So who do you think it positioned to be on stage come election night?

Sure Hillary is set for the Dems but you never know if someone else could surprise her like Obama did in '08. There are a number of sleeper Dems who have potential but they won't have any money...perhaps.

BENGHAZZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. God that's going to be tiring...

On the GOP side you have a bunch of Tea Party crack pots raising a lot of money but who don't have a chance in hell, that guy from NJ who could have some splaining and a few young guns who have potential but can't seem to find their voice... ironically in a party founded on the idea of the strength of the individual.

-spence

Did we mention this election is going to be about pot and gay people?

-spence

Judist Priest for prezzzzzzzz
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did we mention this election is going to be about pot and gay people?

-spence

And Tea Party "crackpots." Such a country. We get multi-trillions in debt, suck our freedoms down the a-hole of oppressive and incompetent government, and reduce our issues to sexual
"preference, pot-heads, and crackpots.

No wonder cretins and midgets like Putin and puppet-masters like China scare us.

Spence, you slay me.. my comment was going to be " Pot and gays"... its all about pot and gays now.. distract from the real issues of course.

I want John Stewart to run and I want his cabinet to be his script writers. This of course will happen after marijuana is legalized and everyone is too stoned to be serious any more.

it should be about POT ! and that's NO JOKE
the stigma and Brainwashing and Hippy Bashing must end!

the war on weed and subsequent prohibition has been a miserable
waste of tax payers dollars for more than a half century (trillion dollars)
based on false evidence that cannabis had NO medical applications

so it was scheduled a " 1" classification by Aslinger president Nixons az-hole
who was ORDERED to IGNORE the REPORT that Nixon ordered
which showed that it indeed has terrific medical properties.

This is the ONLY plant KNOWN to contain cannabinoids that
change a baby from having 300 seizures a day to NONE overnight.

Our own Body produces this substance and it is what controls
communication between Brain cells and to give it an analogy
it's like the spark that jumps the gap on a spark plug's electrode.

The Alcohol Industry and the Paper Industry
and also the pharmaceutical industry have
had a strangle hold on this nations throat for long enough.

ANY Farmer who wants to grow HEMP for fiber & seeds should
be allowed to do so as it's a VERY profitable crop with zero THC
in the end product that has absolutely nothing to do with drugs.

And Tea Party "crackpots." Such a country. We get multi-trillions in debt, suck our freedoms down the a-hole of oppressive and incompetent government, and reduce our issues to sexual
"preference, pot-heads, and crackpots.
Yep.

No wonder cretins and midgets like Putin and puppet-masters like China scare us.
I'm not scared by either. Their chicken's are coming home to roost...

-spence

But what if you were told that if you bought marijuana, you waived your rights to own a firearm. This could all be a ploy for massive gun control.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But what if you were told that if you bought marijuana, you waived your rights to own a firearm. This could all be a ploy for massive gun control.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wait till you need to buy a gun to protect your stash.

It's coming...

-spence

pretty funny...Spence referring to someone else as a "crack pot" :rotf2:

Spence, you slay me.. my comment was going to be " Pot and gays"... its all about pot and gays now.. distract from the real issues of course.

I want John Stewart to run and I want his cabinet to be his script writers.

OUCH.....

'Mr. Stewart is among the lowest forms of intellectual parasite in the political universe, with no particular insights or interesting ideas of his own, reliant upon the very broadest and least clever sort of humor, using ancient editing techniques to make clumsy or silly political statements sound worse than they are and then pantomiming outrage at the results, the lowbrow version of James Joyce giving the hero of Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man the unlikely name of Stephen Dedalus and then having other characters in the novel muse upon the unlikelihood of that name. His shtick is a fundamentally cowardly one, playing the sanctimonious vox populi when it suits him, and then beating retreat into “Hey, I’m just a comedian!” when he faces a serious challenge. It is the sort of thing that you can see appealing to bright, politically engaged 17-year-olds."

"Mr. Stewart is the leading voice of the half-bright Left because he is a master practitioner of the art of half-bright vitriolic denunciation. His intellectual biography is that of a consummate lightweight — a William and Mary frat boy who majored in psychology, which must have been a disappointment to his father, a professor of physics — and his comedy career has been strictly by-the-numbers, from the early days on the New York City comedy-club scene to changing his name (Mr. Stewart began life as Mr. Leibowitz) and a career-boosting stint on MTV, where he was second only to Beavis and Butt-Head in the ratings. He subsequently may have matched Beavis and Butt-Head’s popularity, but he has never risen to comparable heights of social insight."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/372901/print

OUCH.....

'Mr. Stewart is among the lowest forms of intellectual parasite in the political universe, with no particular insights or interesting ideas of his own, reliant upon the very broadest and least clever sort of humor, using ancient editing techniques to make clumsy or silly political statements sound worse than they are and then pantomiming outrage at the results, the lowbrow version of James Joyce giving the hero of Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man the unlikely name of Stephen Dedalus and then having other characters in the novel muse upon the unlikelihood of that name. His shtick is a fundamentally cowardly one, playing the sanctimonious vox populi when it suits him, and then beating retreat into “Hey, I’m just a comedian!” when he faces a serious challenge. It is the sort of thing that you can see appealing to bright, politically engaged 17-year-olds."

