Fellow republicans: explain why the shutdown and default is good fiscal policy. (1 Viewer)

[Perotista]

I think if the election were held today there'd be a fair chance of the House flipping, but even then I doubt it. The geographical layout of the various voting bases and the house positions makes it unlikely. The issue with a wide poll is that strengthening of views in a Republican or Democratic strong hold towards their party could SEEM impactful but ultimately isn't. It doesn't matter if the Republicans win a staunchly republican district by a 30% margin instead of a 20% one, and vise versa for the Democrats.

The bigger issue however is that the election isn't tomorrow. It's over a year away. The lingering effects and impact of the shut down is likely being massively overblown in the media, as they tend to do with every major event that is the focus of conversation at a particular time, and will probably have a much smaller impact come next year. There are so many factors and situations that can occur over a years time, not the least of which is the economy going in either direction by that point, that it's hard to really speculate.

I think if you had the election today, the Democratic party would at least have a CHANCE, albiet a slim one, of taking back the House. But that's a somewhat irrelevant statement in the grand scheme of things.

I agree, but that is all we have to go on is what is happening today. No one knows what the issues, events or anything else that may come into play tomorrow. I have posted quite a few times over the last couple of days that come Feb/Mar of next year, the shutdown will be long forgotten. Other issues and events will have taken its place.

I have found out through history that sea change election for the Democrats, the generic figure has to be 7 points in their favor. For the Republicans, it is 5 points. Why this is so, I don't know, but I have advanced a theory on it a couple of times.

 

[Linc]

As Pero's data and my analysis has shown, there is much more to the 'total House' vote being a plus 0.5 million for Dems, therefore cries of GM..
30 m/M CDs giving Dems a +3.7M vote lead and a +63 CD edge for Repubs in the remaining 205 CDs has only a 3.2M plurality..
for abbreviations, CD = congressional distric; GM = gerry-mandering; M = million; m/M = minority/Majority

Doing some quick research, it appears to be a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that has the number, though I'm unsure if the way they phrase the question is in line with the other polls in terms of a "generic ballot" since it was not about which you'd vote for, but rather which you would prefer to control Congress as a whole.

 

[Linc]

I have found out through history that sea change election for the Democrats, the generic figure has to be 7 points in their favor. For the Republicans, it is 5 points. Why this is so, I don't know, but I have advanced a theory on it a couple of times.

And your theory has taken hold with the comparison of m/M versus Repub GM..
The current 47--39 generic ballot I saw/heard would give Dems a 2-seat gain..
Did you hear Gohmert's garbage at McCain at the 'Values Voters' Summit?

 

[Linc]

Are you watching the Dodger game??

From watching history, the thing about government shutdowns is, yes they have an immediate effect on one party or the other.

And we know which one that is..

But the effect doesn't last, two or three months down the road the shutdown will be long forgotten and replaced by other issues and events.

Who would you see moving into the top 25 Power Pols, such as Beck, Koch, USA Polls[/QUOTE]

 

[Perotista]

And your theory has taken hold with the comparison of m/M versus Repub GM..
The current 47--39 generic ballot I saw/heard would give Dems a 2-seat gain..
Did you hear Gohmert's garbage at McCain at the 'Values Voters' Summit?

I seen a quick 15 second snap shot of it on the news while I ate supper. The Values Voters Summit is not something I pay any attention to.

 

[Linc]

I think if the election were held today there'd be a fair chance of the House flipping, but even then I doubt it. The geographical layout of the various voting bases and the house positions makes it unlikely. The issue with a wide poll is that strengthening of views in a Republican or Democratic strong hold towards their party could SEEM impactful but ultimately isn't. It doesn't matter if the Republicans win a staunchly republican district by a 30% margin instead of a 20% one, and vise versa for the Democrats.

Geographical is a good way to put it..Great Science..Density of population has been discussed lately, but I have not seen any talk of future CD maps changing % of m/M or more fundamental..Satellite maps looking at geography as well as light at night, And a CD Commission, could make for better remaps.

 

[Linc]

Cardinals have a rally in the bottom of the 3rd with 2 runs..
It will be hard not to run into these quotes, since they had at least a dozen persons I saw..
Unfortunate new meme is ACA is like slavery..
Precondition folks probably have a countdown until Jan. 1st..
Imagine their New Years' party.

I seen a quick 15 second snap shot of it on the news while I ate supper. The Values Voters Summit is not something I pay any attention to.

