|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 17 2013 23:49 Doodsmack wrote:
So that turned out to be a disaster for Republicans that got them and the country nowhere.
Gee, that was hard to foresee.
LOL
What did they actually loose though? "Popularity" unfortunately is fickle, especially given that there are no permanent changes that remind the public. It was an expensive waste of time but not expensive enough to call back to - "We could have used that money the Reps wasted back in October" doesn´t really have weight.
The Tea Party will have to repeat their acts of insanity in order to have real consequences.
|
On October 18 2013 00:30 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 23:49 Doodsmack wrote:
So that turned out to be a disaster for Republicans that got them and the country nowhere.
Gee, that was hard to foresee.
LOL What did they actually loose though? "Popularity" unfortunately is fickle, especially given that there are no permanent changes that remind the public. It was an expensive waste of time but not expensive enough to call back to - "We could have used that money the Reps wasted back in October" doesn´t really have weight. The Tea Party will have to repeat their acts of insanity in order to have real consequences.
Oh there is no doubt that they will repeat it when the government un-shutdown and the debt cieling need to be redone in the coming months.
|
On October 17 2013 23:49 Doodsmack wrote:
So that turned out to be a disaster for Republicans that got them and the country nowhere.
Gee, that was hard to foresee.
LOL
You had panel after panel of people on conservative networks and radio stations all saying this was a bad idea, as well as quite a few republican members of house and senators.
They could see this blowing up in their faces from a mile away, and likely so could the chief instigators of this little farce. But the thing is, the kind of people who decided to force the issue don't really care, because they don't actually care about the republican party, or federal governing in general. They care about primaries back home and maintaining a credible facade of hardline conservatism, which means no compromise allowed.
The republican party may well suffer some backlash from this, but the people who are ultimately responsible are probably pretty pleased. They made their point, took their stand, and can point to that in future elections as standing up to Obama. This was never about protecting the country from Obamacare or whatever nonsense they drummed up, it was about protecting themselves from being targeted by accusations from the extreme right of being insufficiently staunch in their opposition to liberal policies.
That the voters in question probably are not familiar with or even understand the issues being fought over is a secondary concern, what matters is the visual, the picture being presented.
|
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse.
|
On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse.
Do you think that is going to fly? Every time spending cuts on large social programs are brought up, they are always vehemently rejected on an individual basis. People like spending cuts as an abstract, but seem to reject it when it gets more specific.
And if you want to cut things in the scope that the republicans want to, sooner or later you will have to get specific, sooner or later you will have to stand up and say "yes we will cut medicare and social security".
I see it as a pretty had sell to make.
|
On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse.
I don't know about that...SS and medicare are huge for seniors, which republicans heavily rely on for votes.
|
On October 18 2013 01:37 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse. I don't know about that...SS and medicare are huge for seniors, which republicans heavily rely on for votes.
Which is why they attack food stamps, unemployment, etc instead.
|
On October 18 2013 01:01 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse. Do you think that is going to fly? Every time spending cuts on large social programs are brought up, they are always vehemently rejected on an individual basis. People like spending cuts as an abstract, but seem to reject it when it gets more specific. And if you want to cut things in the scope that the republicans want to, sooner or later you will have to get specific, sooner or later you will have to stand up and say "yes we will cut medicare and social security". I see it as a pretty had sell to make.
All they would be doing is effectively taking up Obama on his offer of a grand bargain. It's not that difficult to imagine, they're not going to message it as WE WANT TO SLASH SOCIAL SECURITY. They'll say deficit spending is out of control, and social security is running out of money. We have to "reform" it, not cut it, in order to save it. Saving social security and getting on a path to a balanced budget. That is what I predict you will hear.
|
On October 18 2013 01:47 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 01:01 Squat wrote:On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse. Do you think that is going to fly? Every time spending cuts on large social programs are brought up, they are always vehemently rejected on an individual basis. People like spending cuts as an abstract, but seem to reject it when it gets more specific. And if you want to cut things in the scope that the republicans want to, sooner or later you will have to get specific, sooner or later you will have to stand up and say "yes we will cut medicare and social security". I see it as a pretty had sell to make. All they would be doing is effectively taking up Obama on his offer of a grand bargain. It's not that difficult to imagine, they're not going to message it as WE WANT TO SLASH SOCIAL SECURITY. They'll say deficit spending is out of control, and social security is running out of money. We have to "reform" it, not cut it, in order to save it. Saving social security and getting on a path to a balanced budget. That is what I predict you will hear.
Of course they will use rhetoric that makes it seem more attractive, but are people actually gullible enough to buy that? I mean it's basic math, if you want to spend less money on a government program, that program will have less money and thus able to accomplish less.