"Mr. Stewart is the leading voice of the half-bright Left because he is a master practitioner of the art of half-bright vitriolic denunciation. His intellectual biography is that of a consummate lightweight — a William and Mary frat boy who majored in psychology, which must have been a disappointment to his father, a professor of physics — and his comedy career has been strictly by-the-numbers, from the early days on the New York City comedy-club scene to changing his name (Mr. Stewart began life as Mr. Leibowitz) and a career-boosting stint on MTV, where he was second only to Beavis and Butt-Head in the ratings. He subsequently may have matched Beavis and Butt-Head’s popularity, but he has never risen to comparable heights of social insight."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/372901/print
Vapid.

-spence

Vapid.

-spence

ZZZZZZZ . . . that was well thought out . . . even a vapor minded Jon Stewart could have done better . . .

There could have been some punch and less of a sour taste with a
"yo mama wear combat boots" than your stale, lifeless "vapid".

Lets just hope that whoever it is can speak some shred of truth and be held accountable for his/her mistakes and lies.
It doesn't matter who runs as long as the public at large are misinformed .
Sad when the party for the " working people " rely on those that don't to keep them I'm office .
Their chickens are coming home to roost.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I remember when I was a freshman in high school, barely. We had to find people to run for class officers we were told. I looked at a buddy of mine, his nickname was pig. I said (blank) should run. Nobody objected. Well pig for president became the hue and cry of the majority of the freshman, because the "pig" was elected. It wasn't ridicule to do what we did, but it was prophetic, and afterall it was 1965. It was easy as one, two, three. Deval Patrick says no, but he is really saying yes, trying to push Hillary politely aside by riding on Air Force One with President shuck and jive, who is more akin to an educated street urchin that woke up one day living in the White House. Everytime he walks to the podium he has the accentuated shoulder fade from right to left then back to center. Who we put into the White House gets worse and worse every fours years from my perspective, democrat or republican, and I dont see any change compentency-wise coming anytime in the near future. The whole political process is just as absurd as getting "pig" elected president of our freshman class in high school.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BENGHAZZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. God that's going to be tiring...

Four lives and a complete lack of accountability should be dismissed.How tiring it must be for you just let that slide.

You got to look at the big picture
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You got to look at the big picture
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The big picture is created by details. Looking at the big picture is an inspection of those details. By dismissing or overlooking details, the big picture is not much better than a lie.

And when details are misrepresented, twisted, contorted into lies, than the big picture is full lf lies.

And when the big picture is a concoction of details that intentionally paint a picture that doesn't or didn't exist, it is a fiction.

And when the fiction is made, not to amuse or entertain, but to persuade, it IS a lie.

And if the picture, the information on which we must vote, is a lie. then we are not only looking through a glass darkly, we are swindled into voting against ourselves. We are manipulated into our own societal demise.

Orwell warned us about the big lie. But that is old news.

How many Americans died in American embassies when bush was president?
Speaking of the big lie. How is the search for weapons of mass distraction going?
The GOP is grasping at Benghazi like it's the knot at the end of their rope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Speaking of the big lie. How is the search for weapons of mass distraction going? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty good,they're exactly where they were supposed to be...Syria.

I've never even met you and you're one of the smartest people I know and it blows my mind you could even question where those weapons came from and then subsequently went.

And what really kills me is the US is cleaning this mess up on taxpayer dollars.Replace the N in UN with an S and that's where the $ comes from.

How many Americans died in American embassies when bush was president?

There were several attacks on embassies under Bush's watch. Several people were killed, but the internet searches I made, other than a couple of left wing blogs, didn't claim any of them were Americans. Several said no Americans were killed. But that's beside the point. There were no cover-ups or lies about those embassy attacks. Why the Obama administration lied about Benhazi is the question more than who died. And could something have been done to prevent those deaths?

Speaking of the big lie. How is the search for weapons of mass distraction going?

There is no evidence that Bush intentionally lied. There is solid evidence that Obama administration knew the story they fabricated was not true. Besides, check with Spence. I'm sure he'll tell you the Bush stuff is old news. Talk about ZZZZZZZZZZZZ tiresome--geese, were still on the Bush did it crap. And that, true or mostly untrue, is supposed to make it OK for Obama to lie? That's goofy. What difference, at this point, does Bush make?!?

The GOP is grasping at Benghazi like it's the knot at the end of their rope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or, the Dems are desperately trying to keep the knot from tightening around their neck. But it's not sticking, anyway, so don't be so concerned about it.

Seriously, the big government lie is to be condemned no matter who it is that tells it. No? Deflecting by pointing to the other guy just gets us further along a path to our own subjugation.

BENGHAZZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. God that's going to be tiring...



