2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

[bronconick]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

My prediction: Bachmann wins in Iowa and South Carolina and coasts to the nomination.

No way. Iowa's still a caucus state. She could go in the day of with a polling lead, and I'd expect her support to crater when they have to defend her positions and she'll come out 3rd or 4th.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

No way. Iowa's still a caucus state. She could go in the day of with a polling lead, and I'd expect her support to crater when they have to defend her positions and she'll come out 3rd or 4th.

Though caucuses attract the Crazy Town crowd.

I don't think Bachman is going to finish in the top 8 in any contest. I don't think much of the Republican base, but I can't imagine they're that far gone.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

They're concentrating on the Big Issues: NPR and Planned Parenthood funding.

On those key issues he is exactly like Bush.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Good opinion piece by Marco Rubio on federal finances:

http://http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704425804576220670543010068.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Plenty of hope and change. Just not the type Republicans like.

do you seriously see any real, substantive progress that you're happy about? If it drives us deeper into debt (health care debacle, random foreign policy, etc), does that automatically make it progress? More spending isn't always the answer to everything. Someday we'll have to pay our bills.
Anyway, wrong thread. I don't foresee any honest answers concerning "His Presence Here on Earth".
accountability, people.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

do you seriously see any real, substantive progress that you're happy about? If it drives us deeper into debt (health care debacle, random foreign policy, etc), does that automatically make it progress? More spending isn't always the answer to everything. Someday we'll have to pay our bills.
Anyway, wrong thread. I don't foresee any honest answers concerning "His Presence Here on Earth".
accountability, people.

Yah, Obama for the most part nips around the edges at things and talks a lot about change, and people like Priceless buy it, hook, line, and sinker. I still remember back in the campaign, where he claimed that every bit of new spending he'd do would be matched by cuts elsewhere, and my Dem friends actually believed him. Can't get them to talk much about it these days.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Yah, Obama for the most part nips around the edges at things and talks a lot about change, and people like Priceless buy it, hook, line, and sinker. I still remember back in the campaign, where he claimed that every bit of new spending he'd do would be matched by cuts elsewhere, and my Dem friends actually believed him. Can't get them to talk much about it these days.

I aint happy about it, but the last time I checked Congress controlled spending authorization. And since the House is now Republican we should have a balanced budget, just like we did when the GOP had a clean sweep of the House, Senate, and WH, right?

Debt increase by pct, by administration.

Federal spending increase by year:

2002 Bush 6.00%
2003 Bush 4.60%
2004 Bush 3.20%
2005 Bush 4.00%
2006 Bush 3.90%
2007 Bush 0.60%
2008 Bush 4.60%
2009 Bush 3.60%
2010 Obama 1.40%

The deficit's a huge problem but it's being driven primarily by the recession and the tax cuts. Increased spending certainly isn't helping but a large amount of that is inherited programs and the godforsaken wars. And the Republican solution is more tax cuts. Because the last 30 years were great for the average guy.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

No way. Iowa's still a caucus state. She could go in the day of with a polling lead, and I'd expect her support to crater when they have to defend her positions and she'll come out 3rd or 4th.

Her positions are lock step with the tea party. And you grossly underestimate the power of the social conservatives in Iowa. Or, are you forgetting who won there last year?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

I aint happy about it, but the last time I checked Congress controlled spending authorization. And since the House is now Republican we should have a balanced budget, just like we did when the GOP had a clean sweep of the House, Senate, and WH, right?

Debt increase by pct, by administration.

Huh, I guess the last 15 years of hearing how Clinton got all the credit for the small deficits back in the 90s was just a mirage.

And the fits the WH and Dem-controlled Senate threw when the House recently tried to push short term budget cuts through, forcing lesser cuts must just be another mirage.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

I aint happy about it, but the last time I checked Congress controlled spending authorization. And since the House is now Republican we should have a balanced budget, just like we did when the GOP had a clean sweep of the House, Senate, and WH, right?

No. The point was that there is no substantive difference between the two parties as they are. We're screwed either way, unless a Mitch Daniels or Ron Paul rides to the rescue next year and people suddenly see the light regarding "entitlements" (I hate that concept) and everything else.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Huh, I guess the last 15 years of hearing how Clinton got all the credit for the small deficits back in the 90s was just a mirage.

And the fits the WH and Dem-controlled Senate threw when the House recently tried to push short term budget cuts through, forcing lesser cuts must just be another mirage.