 

[Perotista]

Are you watching the Dodger game??And we know which one that is..Who would you see moving into the top 25 Power Pols, such as Beck, Koch, USA Polls

[/QUOTE]

No on the game. If there are two teams in the NL I don't care and root against, it is the Cardinals and the Dodgers. I don't know about power pols, but I probably am based into reality too much as I problably would rank President Obama as number 1, Reid number 2 and Speaker Boehner in the third slot although he doesn't seem to have control of the members of his own party. From there it becomes a jumble.

 

[Perotista]

Cardinals have a rally in the bottom of the 3rd with 2 runs..
It will be hard not to run into these quotes, since they had at least a dozen persons I saw..
Unfortunate new meme is ACA is like slavery..
Precondition folks probably have a countdown until Jan. 1st..
Imagine their New Years' party.

I seen an interesting report on the news about the ACA. Remember me telling you this shutdown and the antics still going on was the best thing that happened to the ACA and the Democrats. Well according to the news, pre-shutdown polls were shows the gap between those who favored the ACA to those against was 16-19 points against the ACA. But because of the antics and tying the defunding of the ACA to the CR, that gap has shrunk to 4-10 points. Still against the law, but shrinking none the less.

 

[Linc]

In all nonpartisan, a good thing on ACA is they are talking about making it better, not defund it..
ION, Beck enters at #25 for multiple reasons..
He has his group and he is back at it tomorrow, Saturday, volunteering to 'clean up' the monuments..
Dems underestimate Beck, who organized the TEAparty on FOX in 009..

I seen an interesting report on the news about the ACA. Remember me telling you this shutdown and the antics still going on was the best thing that happened to the ACA and the Democrats. Well according to the news, pre-shutdown polls were shows the gap between those who favored the ACA to those against was 16-19 points against the ACA. But because of the antics and tying the defunding of the ACA to the CR, that gap has shrunk to 4-10 points. Still against the law, but shrinking none the less.

 

[Perotista]

In all nonpartisan, a good thing on ACA is they are talking about making it better, not defund it..
ION, Beck enters at #25 for multiple reasons..
He has his group and he is back at it tomorrow, Saturday, volunteering to 'clean up' the monuments..
Dems underestimate Beck, who organized the TEAparty on FOX in 009..

Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, to me are not pols. They are talk show hosts, no better and no worst than those on MSNBC or programs like the View, O'Riely, Mathews etc. Although I like to watch THE FIVE on FOX at times. But it does get old at times. I think programs like I mentioned only reinforce the views, already held views people who watch these programs had already.

 

[Linc]

Guests on these shows who are allowed to speak without getting trampled on are good..
I like Steele..And any House or Senate member is worth listening to that is a player..
You know I love Coburn's quips, even if I don't agree..
I tell you, dismissing his plan 2 years ago, the 'Grand Bargain' so to speak, was a huge ****up.
O'Reilly was out front against this strategy from the start..
Matthews is better at 6:00 my time.

Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, to me are not pols. They are talk show hosts, no better and no worst than those on MSNBC or programs like the View, O'Riely, Mathews etc. Although I like to watch THE FIVE on FOX at times. But it does get old at times. I think programs like I mentioned only reinforce the views, already held views people who watch these programs had already.

 

[Linc]

I don't know about power pols, but I probably am based into reality too much as I problably would rank President Obama as number 1, Reid number 2 and Speaker Boehner in the third slot although he doesn't seem to have control of the members of his own party. From there it becomes a jumble.

Your input was helpful..That was my original
I believe these rankings tells us PMA..
3..So, I moved House/Cantor to #2, Senate/Reid to #3, House/Boehner gaining to #4..
Then I have #5 SCOTUS/Roberts , #6 Senate/McConnell, #7 House/P. Ryan, #8 Media/Limbaugh #9 Banks/Koch #10 USA Polls #11 House/Pelosi #12 Senate/Schumer

 

[Perotista]

Guests on these shows who are allowed to speak without getting trampled on are good..
I like Steele..And any House or Senate member is worth listening to that is a player..
You know I love Coburn's quips, even if I don't agree..
I tell you, dismissing his plan 2 years ago, the 'Grand Bargain' so to speak, was a huge ****up.
O'Reilly was out front against this strategy from the start..
Matthews is better at 6:00 my time.

I use to watch Chris Matthews and Bill O'Riely all the time. But over the years I just got tired of both of them. you're right about Colburn's plan and do not forget Conrad's attempt to do away with agencies that were doing the same job with the same responsibilities. Neither was paid any attention.