-spence

You forgot to add how coming from Chicago and Arkansas she claimed
having always been a Yankee fan since a kid when running for NY Senate,yes and all that sniper fire she endured and how she will be remembered for
pushing the infamous Re Set Button as Secretary of State. :hihi:

Pretty good,they're exactly where they were supposed to be...Syria.

I've never even met you and you're one of the smartest people I know and it blows my mind you could even question where those weapons came from and then subsequently went.

And what really kills me is the US is cleaning this mess up on taxpayer dollars.Replace the N in UN with an S and that's where the $ comes from.

Awe.. thanks Basswipe. Sure.. Saddam trucked it all out before we got there... but my point is that the whole weapons of mass destruction fiasco was nothing more than a coined term to push a crooked agenda. I forget the phrase that Himmler used to justify the Nazi conquest, but it goes something like " People will never catch on to your big lie if you feed them a bunch of little lies to distract them"..

Sure Democrats are not perfect and i am sure that as i get older i will follow winston churchill's advice- that when you are young, you are a liberal because you have a heart.. but as you get older you become a conservative because you have a brain.. ;) That said, my brain catches a lot of BS on both sides. More so with the GOP....

I was a bit wrong.. not Himmler, but Goebbels.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

And to end my rant.. fueled by Dales Pale Ale..... We are all duped by the greatest of the big lies.. that YOUR party represents YOU.. BS... Both parties represent Corporations first and foremost. This country has never been more divided politically, which in my opinion has been created by corporate owned media ( cable news networks). We are so distracted by proving which party is better that the Corporations, the 1% and who ever is really pulling the strings are laughing themselves to the bank. :fury:

Republicans and Democrats..are all bought and paid for. Corruption in the form of political donations and favors by lobbyists. :uhuh:

burp.

QUOTE=Nebe;1034811]I was a bit wrong.. not Himmler, but Goebbels.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945[/QUOTE]

:claps: Great quote. And this is what I was getting at when I responded to your post about the big picture. And I certainly wasn't talking about Democrat/Republican, but the big picture full of lies--regardless of which party is telling the lies. And it is this big picture, created by political spin (lies) and media complicity or stupidity that is presented to us as the basis on which we vote. The vote is our most powerful weapon against our subjugation by the State. And if we are too busy, or too loyal to a party to seek the truth, and vote on the basis of the big picture constantly spun before our eyes, we become complicit in our own devolution into tyranny.

Both major parties practice their own brand of propaganda. I think the progressives have mastered spin technique having used it and honed it for nearly a hundred years. I think they're so good at it that they fool themselves. The Republicans are catching up, in order to survive--so that the ultimate difference between the two is shrinking. The Nazi political machine was an ultimate master of the big lie, topped, probably by the Soviets. Despots learn from each other. Our modern American despots have learned how to soften the message and the technique of rule in order to appeal to a more diverse populace. It would be impossible to make their message appeal to all the different factions, so, as Goebbels said, it is necessary to lie, and to suppress dissent. And to repeat the lies often enough so that they will be believed.

Alinsky had some good tips on suppressing dissent, including ridicule. It is such a common practice now to ridicule or demonize those who don't follow party lines, and most people have been politically and historically dumbed down to believe the lies, that the ridicule is perceived, instantly without question as being true. There are few great discussions on issues, policies, our form of government, which go beyond peremptory clichés to the true heart of the matter, for, as Goebbels said, truth is the mortal enemy of lies and so the greatest enemy of the State.

Through this long process of spin/lies/propaganda to which we have been subjected for a century, we have been transformed from a republic which depended on a free, independent, virtuous, and diverse people with virtuous leaders to a State using the big lie to persuade us that we are dependent on it; and when it says diversity it really intends uniformity; and when it says liberty it means direction by and permission of the State.

Like all the post-imperial despots, our modern guys are truly, or so they started, desirous of making life better for all, and must be authoritarian for the good of all. The masses are not capable enough, or smart enough, or in many, if not most cases, too ignorant to rule themselves. And the contemporary ruling class is composed of those few who are blessed with the wisdom, intelligence, competence (or they took the right courses) to prescribe how the rest of us live.

They are a new hybrid of oligarchy which requires our complacence and admiration, as well as acquiescence.

So when various "kooks," "crackpots," "extremists," "racists," etc., are so labeled, such as Tea Partiers, become too influential in exposing the lies and failures of our ruling class, they are ridiculed with those labels. And there needs to be no discussion about the truth of the matter. They become an enemy of the State.

And to end my rant.. fueled by Dales Pale Ale..... We are all duped by the greatest of the big lies.. that YOUR party represents YOU.. BS... Both parties represent Corporations first and foremost. This country has never been more divided politically, which in my opinion has been created by corporate owned media ( cable news networks). We are so distracted by proving which party is better that the Corporations, the 1% and who ever is really pulling the strings are laughing themselves to the bank. :fury:

Republicans and Democrats..are all bought and paid for. Corruption in the form of political donations and favors by lobbyists. :uhuh:

burp.

