2012 election predictions

[dalem]

dalem,

I couldn't ban you if I wanted to, which I don't.

Read the link I posted; it will answer your question.

I got this far:

To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics.

Before I stopped and realized that several poorly-formatted paragrahs of lefty shrilling is of no interest to me.

From what I was able to gather, you think the Repubs of today are too obstructionist. You refuse, apparently, to consider that abject obstructionism is the only answer to the strongarm tactics increasingly employed by the Dems. The Dems opened up the can of bullsh!t with things like Pelosi's absolutely undemocratic and 100% retarded "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" vomit spew and Reid's nucular option in the Senate.

Dems want to play "f*ck you we're going full Commie"? They will reap what they've sown.

And yeah, you can't ban me, but astralis can.

-dale

[RollingWave]

So who is going to be the GOP candidate anyway? it seems Romine is the only guy consistently near the top but everyone wants someone else... I have a hard time seeing Cain actually winning the nomination (and even if he did seems like a really scary candidate to have in a general election, too many remarks that seems to be not carefully calculated) and it seems Perry shot himself pretty hard in the foot so far with his ackward speech performances... and the rest... well... are kinda there. (I actually like Huntsmen but that doesn't seem too likely)

[astralis]

dale,

I'm missing your and DOR's points. What is chief difference betwen today's Republicans and yesterday's?

not just obstructionism but also the ideology. REAGAN could contemplate and indeed did support tax increases, let alone the beliefs of earlier republicans whom could support intelligent centrist ideas vice the "i-am-more-conservative-than-thou-no-matter-what" in vogue today.

goldwater could condemn the religious right for the fools they were (and are). rockefeller could support pragmatic regulations while opposing redistribution of wealth. the belief was GOOD government against Democratic machine politics, not a continual drone of "government is a barely tolerated evil to be as small as possible, except when it means channeling pork to my district."

it's the worst of both ideological impulses.

And try to avoid threatening to ban me with your reply please.

and try to avoid snide comments about moderation when nothing of the sort was ever proposed. i believe you already received an answer to your earlier query from the admin-- so drop it.

[dalem]

dale,



not just obstructionism but also the ideology. REAGAN could contemplate and indeed did support tax increases, let alone the beliefs of earlier republicans whom could support intelligent centrist ideas vice the "i-am-more-conservative-than-thou-no-matter-what" in vogue today.

Since when is blatant populism centrist? And to misquote Dirty Harry Callahan, Republicans think there's nothing wrong with tax increases per se, as long as the right people get their taxes raised. The various flat and semi-flat tax plans proposed by candidates and non-candidates alike would all raise the tax rate on many people currently paying nothing. Many of them in turn, in most of the plans would get some sort of balancing break, but still, that's taxes going up in an absolute sense as a consequence of broadening the tax base and getting or keeping overall rates low for most.

Nothing unrecognizable there, IMO.

goldwater could condemn the religious right for the fools they were (and are).

It's probably true that religion-bashing is less acceptable now than it was in the late 60s.

rockefeller could support pragmatic regulations while opposing redistribution of wealth. the belief was GOOD government against Democratic machine politics, not a continual drone of "government is a barely tolerated evil to be as small as possible, except when it means channeling pork to my district."

So Republicans today are for full deregulation of everything? I think that in the context of your statement they're the same - supporting pragmatic regulation. Maybe the regulations of the last couple of decades are now seen as less than pragmatic since all they do is cost money and time while failing to address their original issues.

It's the worst of both ideological impulses.

So Republicans today are for full deregulation of everything? I think that in the context of your statement they're the same - supporting pragmatic regulation. Maybe the regulations of the last couple of decades are now seen as less than pragmatic since all they do is cost money and time while failing to address their original issues.

and try to avoid snide comments about moderation when nothing of the sort was ever proposed. i believe you already received an answer to your earlier query from the admin-- so drop it.

So I can't even comment on your posting style? Interesting.

-dale

[astralis]

dale,

Since when is blatant populism centrist?

i didn't say "they need to agree with OWS", did i?

OTOH, there's something wrong when republican candidates for the presidency all disagree in masse to a hypothetical budget deal that presents $10 in cuts for $1 in tax increases.

