a lot and accepting less, he's far more likely to ask for less, thinking it's the compromise position, and THEN having to settle for less than that. It's like you go to a negotiation thinking the other side will take $50, so your starting position is $50, then they negotiate you down to $25. You should have started at $100, and Obama never does that. Having a big policy idea is often like having ablative armor. You have to be able to burn some of it off to protect the really important stuff.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I lol'd. TBH though, I'm not sure how much money we could pull together for a targeted stimulus. We've blown our wad so to speak.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I think "stimulus" was the wrong mindset, just think of it as borrowing money at super-cheap rates (close to 0%) to hire people at exploitative salaries to build infrastructure you're going to need to build sooner or later. Why wait until land is more expensive, borrowed money is more expensive, and you have to pay people more to work?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I currently think we absolutely need infrastructural development, and the government needs to start training and hiring people to do those jobs. While those jobs are temporary they keep people busy, they earn money to stay afloat, and they take that training and form businesses and even industries with it. At worst they cross apply it to another position and find permanent employment that way.
8-10% employment is killing us. Well, that and the increasing income disparity gap that will only be resolved when pay is drastically restructured, by either government mandate, or popular uprising.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Honestly, I think "stimulus" was the wrong mindset, just think of it as borrowing money at super-cheap rates (close to 0%) to hire people at exploitative salaries to build infrastructure you're going to need to build sooner or later. Why wait until land is more expensive, borrowed money is more expensive, and you have to pay people more to work?
Because America always waits till the last minute and then pays twice what was necessary for a job half as adequate as is needed.... Don't you know *anything*?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: While I understand the concept of "bully pulpit" (Thank you, Theodore!) the notion that anyone could claim to be bullied by the President just makes me sad. We could only be so lucky.
Sounds like you're right; either he tried to bully them and backed down when the optics turned bad, or it was simply an oversight. Boehner accused him of breach of protocol in not clearing the date with Congressional leadership first. The White House pushed back briefly, but then decided to move the speech to the next day.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was pretty childish TBH. There wasn't any need for there to be a conflict in the first place, I wonder if presidential aids simply dropped the ball on this one.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Congressional leadership generally clears the dates for Joint Sessions of Congress (not Republican primaries). I guess that's the protocol, the President can't just mandate that Congress show up. In this case, had the President asked Congressional leadership about the proposed date, presumably the GOP would have objected on the grounds that there was a primary debate involving two of its members already scheduled.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I think about it, the more I am a bit irked that the business of the congress is being postponed for what is basically party campaign business and the convenience of television networks.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The more I think about it, the more I am a bit irked that the business of the congress is being postponed for what is basically party campaign business and the convenience of television networks.
Televised debates, involving men and women making their case for becoming President of the USA is an important part of our government.
The President announcing his plan for economic recover and getting it discussed can wait one more day. Heck they haven't even finished the speach he will give presenting it, so it's not like it's going to be hurting if he has 24 more hours to iron out details.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that, in this particular situation, it is not a big deal to reschedule but I think that it is a bad principle.
I think that there should be some separation between running for office and governing. The two are not the same. We shouldn't, for example, reschedule votes so as not to conflict with campaign events. Congress is supposed to be in session on September 7. There is plenty of recess time for folks to campaign. We should not prioritize running for office ahead of what they are supposed to do once there.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We shouldn't, for example, reschedule votes so as not to conflict with campaign events. Congress is supposed to be in session on September 7. There is plenty of recess time for folks to campaign. We should not prioritize running for office ahead of what they are supposed to do once there.
That would further disadvantage challengers to an incumbent president who can set his own schedule. I don't think it's a big deal to miss a few votes while campaigning, provided those missed votes don't make the difference in which way the vote goes.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they decide to miss votes, they can miss votes and the people who elect them can deal with it. I have a problem with rescheduling votes for campaign events.
Congress is in recess a lot.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But now the speech might conflict with the NFL's season opener between the Green Bay Packers and New Orleans Saints! There is nothing more American than football!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have Drew Brees in one of my fantasy leagues...I'll be reading the transcript of the speech later.
I think this incident is demonstrative of the difference between Obama and the GOP. If one of the candidates was president, you'd be hearing all about how they're more interested in campaigning than in fixing the country, and how they should move their debate to do their duty as congressmen or whatever in trying to fix the jobs crisis. What a wasted opportunity to play politics.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think every debate is great for Obama. Sure, the base beats up on him, but they also beat up on each other, and the more they do, the weaker they become and the more fodder he has to attack them with later. They should have a debate every day.
That worked so well for republicans in 2008.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a little different because the Democrats were doing the same thing, so it split the media focus.