The growth in size and influence of corporations has been mirrored by that of the Federal government. They pretty much go hand in hand. It's difficult at times to know which drives who. But the ball mostly got rolling initially by government (with good intentions, of course). The rise of large corporations in the latter part of the 19th century was of two classes. There was the class of corporation that grew in size and wealth by competition. This was the class which was successful and had staying power. Members of this class were too successful for those whom it outclassed. They were mistakenly labeled "robber barons." The other class was fueled by government subsidy and regulation.

The so-called "robber barons" were not without fault, and benefited by some regulation, but they were mostly regulated against rather than for. They actually created the great surge of economic power which fueled America's rise as a force of world power. Their efforts had tremendous impact also on the rise in American's standard of living. But they were so well managed by sound economic principles and business innovation that it simply wasn't fair to others who couldn't keep up.

The other class of corporations needed government intervention on their behalf as well as government subsidies. Even with that they were not ultimately successful, and fell into the dust bin of forgotten history, except for some hangers on such as railroads which could not exist, as they are, without government subsidy. But that nexus between government and corporations, as well, eventually, between government and everything and everyone else, was maintained and flourishes now as crony capitalism and cradle to grave programs for everyone else (social and corporate welfare). Burton Folsom's book "The Myth of the Robber Barons" is a good read on the subject.

The "robber barons" were portrayed by journalists and activists of a social justice stripe as greedy self-serving rapists of society. In actuality, though they were sticklers for profit, they were generous to society not only in the wealth they created and spread, but as well by their private charitable contributions and foundations. They also funded libraries and educational institutions as well a many other things.

Being a freer country then, it was easier (though not easy) for entrepreneurs to create, compete, and contribute, than it is today. The connection with government is absolutely necessary to achieve the size and scope of the modern corporation. It may seem that corporations own the government, but government ultimately has the upper hand. The Federal Government has been loosed from its old constitutional limitations, and so long as it can convince the mass of voters that it acts in their interest, and that it will make those one percenters and the lesser "wealthy" pay "their fair share," it can wield too much power for corporations to do much other than lobby. So the pay-offs go both ways: corporations to government, and government favors (regulations/crony capitalism) to corporations. In the meantime, even though the government is supposedly working for the little guy, the income gap widens. One of those little details in the big picture that we should overlook. The big lie has it covered.

The system has evolved from a bottom up republic to a centralized top down fairly unitary State. The centralization of influence, economic and political, especially political, has grown and emerged into a symbiotic relationship. The so-called middle class is shrinking as power and money shifts to the top and those at the bottom are subsidized into dependence. As Spence would say, it has all become interwoven.

And we are told it is for our own good . No need to rant. That would be considered extreme. Enjoy your Dale's Pale. This is the best of all possible worlds. And if you see a crackpot Tea Partier passing by, give him the finger or throw the empty bottle in his direction.

The growth in size and influence of corporations has been mirrored by that of the Federal government. They pretty much go hand in hand. It's difficult at times to know which drives who. But the ball mostly got rolling initially by government (with good intentions, of course).

And we are told it is for our own good . No need to rant. That would be considered extreme. Enjoy your Dale's Pale. This is the best of all possible worlds. And if you see a crackpot Tea Partier passing by, give him the finger or throw the empty bottle in his direction.

"In the elite view the problem is the people. We should dissolve the people and elect another.

Of course. Liberals believe that the only way for their kind -- the creative, educated, evolved kind -- to make the world a better place is for the middle class to be defeated. That's certainly what the liberals in Fred Siegel's Revolt Against the Masses all seem to think.

But suppose the opposite is true, that the problem is not the people but the political elite?

Never mind, say the liberals. We, the creative class, the compassionate class, are needed to come like gods among men to protect the traditionally marginalized from the rape of corporate greed.

But when things go wrong these creative intellectuals, these gods among men, are nowhere to be found.

Oh no, they cry. The backward people are getting lured into nationalism. Oh no! Look at the “growing size of the state” and debt-fueled entitlements! What's wrong with democracy?

What you must not do, liberals, is continue to appeal over the heads of the middle class to the people of the collective self, the people that haven't yet learned the trick of life and work in the city. Someday your grandchildren, if you have any, will admit that every direct appeal of the creative class to the lower orders has ended up a disaster, from special privileges for labor unions to government education to business regulation to entitlements to socialism. Why? Because all these ideas are pre-modern, pre-individualist, and negate the idea of personal responsibility.

You see, liberals, a world without personal responsibility is not a Kumbaya world of fuzzy collective consensus. It is a world wrenched back in time to the rule of the patriarch or its modern derivative, the charismatic lightbringer. In the age of cities, science, markets, commerce, it fails every time it's been tried.

But you liberals are educated. You already knew that."

http://www.americanthinker.com/assets/3rd_party/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/liberals_you_are_to_blame.html

Republicans and Democrats..are all bought and paid for. Corruption in the form of political donations and favors by lobbyists. :uhuh:

burp.

if you truly believe this and what you quoted from Goebbels.... the solution is not to continue to grow the size, scope and cost of government, the solution is to reduce the size, scope and cost of government and return it to it's original and enumerated duties powers and making fewer dependent on it's largess....you should join the Tea Party :uhuh:

... but my point is that the whole weapons of mass destruction fiasco was nothing more than a coined term to push a crooked agenda. ....