Republicans think there's nothing wrong with tax increases per se, as long as the right people get their taxes raised. The various flat and semi-flat tax plans proposed by candidates and non-candidates alike would all raise the tax rate on many people currently paying nothing.

indeed, so they should have no issue when people note that Republicans are for taxing the poor more heavily.

unfortunately given the increasingly huge disparity in wealth concentrations, you could tax "the 47%" far more heavily and it -still- would not solve the current budgetary impasse. IIRC all of the tax reform plans presented thus far by republicans try to skirt the issue of vastly decreased revenue by presenting economic scenarios that envision sudden and miraculous-level growth.

It's probably true that religion-bashing

it's not really religion-bashing when one notes the extent of religious right influence over a party that proclaims itself as the supposed champion of small government.

So Republicans today are for full deregulation of everything? I think that in the context of your statement they're the same - supporting pragmatic regulation. Maybe the regulations of the last couple of decades are now seen as less than pragmatic since all they do is cost money and time while failing to address their original issues.

when was the last time you saw a Republican supporting regulation of ANY sort? it's not a case of republicans stating, "i think the proposed Democratic regulation here is foolish; i think a BETTER regulation would be..."

instead, it is "regulations kill jobs/they are all bad bad bad" x 100.

So I can't even comment on your posting style? Interesting.

you can comment on my posting style all you want, but again, as per forum guidelines this is not the place to discuss moderator actions.

[dalem]

dale,

i didn't say "they need to agree with OWS", did i?

Nor did I. I'm speaking of the Dems, not the wannabe Commies living the tantrum life.

OTOH, there's something wrong when republican candidates for the presidency all disagree in masse to a hypothetical budget deal that presents $10 in cuts for $1 in tax increases.

Not if that hypothetical budget deal requires the drowning of boxcar loads of cute little puppies.

indeed, so they should have no issue when people note that Republicans are for taxing the poor more heavily.

Only if Dems have no issue when people note that Democrats condone and support Socialism around the world and at home. You play with context, I play with context.

unfortunately given the increasingly huge disparity in wealth concentrations, you could tax "the 47%" far more heavily and it -still- would not solve the current budgetary impasse. IIRC all of the tax reform plans presented thus far by republicans try to skirt the issue of vastly decreased revenue by presenting economic scenarios that envision sudden and miraculous-level growth.

I don't think Ryan's plan is all that unreasonable in terms of inlay vs. outlay scenarios.

The important near part is spending anyway, not taxation. As sh!tty as our current tax system is, it's not the core of the problem, IMO.

it's not really religion-bashing when one notes the extent of religious right influence over a party that proclaims itself as the supposed champion of small government.

I don't see the dichotomy you do, but then again, I don't refer to them as "fools" either, just because they believe something I don't.

when was the last time you saw a Republican supporting regulation of ANY sort? it's not a case of republicans stating, "i think the proposed Democratic regulation here is foolish; i think a BETTER regulation would be..."

instead, it is "regulations kill jobs/they are all bad bad bad" x 100.

Are you kidding? The vast majority of legislation always has SOME bipartisan support. Think Sarbanes-Oxley or McCain-Feingold or most anything over the last century except for the last few years when the Dems shut the Repubs out of the process so the Repubs took their balls and went home.

you can comment on my posting style all you want, but again, as per forum guidelines this is not the place to discuss moderator actions.

That's going to be very confusing for me. Maybe you could use different fonts so I know what is off limits?

-dale

[astralis]

dale,

Only if Dems have no issue when people note that Democrats condone and support Socialism around the world and at home. You play with context, I play with context.

false equivalency. we can certainly debate the meaning of socialism (is it socialism if their policies are shown to do nothing to reduce income inequality?), but you cannot do the same thing for Republican goals.

ie, Republican goals have alway been clear-- reduce taxes for the wealthy, raise taxes for the poor, and cut services (much of which is used by the poor/middle class) to pay the difference.

that's not to say that's always a bad thing; taxes for the rich WERE too high in the early 80s, and homeowner tax deduction is really a middle-class subsidy. but the republican tendency to DENY that all of this is part of the platform is disingenous.

taking a similar case, many republicans want to eliminate the EPA/environmental regulations; if they wanted to be honest, they could state that they believe more pollution/public health problems are outweighed by the benefits to industry. but you won't ever hear the first part; somehow this elimination will increase economic growth and our air will remain just as clean, of course.