 

[Perotista]

Your input was helpful..That was my original
I believe these rankings tells us PMA..
3..So, I moved House/Cantor to #2, Senate/Reid to #3, House/Boehner gaining to #4..
Then I have #5 SCOTUS/Roberts , #6 Senate/McConnell, #7 House/P. Ryan, #8 Media/Limbaugh #9 Banks/Koch #10 USA Polls #11 House/Pelosi #12 Senate/Schumer

Not a bad list. Banks, you might have to add corporations/Wall Street as an entity and not just banks. Those are the folks who donate their millions for favors in the future with legislation, tax breaks, contracts etc. You would be surprised by the number of corporations and wall street firms that donate to both parties. Incumbents always get the most money regardless of party and then some money to the challenger just to cover their butts incase the challenger wins. Then regardless, both incumbent and challenger will owe them.

 

[jonny5]

Yep.. and that's exactly what Medicaid does and other social programs... you are a US citizen are you not? Would not Medicaid be there for you if you needed it? Yep it would be.

Medicare and social security are even more directly insurance programs. And they are not failing.. they ran Billions and billions of dollars in surplus up until 2010 for social security and 2005-2006 (depending on accounting) for Medicare. Billions and Billions of dollars. That money was converted into government bonds... and then spent... Now that the IOU's are due.. suddenly, we all want to forget our responsibilities and call it an "entitlement program" and claim "its broke"... only because everyone was completely happy when it was running surpluses and they could use those surpluses like their own personal piggy bank for all sorts of things from tax cuts and credits, to subsidies to expansion of medicare and so on.

I no longer consider myself a citizen, no. And you ought to read the reports on these failing entitlements.

Social Security’s Disability Insurance (DI) program satisfies neither the Trustees’ long-range test of close actuarial balance nor their short-range test of financial adequacy and faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period

The Trustees project that the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund will be the next to face depletion after the DI Trust Fund. The projected date of HI Trust Fund depletion is 2026

Trustees Report Summary

Those IOUs you speak of are owed by the federal govt which is also broke.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

The shutdown is good fiscal policy. Here is my logic: The shutdown forces the reality of what we would do without certain departments. If things gets really bad without that department or it strikes a nerve with the public it will become clearer that we might need to keep that department. If nobody knows that a particular department is shutdown this would act as a pretty good sign that department needs to be eliminated from the FY-2015 budget. The shutdown gives the government valuable insight into what priorities the public find important. There are some true conservatives that would love to chop everything in sight. This shutdown gives these conservatives input that would be impossible obtain by any other means. It puts it into reality instead of theory or whiny BS stories. We can see what really hurts and what really doesn't matter. It keeps true conservatives from getting carried away when administering cuts.

Defaulting on the debt is good fiscal policy. So far I haven't heard anybody say this out loud. When you default on the debt your ability to borrow is reduced. Higher interest rates eliminates the reality of easy borrowing. In an extreme case it could eliminate the ability to borrow altogether. This forces government to rely on taxation to fund the government. Funding government with taxation instead of debt protects the value of the dollar. Individuals have to admit they are bankrupt when they are bankrupt. If they keep denying it, the situation keeps getting worse and worse. The federal government has spent more than it has brought in for 55 out of the last 60 years. That's bankrupt. Unless somebody else has a better observation of what being bankrupt looks like. It is better to repair a bad situation on purpose than to have it forced upon you. We should deal with this now. It's much better than dealing with it later. We can still be honest and pay our debtors. We just have to ask them to work with us while we get our house in order. Millions of households have done this, many companies have done this and many state and local governments have been through this process as well. It isn't a disaster it just changes things for a while until the spending problem or income problem is remedied. We need to stop paying our bills until we can afford to pay them. I suggest raising taxes but some may suggest this is not a conservative solution. I think it is.

vasuderatorrent

 

[jaeger19]

Hard to say without all the facts, of which I doubt you and I are very well read on the intricacies of his 1954 campaign. Considering there's a fair bit of assertion that his actions were politically motivated, rather than truly believing it's what was right. As such, I can't honestly answer the question.

But nice try at attempting to grab something emotionally charged and acting like pleas to emotion trump logic or reasoning.

Now that's funny. You are the one making pleas based on emotion. You are the one justifying actions that you know to be irresponsible and illogical... because "they are standing on principle"...

I just pointed out the illogic in that by using the example of Faubus. He thought he was standing by his principles too.

You are the one trying to argue that its okay to be illogical, and reckless, as long as you BELEIVE you are doing the right thing....emotion trumping logic or reason.

 

[Comunitee]

Guests on these shows who are allowed to speak without getting trampled on are good..
I like Steele..And any House or Senate member is worth listening to that is a player..
You know I love Coburn's quips, even if I don't agree..
I tell you, dismissing his plan 2 years ago, the 'Grand Bargain' so to speak, was a huge ****up.
O'Reilly was out front against this strategy from the start..
Matthews is better at 6:00 my time.