I agree...:uhuh:

that was the short list...my favorite...prescient:uhuh:

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

I can't believe you just posted that.

-spence

Sounds like Bush was bamboozled by the Democrats lies.

I can't believe you just posted that.

-spence

Don't like tasting your medicine?

Don't like tasting your medicine?

You didn't type that with a straight face did you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, I can't believe you posted that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fairly obvious who will win. The ultra wealthy and anyone on the governments payroll.

As far as who the individual is? Ask Oprah
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds about right
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hope you guys realize that all your hard work is probably being copied and pasted by some industrious kid in various college classes and is being used for reaction papers or mid-terms, maybe even term paper if he really worked at editing a little.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hope you guys realize that all your hard work is probably being refuted by ScottW who copied and pasted links by some industrious kid in various college classes and is being used for reaction papers or mid-terms, maybe even term paper if he really worked at editing a little.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


:hihi:

I can't believe you just posted that.

-spence

what he said....

"You seem to be so immersed in progressive status quo that nothing else can creep into your perception of possibility. "

:love:

I'm not sure Hilary is beatable in 2016.

Spence, "that guy in NJ" is a hard-line economic right winger who got elected in NJ, then got re-elected in a landslide. No small feat. You can dismiss him as "that guy" if it makes you feel good.

Republicans will continue to struggle in presidential elections, it's challenging when every TV station except for one spends 23 hours a day demonizing a single Republican candidate. This will continue until people are forced to realize what SS and Medicare are doing to our future, and I predict an economic collapse that is bad enough that no one can say with a straight face that the liberals were right and the conservatives were wrong. That could well be the death of liberalism, depending on the level of pain. When our unfunded liabilities, which we need to deal with before the Baby Boomers are gone, is measured in the tens of trillions, it ain't going to be pretty.

Check you calendars...before 2016, is 2014. There is a reason why Spence wants to leapfrog past 2014 and talk about 2016. Republicans will continue to do well in midterms, because the media can't effectively demonize hundreds of Republicans running for Congress across the country. In 2010, when Obamacare was just a theory, the Democrats took a drubbing. Now it's real, and it's a disaster.

Yesterday in Florida, a special election was held to fill a vacant house seat. This was a district that Obama carried in 2012. The Republican candidate was out-spent by his opponent, who was a well-known Democrat in FL. The Republican candidate beat the Obamacare drum. He won. That is sending shivers down the spine of every Democrat who will be seriously contested in November.

The Democrats are really going to get their asses kicked in 2014. Those running in blue states will say of Obamacare, "mend it don't end it". Democrats running in purple and red states will say of Obamacare, "never heard of it". It's not going to work.

The GOP will pick up seats in both the House and Senate, not sure if they'll take the Senate, that's a tall order. But if you look at who's up for re-election (way more Dems than Republicans), it just couldn't be better timing for the people Spence dismisses as "the crackpots".

What is an honest summary of the tea party agenda...fiscal responsibility, small federal government, individual liberty, free market capitalism, strong national defense, sanctity of human life. I don't see why any of that is controversial. Now, the tea party has produced some god-awful candidates, and they need to figure that out.

I'm not sure Hilary is beatable in 2016.

Spence, "that guy in NJ" is a hard-line economic right winger who got elected in NJ, then got re-elected in a landslide. No small feat. You can dismiss him as "that guy" if it makes you feel good.

Republicans will continue to struggle in presidential elections, it's challenging when every TV station except for one spends 23 hours a day demonizing a single Republican candidate. This will continue until people are forced to realize what SS and Medicare are doing to our future, and I predict an economic collapse that is bad enough that no one can say with a straight face that the liberals were right and the conservatives were wrong. That could well be the death of liberalism, depending on the level of pain. When our unfunded liabilities, which we need to deal with before the Baby Boomers are gone, is measured in the tens of trillions, it ain't going to be pretty.

Check you calendars...before 2016, is 2014. There is a reason why Spence wants to leapfrog past 2014 and talk about 2016. Republicans will continue to do well in midterms, because the media can't effectively demonize hundreds of Republicans running for Congress across the country. In 2010, when Obamacare was just a theory, the Democrats took a drubbing. Now it's real, and it's a disaster.

Yesterday in Florida, a special election was held to fill a vacant house seat. This was a district that Obama carried in 2012. The Republican candidate was out-spent by his opponent, who was a well-known Democrat in FL. The Republican candidate beat the Obamacare drum. He won. That is sending shivers down the spine of every Democrat who will be seriously contested in November.

The Democrats are really going to get their asses kicked in 2014. Those running in blue states will say of Obamacare, "mend it don't end it". Democrats running in purple and red states will say of Obamacare, "never heard of it". It's not going to work.