Yes, well, the good news for you is that the rich are getting richer, so you know that the economic policies of the Republicans (who have most of the conservatives) are working. For us idiots on the left the class war that we tried to fight is over. We lost.

And if you're rich or on their economic side you don't really care about the deficit. That's for the middle to lower class to worry about. After all, you don't need the government anyway.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

The salient point? The notion that there is a "small government" party in American politics is patently ridiculous.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

No. The point was that there is no substantive difference between the two parties as they are. We're screwed either way, unless a Mitch Daniels or Ron Paul rides to the rescue next year and people suddenly see the light regarding "entitlements" (I hate that concept) and everything else.

As I've said here a thousand times, means testing the ef out of everything and making all entitlements into pure charity programs solves the social program end of our financial problems without turning us into the barbaric plutocracy Grover Norquist has wet dreams about. Pair that with dismantling the empire and cutting the defense budget by, say, 75%, and we've got a sane, sound future.

But neither of those things are going to happen.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Huh, I guess the last 15 years of hearing how Clinton got all the credit for the small deficits back in the 90s was just a mirage.

You have it exactly backwards. This is a case of your own goose meeting reality's gander. Dubya's apologists fell all over themselves claiming his deficits were the result of inherited commitments. To the extent they were right, it's the same now. You can't wiggle off one of your sharpened horns without being impaled right back on the other.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

The salient point? The notion that there is a "small government" party in American politics is patently ridiculous.

True. But, you have to admit that many Republican policies are producing enormous amounts of wealth for some. That's a major win for them. The stock market has pretty much come back and corporate profits are high. Everyone else? Not so much.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Yes, well, the good news for you is that the rich are getting richer, so you know that the economic policies of the Republicans (who have most of the conservatives) are working. For us idiots on the left the class war that we tried to fight is over. We lost.

And if you're rich or on their economic side you don't really care about the deficit. That's for the middle to lower class to worry about. After all, you don't need the government anyway.

If you think the deficit won't impact the rich also, you're nuts. Of course they'll have more cushion to weather it, but the long term cratering of this country will impact everyone very badly. The rest of your post has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

True. But, you have to admit that many Republican policies are producing enormous amounts of wealth for some. That's a major win for them. The stock market has pretty much come back and corporate profits are high. Everyone else? Not so much.

To be sure. The guiding principle of each party is welfare for their friends. The Republicans tend to be a bit better at it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

You have it exactly backwards. This is a case of your own goose meeting reality's gander. Dubya's apologists fell all over themselves claiming his deficits were the result of inherited commitments. To the extent they were right, it's the same now. You can't wiggle off one of your sharpened horns without being impaled right back on the other.

No, I don't have it backwards. I've heard people go on and on about how Clinton was great at having small deficits (or some would argue small surpluses). You're totally missing my point. I see lots of people, including yourself apparently, picking and choosing when to credit Presidents with deficits or not, and I'm just saying be consistent in how you do it. Either Clinton, Bush, and Obama get the lion's share of credit, or none of them do. Of course the reality it's a mix of Congress and the President, but I'm just calling out this glaring inconsistency some people have.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

If you think the deficit won't impact the rich also, you're nuts. Of course they'll have more cushion to weather it, but the long term cratering of this country will impact everyone very badly. The rest of your post has nothing to do with what I said.

ROTFLMAO

They don't care about the deficit. There is NO EVIDENCE to say that they do. They're making money hand over fist. If the US looks like it's going to tank they'll pull their money out in time just like they did during the last collapse.

The current situation is a big win for the wealthy. The rhetoric is cuts for the middle class and poor, and no TAX INCREASES no matter what. They couldn't ask for a better atmosphere.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

ROTFLMAO

They don't care about the deficit. There is NO EVIDENCE to say that they do. They're making money hand over fist. If the US looks like it's going to tank they'll pull their money out in time just like they did during the last collapse.

The current situation is a big win for the wealthy. The rhetoric is cuts for the middle class and poor, and no TAX INCREASES no matter what. They couldn't ask for a better atmosphere.

If they don't care about the deficit, they are stupid. An out of control deficit will crater this country, which will be a problem for everyone living here, regardless of income.

I agree that there are larger and larger splits between the rich and middle class and poor and it's a big problem in this country. Some of it is natural evolution and some driven by policies of various sorts.