There are a few conservatives I liked to read, mainly because they wrote so well. Some of them even had a sense of humor.

Sadly, most of them are dead now, and have been replaced by men (and, in a few cases, women) whose intellect and writing skill mark them out as midgets by comparison.

Exhibits A and B: Irving Kristol (now dead) was a very good writer, while his son William Kristol is just a partisan hack; Norman Podhoretz (still alive but I haven't seen anything from him for a while) is a very good writer, with a little humor, while his son John Podhoretz is a humorless boor.

 

[Linc]

There are a few conservatives I liked to read, mainly because they wrote so well. Some of them even had a sense of humor.

I would choose Krauthammer lately after he laced Cruz and Lee..Evans and Novak were good in their day..

 

[Comunitee]

Now that's funny. You are the one making pleas based on emotion. You are the one justifying actions that you know to be irresponsible and illogical... because "they are standing on principle"...

I just pointed out the illogic in that by using the example of Faubus. He thought he was standing by his principles too.

You are the one trying to argue that its okay to be illogical, and reckless, as long as you BELEIVE you are doing the right thing....emotion trumping logic or reason.

Principles. They are important. But they don't always help. I've seen what people who call themselves "true conservatives" call "conservative principles," and in practice, they always end up hurting more people than they help.

 

[jaeger19]

Nope. Everybody's allowed to do it, and everybody's allowed to call such worthless attempts at debate out for what they are. It's the same principle as why pulling a "Godwin" is problematic, because its' basically hoping that the emotional attachment of what you're talking about will cover up the fact that you have a ****ty argument.

A person can absolutely do a horrible, disgusting, small minded action for principled reasons. The poster was hoping that latching onto someone who did such a horrible, disgusting, small minded thing would tweak the emotional buttons enough for me to relent because he couldn't actually counter the argument I put forth. Nothing about being "principled" requires that ones actions be universally viewed as good...it requires only that the person is acting based on a strong belief of what's right and wrong.

Nope.. I didn't want to you relent.. in fact I was kind of hoping you would do exactly what you did... follow your own logic to its ridiculous conclusion... that its "principled" to do "horrible disgusting and small minded actions".. as long as you believe in a "sense of right and wrong"...

Whether you have the capacity to understand just how wrong you are is debatable.. but regardless.. you have hoisted yourself by your own petard.

 

[Comunitee]

I would choose Krauthammer lately after he laced Cruz and Lee..Evans and Novak were good in their day..

There were times when I enjoyed Bob Novak, although I can't remember ever seeing Rowland Evans on TV. William Safire was a particular favorite of mine. Witness this exchange in the leadup to the 1994 elections, from Meet the Press:

Tim Russert: "Jesse Helms. Strom Thurmond. Orrin Hatch. Alan Simpson. Al D'Amato. These men would be chairmen of Senate committees. Is that a good thing?"

Safire: "Certainly. Take Strom Thurmond: How many men in public life do you know that can look at Deng Xiaoping and call him 'Sonny'?"

Everybody laughed. But at the end of the segment, Safire got (sort of) serious:

Russert: "If the Republicans win both houses of Congress, they'll have to govern!"

Safire, smiling: "What a wonderful thing."

Safire lived long enough to see Obama elected, but not long enough to see Obamacare enacted into law, and not really long enough to see the Tea Party take hold of the GOP.

 

[Comunitee]

Nope.. I didn't want to you relent.. in fact I was kind of hoping you would do exactly what you did... follow your own logic to its ridiculous conclusion... that its "principled" to do "horrible disgusting and small minded actions".. as long as you believe in a "sense of right and wrong"...

Whether you have the capacity to understand just how wrong you are is debatable.. but regardless.. you have hoisted yourself by your own petard.

In another forum, I had a discussion earlier with a guy who's so far to the right he makes you look like Hubert Humphrey, and he said, "I'm a guy who believes in right and wrong." So I asked him why he always ends up on the wrong side? His answer was to call me a pathetic leftist. That's about as substantive as he ever gets.

 

[Mithros]

Great thought, except that I was referring the "on-budget" number, (again, I refer to table 1.1)

Historical Tables | The White House

which does not include Social Security. If you include SS, then the government surpluses were as high as 1/4 billion.

Interesting, however, is that most Cons include the SS surplus when they try to tell you the Bush tax cuts worked. Of course, you pull the SS surplus out of the analysis and you see hoe the Bush tax cuts contributed greatly to the big deficits we\\ are currently running,

Check out the receipts by source. They include SS and Medicare.