The GOP will pick up seats in both the House and Senate, not sure if they'll take the Senate, that's a tall order. But if you look at who's up for re-election (way more Dems than Republicans), it just couldn't be better timing for the people Spence dismisses as "the crackpots".

What is an honest summary of the tea party agenda...fiscal responsibility, small federal government, individual liberty, free market capitalism, strong national defense, sanctity of human life. I don't see why any of that is controversial. Now, the tea party has produced some god-awful candidates, and they need to figure that out.

Good post Jim. :uhuh:

What is an honest summary of the tea party agenda...fiscal responsibility, small federal government, individual liberty, free market capitalism, strong national defense, sanctity of human life. I don't see why any of that is controversial.

Great summary Jim. I can't see how anyone with common sense
would want to live any other way.

The way I see it, with this nation so divided, each party is going to attract candidates that stand for their parties stance. So.. The greater the polarity, the more extreme the party will be. I believe that scott is right.. I am a tea bagger at heart.. But the problem I have with the tea party leaders is that they are as Jim says.. God aweful.

This country is broken...Polarized... And un-repairable without serious and I mean serious austerity, which will never happen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This country is broken...Polarized... And un-repairable without serious and I mean serious austerity, which will never happen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree Nebe, serious austerity is needed now and the longer we wait the harder it will be, if at all possible. There is no reason why we need our noses wiped by anyone, unless we are truly helpless. Everyone needs to have skin in the game for an austerity program to work.

Unfortunately we are dealing with a ME Generation that is not willing to give up anything except hard work and sacrifice. I doubt there is any government agency that couldn't give up 10% of their budget if it was managed properly. That would be a good start.

Yes. But do you know who the biggest recipients for welfare are in this country? Corporations.... ;).
Sure. Cut government by 20%. Raise taxes on corporations by 10%. Ohhhhhhh wait!!! I'm now a liberal commie for saying we should raise taxes.
See this is unrepairable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes. But do you know who the biggest recipients for welfare are in this country? Corporations.... ;).
Sure. Cut government by 20%. Raise taxes on corporations by 10%. Ohhhhhhh wait!!! I'm now a liberal commie for saying we should raise taxes.
See this is unrepairable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So get rid of corporate welfare. That will, in effect, be equivalent to raising taxes on corporations. And also by eliminating various other projects of the Federal Government (cutting government by X%) that will also, in effect, be equivalent to raising taxes. Both eliminations will leave a huge surplus of what is now collected in taxes to go toward fiscal responsibility and lowering the debt. And will spur a huge increase of competition in business and productivity in labor. So you'll have the equivalence of your preferred "liberal" taxing method of austerity, yet be true to your "Tea Party" self.

The way I see it, with this nation so divided, each party is going to attract candidates that stand for their parties stance. So.. The greater the polarity, the more extreme the party will be. I believe that scott is right.. I am a tea bagger at heart.. But the problem I have with the tea party leaders is that they are as Jim says.. God aweful.

This country is broken...Polarized... And un-repairable without serious and I mean serious austerity, which will never happen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think if you were to attempt to name the "god-awful" Tea Party candidates, the list would be quite short, they'd be those that the media focused on intensely casting a shadow over the entire Tea Party effort in certain races and they most likely lost their races, which means they aren't in Washington doing harm....many "outstanding" candidates from both parties get elected and turn out to be "god awful" legislators and governors....then get re-elected for decades..I can name quite a few...can you name a "Tea Party leader" or two? and explain why exactly they are "god-awful"....I'm just curious to know exactly who it is that you find so much worse than the existing "god-awful" entrenched legislators and governors...it seems to me that the candidates for the most part, who were supported by various Tea party organizations that were successful in getting elected have been the enemy of both parties in Washington as well as the media exactly because they've insisted on holding the line on spending accountability and have been working against the establishment in that regard...for that they are demonized by the establishment and it's allies...and I believe they are the only "group" that can claim to be fighting for the things that many will tell you are wrong with the current system

I'd also suggest that the average "god-awful" candidate is most likely someone like you or me....the "outstanding" candidate is most likely a product of the corrupt system with all of the connections, media savy, ability to lie and deceive on a dime in front of the spotlight and during the pressure of a campaign...I think we have a Washington full of those, not sure why Jim thinks the Tea party should be looking for those....

the "ideal" candidate would be someone who understands and will reflect the concerns and needs on the different issues of the people that they want to be elected by, has some measure of honesty and integrity and considers their time in Washington or State office or local to be a privilege rather than an opportunity for self enrichment and is not beholden to special interests of the various kind to the extent that they will compromise their principles to fulfill the wishes of those special interests....sadly...few of those exist I think and those skills and qualities do not make for a "good" candidate in our current state of affairs...we choose candidates that are outside of the establishment like sports teams draft talent, you do your best to locate and promote someone with ability and skills who has had success at the previous level or in another endeavour, but you never know how they will hold up under the bright lights in the big game or during the rigors of a political campaign particularly going from local to national and you don't always know what they've said and/or done in the past or what they will say or do that may seized on by media and political rivals....it's a crap shoot many times, there are a lot of Heisman Trophy winners who never amounted to anything in the NFL and there are many who will never get beyond state and local races, but not because they don't have the ability or talent as in the sports analogy but because the skill set necessary to climb the ladder has little to do with their ability to govern or legislate and everything to do with their ability to project a superficial cult of personality and a willingness to follow a party line and conform to the desires of the special interests that fund their climb....they succeed or fail based on how the media judges their performance and on factors that have little to do with their abilities and everything to do with the ability and willingness to follow one party line or another...those that don't comply and display reverence for the corrupt system are labeled all sorts of things by the media and the establishment.... "crack pots"