I don't really see a way around this unless they are truly awesome orators or people are just really bad at math.
|
On October 18 2013 01:50 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 01:47 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 18 2013 01:01 Squat wrote:On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse. Do you think that is going to fly? Every time spending cuts on large social programs are brought up, they are always vehemently rejected on an individual basis. People like spending cuts as an abstract, but seem to reject it when it gets more specific. And if you want to cut things in the scope that the republicans want to, sooner or later you will have to get specific, sooner or later you will have to stand up and say "yes we will cut medicare and social security". I see it as a pretty had sell to make. All they would be doing is effectively taking up Obama on his offer of a grand bargain. It's not that difficult to imagine, they're not going to message it as WE WANT TO SLASH SOCIAL SECURITY. They'll say deficit spending is out of control, and social security is running out of money. We have to "reform" it, not cut it, in order to save it. Saving social security and getting on a path to a balanced budget. That is what I predict you will hear. Of course they will use rhetoric that makes it seem more attractive, but are people actually gullible enough to buy that? I mean it's basic math, if you want to spend less money on a government program, that program will have less money and thus able to accomplish less. I don't really see a way around this unless they are truly awesome orators or people are just really bad at math.
There gullible enough to vote for em in the first place, heck a greater then 0% thought this shutdown was an awesome idea.
|
On October 18 2013 01:50 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 01:47 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 18 2013 01:01 Squat wrote:On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse. Do you think that is going to fly? Every time spending cuts on large social programs are brought up, they are always vehemently rejected on an individual basis. People like spending cuts as an abstract, but seem to reject it when it gets more specific. And if you want to cut things in the scope that the republicans want to, sooner or later you will have to get specific, sooner or later you will have to stand up and say "yes we will cut medicare and social security". I see it as a pretty had sell to make. All they would be doing is effectively taking up Obama on his offer of a grand bargain. It's not that difficult to imagine, they're not going to message it as WE WANT TO SLASH SOCIAL SECURITY. They'll say deficit spending is out of control, and social security is running out of money. We have to "reform" it, not cut it, in order to save it. Saving social security and getting on a path to a balanced budget. That is what I predict you will hear. Of course they will use rhetoric that makes it seem more attractive, but are people actually gullible enough to buy that? I mean it's basic math, if you want to spend less money on a government program, that program will have less money and thus able to accomplish less. I don't really see a way around this unless they are truly awesome orators or people are just really bad at math.
I think you said it. They are awesome orators, especially to those who want to listen to their side, and people are in general not very good at math, or that well informed about the issues at hand, or care very much until the government actually shuts down and people are out of a job.
|
On October 18 2013 01:47 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 01:01 Squat wrote:On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse. Do you think that is going to fly? Every time spending cuts on large social programs are brought up, they are always vehemently rejected on an individual basis. People like spending cuts as an abstract, but seem to reject it when it gets more specific. And if you want to cut things in the scope that the republicans want to, sooner or later you will have to get specific, sooner or later you will have to stand up and say "yes we will cut medicare and social security". I see it as a pretty had sell to make. All they would be doing is effectively taking up Obama on his offer of a grand bargain. It's not that difficult to imagine, they're not going to message it as WE WANT TO SLASH SOCIAL SECURITY. They'll say deficit spending is out of control, and social security is running out of money. We have to "reform" it, not cut it, in order to save it. Saving social security and getting on a path to a balanced budget. That is what I predict you will hear.
Entitlement spending is a legitimate issue.
|
On October 18 2013 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 01:47 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 18 2013 01:01 Squat wrote:On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse. Do you think that is going to fly? Every time spending cuts on large social programs are brought up, they are always vehemently rejected on an individual basis. People like spending cuts as an abstract, but seem to reject it when it gets more specific. And if you want to cut things in the scope that the republicans want to, sooner or later you will have to get specific, sooner or later you will have to stand up and say "yes we will cut medicare and social security". I see it as a pretty had sell to make. All they would be doing is effectively taking up Obama on his offer of a grand bargain. It's not that difficult to imagine, they're not going to message it as WE WANT TO SLASH SOCIAL SECURITY. They'll say deficit spending is out of control, and social security is running out of money. We have to "reform" it, not cut it, in order to save it. Saving social security and getting on a path to a balanced budget. That is what I predict you will hear. Entitlement spending is a legitimate issue.
Yep I would be all for the republicans lifting the tax cap for income over 100k 
|
On October 18 2013 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 01:47 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 18 2013 01:01 Squat wrote:On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse. Do you think that is going to fly? Every time spending cuts on large social programs are brought up, they are always vehemently rejected on an individual basis. People like spending cuts as an abstract, but seem to reject it when it gets more specific. And if you want to cut things in the scope that the republicans want to, sooner or later you will have to get specific, sooner or later you will have to stand up and say "yes we will cut medicare and social security". I see it as a pretty had sell to make. All they would be doing is effectively taking up Obama on his offer of a grand bargain. It's not that difficult to imagine, they're not going to message it as WE WANT TO SLASH SOCIAL SECURITY. They'll say deficit spending is out of control, and social security is running out of money. We have to "reform" it, not cut it, in order to save it. Saving social security and getting on a path to a balanced budget. That is what I predict you will hear. Entitlement spending is a legitimate issue.
It is but we never hear any of the Right Wing Pundits talking about slashing entitlements to big business now do we?