I don't think Ryan's plan is all that unreasonable in terms of inlay vs. outlay scenarios.

you mean the early Ryan plan where he assumes that the economy booms even harder than the 1990s and unemployment falls to 2.8% by 2021? or the later one, where his staff surreptiously replaced that number with a 4% figure once people started to point and laugh at his budgetary assumptions?

i notice you didn't mention either perry or cain's tax plans, both of which would create enormous fiscal holes but are plugged as "revenue neutral" by assuming China-level rates of growth.

Are you kidding? The vast majority of legislation always has SOME bipartisan support. Think Sarbanes-Oxley or McCain-Feingold or most anything over the last century except for the last few years when the Dems shut the Repubs out of the process so the Repubs took their balls and went home.

i should clarify: i was speaking of the republicans looking for the Presidential nomination. of course, even within the legislative side of the house, i noticed with the financial reform bill the republicans had a bad habit of negotiating with the democrats to include republican priorities...and then voting against the bill anyway.

That's going to be very confusing for me. Maybe you could use different fonts so I know what is off limits?

-dale

how about you deal with my posts for content as with any other person here.

if i'm putting my mod hat on, i will very clearly state so.

[DOR]

dalem,

Did you read at least as far into my own post here to recognize who wrote the article? Sorry to puncture your preconceived notions, but the author is a near-30 veteran of the House and Senate finance committees, as a REPUBLICAN staffer.

If you think that makes him “lefty,” then you must be so far to the right of the political spectrum as to be unrecognizable in any form of democracy.

From what you gather, THE AUTHOR thinks the Repubs today are too obstructionist.


.


And, you still have no concept of what communism is.

[Officer of Engineers]

Frankly, speaking as a non-American, there has not been the leader of the Free World since Bush Jr and he was given the position by default. Obama? He burned more allies and destroyed more trusts than he has earned ... which was exactly zero.

The world lead a campaign against Carter, ABC, Any Body but Carter. The US apologized for Bush Jr but given the treatment American allies received from Obama, from abandoning missile defence to key neighbours to abandoning all allies against bio-chem attacks ... and then bowing before China and Russia, well, the leader of the free world, Obama is not.

[dalem]

dale,

false equivalency. we can certainly debate the meaning of socialism (is it socialism if their policies are shown to do nothing to reduce income inequality?), but you cannot do the same thing for Republican goals.

ie, Republican goals have alway been clear-- reduce taxes for the wealthy, raise taxes for the poor, and cut services (much of which is used by the poor/middle class) to pay the difference.

Or you could put it this way: Republican goals have always been clear: allow for as much wealth creation as possible so as many people as possible benefit. It's still duelling contexts. Uninteresting.

that's not to say that's always a bad thing; taxes for the rich WERE too high in the early 80s, and homeowner tax deduction is really a middle-class subsidy. but the republican tendency to DENY that all of this is part of the platform is disingenous.

I agree that I prefer Republicans who tell the WHOLE truth about the tax system as opposed to a partial truth.

taking a similar case, many republicans want to eliminate the EPA/environmental regulations; if they wanted to be honest, they could state that they believe more pollution/public health problems are outweighed by the benefits to industry. but you won't ever hear the first part; somehow this elimination will increase economic growth and our air will remain just as clean, of course.

You are not mentioning the cost-benefit differences between getting from "45% clean to 99.5% clean" vs. "99.5% clean to 99.6% clean". From a simple cost-benefit analysis much of the EPA and related missions are simply complete. Kinda like NATO - an organization looking for a job. Add in the fact that so much of the agency is "extra-governmental" and it is practically begging for a rebuild from the bottom up.

"Go bother a country that still uses lead paint or has rivers that catch fire - your job here is done, EPA. Thank you and good-the f*ck-bye."

you mean the early Ryan plan where he assumes that the economy booms even harder than the 1990s and unemployment falls to 2.8% by 2021? or the later one, where his staff surreptiously replaced that number with a 4% figure once people started to point and laugh at his budgetary assumptions?