But yeah, essentially, you saw how vicious they got in some of those debate three years ago. The closer we get to Iowa and New Hampshire, the more vicious it will get, especially as the "top tier" decides to swing at each other and not ride above the herd, and as the herd discovers it IS a herd.
The only one thinking outside the box is Huntsman, and he's thinking WAY outside the box. I have to say though, more and more I'm leaning towards Huntsman as a third party candidate with a Democratic Congress as my personal favored outcome. I don't know enough about him yet, but he's the only Republican in the field I would even consider, and I'd rather vote for him as an independent, where a split vote might garner a more liberal Congress. I think he's probably the only candidate running (possibly except Romney) who could actually get both sides to compromise on something.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Election seasons in the US are way way too long. The last election in the UK, it was (if I remember correctly) 6 weeks from when the election was called to the vote. Elections should be fast and furious. That way politicians have to focus on serious policy issues. There is not time for posturing, posing and reinventing yourself.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, somewhat. The election season is WAY too long.
But I also kind of wonder if that system is really applicable to the United States. This is a country where money and name recognition are what matters most. Neither of those things really matters in Britain. Dark horse candidates need time to raise money, shake hands, introduce themselves, be in debates, etc., so they can hope to do well in an early primary state and build momentum. I think 24 months is WAY too long of an election cycle, for a variety of reasons. The whole damn country shuts down every two years because no one wants to do anything controversial until the moment right after an election.
But shortening it too much would only reinforcement establishment candidates. On the other hand, how do you even control the election season? Short of a total revamp of our system, we all know when elections will be, and I imagine free speech laws make it difficult to outlaw ads or campaign stops whenever the candidate wants to.
Even still, even when it really comes down to the nitty gritty, our elections are rarely about serious policy issues. I think that's as much a cultural thing as anything else. We're either too dumb or too easily manipulated to choose the substantive candidate over the polished smooth talker.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Proportional representation would be a start.
IP: Logged |
In particular I find Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan interesting. 9% flat business tax, 9% personal income tax, and 9% national sales tax.
What a lovely way to dramatically shift the tax burden onto the poor and middle class! Huge, massive tax cut to the wealthy, and huge, massive tax increase to everyone else. The middle class would still see a nice tax cut out of this, I think, but nowhere near enough to make up the difference I'd imagine.
I'm not against a national sales tax, or VAT, as a debt-reduction method to start hacking away at the ballooning debt. I think we should have a 1% sales tax and every year the money MUST go to pay down the debt, and we should have it for ten years. I have no idea how much money that would yield, and I have a feeling Congress would simply add more debt as the sales tax pays it down, so it might not even make a dent, but now is the perfect time, while deficit reduction is on everyone's minds. I have to imagine it would make a good dent.
But to attempt on the backs of the poor is a terrible idea.
A 59 point plan? Well, I've never had a problem with complexity. More often than not, it's a lack of complexity that is our problem.
Roll back burdensome regulations? Hello environmental destruction! There was a bunch of polls recently released that showed very, very few businesses actually list burdensome regulation as a roadblock to hiring. This is a scapegoat the GOP is using because they want to help their corporate buddies rape and pillage the environment. That's bluntly put, but it's no less true. Why else be an enemy of clean and and water?
5% cut to non-entitlement, non-defense spending? Sweet. Way to solve less than 1% of the problem. He's agreed to cut 5% from an area of the budget that comprises something like 10% of the whole thing. So you want to cut 5% of one tenth? Either he's terrible at math, or he's assuming we are.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He said he would consolidate government training programs and order that any new regulations add no new costs to the economy.
This is actually not very descriptive. Does he mean net, or not? For example, Obama just cut a new air rule that would have actually saved several billion dollars. While the up front costs weren't negligible, it would have saved far more in health costs over time. So does this count as a new cost to the economy? When overall it's a net negative?
quote:Economists who reviewed Mr. Romney’s economic plan had different reactions. Steve Blitz, a senior economist for ITG Investment Research, said he doubted that cutting tax rates would stimulate much job creation.
“I think you can go through the history of the U.S. economy and find that tax rates really aren’t the paramount reason why people do things or why the economy expands or contracts,” Mr. Blitz said.
Other economists questioned the wisdom of placing sanctions on China, an important trade partner and the United States’ largest government lender.
“I don’t think that’s the most constructive approach,” said Michael Spence, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and the author of “The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World.”
Mr. Spence said both the United States and China needed to figure out how to better align their interests and work cooperatively rather than antagonistically.
“China would like nothing more than for us to miraculously recover,” Mr. Spence said. “That would be the best thing for their economy.”
With House Republicans singling out regulations as “job killing,” Mr. Romney promised to “cut out any regulation that would “unduly burden the economy or job creation.”
Mixed results, it would seem. I'm curious to see what The Economist or the WSJ think.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