I'm not sure Hilary is beatable in 2016.
That will be the excuse running up into the election to ensure expectations are set as low as is possible. If the GOP can't articulate their message and simply runs against the ACA they will lose.

Spence, "that guy in NJ" is a hard-line economic right winger who got elected in NJ, then got re-elected in a landslide. No small feat. You can dismiss him as "that guy" if it makes you feel good.
Christy isn't a "hard-line economic right winger". He's fiscally conservative but also willing to negotiate. In the eyes of his party that puts him on par with Che Guevara.

Republicans will continue to struggle in presidential elections, it's challenging when every TV station except for one spends 23 hours a day demonizing a single Republican candidate. This will continue until people are forced to realize what SS and Medicare are doing to our future, and I predict an economic collapse that is bad enough that no one can say with a straight face that the liberals were right and the conservatives were wrong. That could well be the death of liberalism, depending on the level of pain. When our unfunded liabilities, which we need to deal with before the Baby Boomers are gone, is measured in the tens of trillions, it ain't going to be pretty.
Yea, blame TV. It's not about a lack of ideas or collaborative spirit…it's about biased TV coverage :rotf2:

Keep beating that paper tiger.

Check you calendars...before 2016, is 2014. There is a reason why Spence wants to leapfrog past 2014 and talk about 2016. Republicans will continue to do well in midterms, because the media can't effectively demonize hundreds of Republicans running for Congress across the country. In 2010, when Obamacare was just a theory, the Democrats took a drubbing. Now it's real, and it's a disaster.
Who's leapfrogging anything? The GOP has a chance of picking up Senate seats primarily because so many blue states are up for grabs.

Ultimately it comes down to who shows up to vote, and the divisions within the GOP will likely keep many voters at home.


Yesterday in Florida, a special election was held to fill a vacant house seat. This was a district that Obama carried in 2012. The Republican candidate was out-spent by his opponent, who was a well-known Democrat in FL. The Republican candidate beat the Obamacare drum. He won. That is sending shivers down the spine of every Democrat who will be seriously contested in November.
Yes, the bellwether. Give me a break. For all your whining about the quality of news you sure are easily suckered into it.

This district was owned by a single republican for the past 4 decades. Jolly worked for Bill Young and ran as his successor. He was getting beat until outside cash helped him outspend the dem and eek out a narrow victory…that's going to be up for grabs again in November.

Really shivery stuff here.

The Democrats are really going to get their asses kicked in 2014. Those running in blue states will say of Obamacare, "mend it don't end it". Democrats running in purple and red states will say of Obamacare, "never heard of it". It's not going to work.

The GOP will pick up seats in both the House and Senate, not sure if they'll take the Senate, that's a tall order. But if you look at who's up for re-election (way more Dems than Republicans), it just couldn't be better timing for the people Spence dismisses as "the crackpots".
The message and tone of the Tea Party darlings is out of step with most of America. They are offensive to many Republicans. If I was making the odds I'd be looking at how the TP will divide the GOP...

What is an honest summary of the tea party agenda...fiscal responsibility, small federal government, individual liberty, free market capitalism, strong national defense, sanctity of human life. I don't see why any of that is controversial. Now, the tea party has produced some god-awful candidates, and they need to figure that out.
You left out the Tea Party's inability to process things like facts or reason. It's infatuation with contradiction and incoherence. That it's largely a corporate marketing phenomenon seeking not the best ideas but the most disruptive personalities.

The success of Tea Party candidates will likely be the primary factor if Hillary really is beatable or not.

-spence

Agree Nebe, serious austerity is needed now and the longer we wait the harder it will be, if at all possible. There is no reason why we need our noses wiped by anyone, unless we are truly helpless. Everyone needs to have skin in the game for an austerity program to work.

Unfortunately we are dealing with a ME Generation that is not willing to give up anything except hard work and sacrifice. I doubt there is any government agency that couldn't give up 10% of their budget if it was managed properly. That would be a good start.
Serious austerity has crippled many European economies. Federal spending like it or not has a big impact on GDP.

The bulk of this isn't nose wiping.