Probably the latter, but I'm not sure - I didn't balk at the early one as I recall.

i notice you didn't mention either perry or cain's tax plans, both of which would create enormous fiscal holes but are plugged as "revenue neutral" by assuming China-level rates of growth.

Yeah, neither one of those exact plans are blowing my skirt up. I like the ideas they're based on, but the details don't work out. IMO the only way to make it work is make EVERYONE pay SOME Federal tax. Leave the breaks to the states and let them compete for warm bodies.

Personally I'd be okay with a candidate who stood up and said "Screw the blame game - I'm offering a 3% added VAT across the board, from baby formula to yachts, that can ONLY go toward paying the actual debt, and that has a guaranteed sunset of "when the debt reaches X% of whatever economists agree is a number we should be at X% of" OR 5 years from now, whichever comes first.

EVERYbody sucks it up, EVERYbody pays, EVERYbody takes credit for success."

I wouldn't like it and would be ideologically opposed to it, but if it could be somehow GUARANTEED to sunset, I'd support the hell out of it, just to kill the effing argument about who dropped what match on which curtains. The house is burning, people, let's put it out first, then fight about it.

Like Kang said to the whirly emotion thing in Day of the Dove - "We need no reasons to hate humans, but only a fool fights in a burning house. Get out!"

i should clarify: i was speaking of the republicans looking for the Presidential nomination. of course, even within the legislative side of the house, i noticed with the financial reform bill the republicans had a bad habit of negotiating with the democrats to include republican priorities...and then voting against the bill anyway.

Because maybe they didn't get enough of what they wanted?

how about you deal with my posts for content as with any other person here.

But you're NOT every other person here, dear-heart. You're a mod. A mod who likes to get in the weeds and debate but tosses in the occasional warning about attitude as well.

if i'm putting my mod hat on, i will very clearly state so.

You have not demonstrated that you are capable of sticking to that distinction, actually. But I remain hopeful.

-dale

[dalem]

dalem,

Did you read at least as far into my own post here to recognize who wrote the article? Sorry to puncture your preconceived notions, but the author is a near-30 veteran of the House and Senate finance committees, as a REPUBLICAN staffer.

If you think that makes him “lefty,” then you must be so far to the right of the political spectrum as to be unrecognizable in any form of democracy.

From what you gather, THE AUTHOR thinks the Repubs today are too obstructionist.

Yes I read who the author is, and what he claims to be, but his party left him or he left his party years ago, by what I read and/or skimmed.

I can call myself Santa Claus all day long, but until you see me drop down your chimney with a bag full of toys, I'd take my claims with a huge grain of salt.

And, you still have no concept of what communism is.

Sure I do. Mass starvation, haunted looks, command economies, pogroms and mass graves, black limousines at night and blood running in the streets during the day.

I know EXACTLY what Communism is, pard.

-dale

[DOR]

Sure I do. Mass starvation, haunted looks, command economies, pogroms and mass graves, black limousines at night and blood running in the streets during the day.

I know EXACTLY what Communism is, pard.

-dale

Thanks for proving my point.
Have you ever even been to a country that claims to be communist?

[Doktor]

Sorry to interrupt.
Is there a real communist country? The Soviets and whole Warsaw pact + Yugoslavia were socialist (on paper).

China is Communist as much as I am World Champion in Kung Fu.

North Korea?

Cuba?

Have I missed someone?

[Parihaka]

Sorry to interrupt.
Is there a real communist country? The Soviets and whole Warsaw pact + Yugoslavia were socialist (on paper).

China is Communist as much as I am World Champion in Kung Fu.

North Korea?

Cuba?

Have I missed someone?

Sure. Mao's China; Stalin's, Khrushchev's and Brezhnev's USSR; Tito's Yugoslavia, Ceaușescu's Romania, et cetera et cetera et cetera.

[DOR]

Sorry to interrupt.
Is there a real communist country? The Soviets and whole Warsaw pact + Yugoslavia were socialist (on paper).

China is Communist as much as I am World Champion in Kung Fu.

North Korea?

Cuba?

Have I missed someone?

Was some part of "a country that claims to be communist" unclear?