What we get with the current Republican party in Congress are bills that slash Food Stamps while also providing subsidies to big agriculture, it's absurd. A little consistency in the platform would be nice if we want to have a serious debate on the issue, but at the moment their platform looks like nothing other than just an all out war on the poor.
|
On October 18 2013 02:16 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 18 2013 01:47 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 18 2013 01:01 Squat wrote:On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse. Do you think that is going to fly? Every time spending cuts on large social programs are brought up, they are always vehemently rejected on an individual basis. People like spending cuts as an abstract, but seem to reject it when it gets more specific. And if you want to cut things in the scope that the republicans want to, sooner or later you will have to get specific, sooner or later you will have to stand up and say "yes we will cut medicare and social security". I see it as a pretty had sell to make. All they would be doing is effectively taking up Obama on his offer of a grand bargain. It's not that difficult to imagine, they're not going to message it as WE WANT TO SLASH SOCIAL SECURITY. They'll say deficit spending is out of control, and social security is running out of money. We have to "reform" it, not cut it, in order to save it. Saving social security and getting on a path to a balanced budget. That is what I predict you will hear. Entitlement spending is a legitimate issue. Yep I would be all for the republicans lifting the tax cap for income over 100k
Are you also going to increase SS benefits on that added tax or will you cut those benefits?
Medicare is a problem too - no cap there already.
|
On October 18 2013 02:20 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 18 2013 01:47 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 18 2013 01:01 Squat wrote:On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse. Do you think that is going to fly? Every time spending cuts on large social programs are brought up, they are always vehemently rejected on an individual basis. People like spending cuts as an abstract, but seem to reject it when it gets more specific. And if you want to cut things in the scope that the republicans want to, sooner or later you will have to get specific, sooner or later you will have to stand up and say "yes we will cut medicare and social security". I see it as a pretty had sell to make. All they would be doing is effectively taking up Obama on his offer of a grand bargain. It's not that difficult to imagine, they're not going to message it as WE WANT TO SLASH SOCIAL SECURITY. They'll say deficit spending is out of control, and social security is running out of money. We have to "reform" it, not cut it, in order to save it. Saving social security and getting on a path to a balanced budget. That is what I predict you will hear. Entitlement spending is a legitimate issue. It is but we never hear any of the Right Wing Pundits talking about slashing entitlements to big business now do we? What we get with the current Republican party in Congress are bills that slash Food Stamps while also providing subsidies to big agriculture, it's absurd. A little consistency in the platform would be nice if we want to have a serious debate on the issue, but at the moment their platform looks like nothing other than just an all out war on the poor.
Food stamps have expanded recently under both Bush and Obama. Farm subsidies have been in decline and are lower than in most advanced economies.
|
Personally, I think there's a lot of inefficiencies in these systems that could be cut if we took a good look at them. We have a lot of redundancies, and I'm sure there's probably whole companies living off loopholes that let them charge like a 10,000% for some silly product or service.
|
Enough with the long term problems. Unemployment is still high after five years. That should be the number one priority. And of course most of those missing jobs are public sector jobs which the private sector really can't substitute. We need to stop the sequester and put money into state governments.
|
On October 18 2013 02:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 01:47 NovaTheFeared wrote:On October 18 2013 01:01 Squat wrote:On October 18 2013 00:57 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I think they will try again, but this time without Obamacare being the primary target. Obamacare is either revenue neutral or a net positive to the deficit, so it makes no sense to link it to the budget. Instead they will target overall spending levels and entitlement reform as their ransom demands which are more clearly linked to the power of the purse. Do you think that is going to fly? Every time spending cuts on large social programs are brought up, they are always vehemently rejected on an individual basis. People like spending cuts as an abstract, but seem to reject it when it gets more specific. And if you want to cut things in the scope that the republicans want to, sooner or later you will have to get specific, sooner or later you will have to stand up and say "yes we will cut medicare and social security". I see it as a pretty had sell to make. All they would be doing is effectively taking up Obama on his offer of a grand bargain. It's not that difficult to imagine, they're not going to message it as WE WANT TO SLASH SOCIAL SECURITY. They'll say deficit spending is out of control, and social security is running out of money. We have to "reform" it, not cut it, in order to save it. Saving social security and getting on a path to a balanced budget. That is what I predict you will hear. Entitlement spending is a legitimate issue.
And so are budget deficits. That is why if they choose shutdown again, this is a more plausible argument. It's directly and inextricably linked to the budget unlike the stupid strategy of linking Obamacare, which has nothing to do with overall levels of government spending or deficits, to the budget. I think the next showdown will be over spending, not Obamacare.
As to whether they succeed, that's an open question. In politics your previous actions often frame the next debate. Republicans having lost miserably on this shutdown, Democrats are in a stronger than usual position to resist. I'm sure Obama was happy to sit back and let Tea Party Republicans and Establishment Republicans bash each other nonstop for 2 weeks, and might be again. The biggest impediment to Republicans "winning" budget cuts and/or entitlement reform isn't Democrats though, it's an intra-party contest to see who can oppose the Democrats the most and make the biggest demands.
|
Since we already know what needs to be done; and we already know how to fix all the long term problems, we just need to implement them. Since congress refuses to do that; we need some constitutional changes to setup a system wherein the people will implement the necessary fixes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