-spence

So get rid of corporate welfare. That will, in effect, be equivalent to raising taxes on corporations. And also by eliminating various other projects of the Federal Government (cutting government by X%) that will also, in effect, be equivalent to raising taxes. Both eliminations will leave a huge surplus of what is now collected in taxes to go toward fiscal responsibility and lowering the debt. And will spur a huge increase of competition in business and productivity in labor. So you'll have the equivalence of your preferred "liberal" taxing method of austerity, yet be true to your "Tea Party" self.
This is a challenge in a global economy where domestic industries are competing against companies often heavily subsidized by foreign governments. We're shackled by short-termism and shareholder value when China is working on decades long business plans.

It's messy.

-spence

Federal spending like it or not has a big impact on GDP.

The bulk of this isn't nose wiping.

-spence

It's a component of it...saying Federal Spending has a big impact on GDP is misleading.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Serious austerity has crippled many European economies.

-spence

What do you consder Serious austerity cuts, and what were the European cuts?

A 10% cut would no more then knock out waste and I doubt it would
cause them to miss a beat.

Meantime Obama wants our citizens to cut our budgets. As he statedto a group of young people, they could cut some of the $300 monthly costs for their cells/computers/ and cable in order to help pay for their Unaffordable Health Care!
Talk about a hypocrite.

This is a challenge in a global economy where domestic industries are competing against companies often heavily subsidized by foreign governments.

If we remove government subsidy and selective regulations, which favor preferred companies, from corporate structure and budgets, AND remove government "welfare" for labor (pro-labor regulations by NLRB), we will be much closer to a free competitive market. That would create an interesting contest between global government subsidized business and free market U.S. business.

The peculiar process of raising corporate costs imposed by government giving labor the power to inflict those costs, but then reimbursing corporations with corporate welfare merely creates an inflationary rise in the "economy" and a fake rise in GDP. The only winner being a more powerful and controlling government.

Remove the cost of corruptive manipulating government middle man, let market forces determine costs and prices, and I'd put my bet on U.S. corporations beating the socks off of subsidized and controlled foreign corps.

We're shackled by short-termism and shareholder value when China is working on decades long business plans.

It's messy.

-spence

The real short-termism is constant ad hoc government intrusion into and manipulation of the market for perceived immediate problems. True market forces ARE long term. Government manipulation outside of market forces is always a "now" fix and hope it works. That it usually doesn't is why the non-market fixes always have to be re-fixed and funded at greater levels and regulated further and further in micromanaged short term fixes.

Government fixes of that nature are always messy, full of fake rises in GDP, phony promises and compromises, a tangled web of lies and failed attempts which actually give government the illusory opportunity to present even more fixes.

So, are you saying China has gone from the traditional 5 year fixes that communism used to promise to decade fixes? Interesting how you put it--"China is working on decades long business plans." You so are stuck on the progressive ideology that it is government which must plan the commercial business of a nation.

If we remove government subsidy and selective regulations, which favor preferred companies, from corporate structure and budgets, AND remove government "welfare" for labor (pro-labor regulations by NLRB), we will be much closer to a free competitive market. That would create an interesting contest between global government subsidized business and free market U.S. business.
I guess I haven't considered the future of my children as an "interesting contest" but agree it would be interesting.

The long-term value proposition here may be if such action could accelerate global transformation towards a more free market. Would this offset potential short-term losses? What's really our endgame, to be true to an American-centric vision or transform others?

The peculiar process of raising corporate costs imposed by government giving labor the power to inflict those costs, but then reimbursing corporations with corporate welfare merely creates an inflationary rise in the "economy" and a fake rise in GDP. The only winner being a more powerful and controlling government.
But the raising of corporate costs often results in benefits for the consumer or workforce. Many corporate officers are certainly well intentioned stewards of their ship, but if history is any measure shareholder value is a difficult vice.

I don't see how this is a fake rise in GDP but perhaps a fake rise in shareholder value.

Remove the cost of corruptive manipulating government middle man, let market forces determine costs and prices, and I'd put my bet on U.S. corporations beating the socks off of subsidized and controlled foreign corps.The real short-termism is constant ad hoc government intrusion into and manipulation of the market for perceived immediate problems. True market forces ARE long term. Government manipulation outside of market forces is always a "now" fix and hope it works. That it usually doesn't is why the non-market fixes always have to be re-fixed and funded at greater levels and regulated further and further in micromanaged short term fixes.
That's a pretty generic rebuttal of Keynesian economics. So how do you make the argument to the people that they need to sacrifice short-term gain for long-term sustainability? Couldn't you make the same argument about the vision for the ACA?

Government fixes of that nature are always messy, full of fake rises in GDP, phony promises and compromises, a tangled web of lies and failed attempts which actually give government the illusory opportunity to present even more fixes.
I think people expect Government to provide a sense of stability that they don't believe will come from the free market alone. It's funny, even with all these "oppressive regulations" how much corruption and manipulation of the market is out there? It's massive.

Would ending all regulation lead to more stability? I don't believe this for a second.

So, are you saying China has gone from the traditional 5 year fixes that communism used to promise to decade fixes? Interesting how you put it--"China is working on decades long business plans." You so are stuck on the progressive ideology that it is government which must plan the commercial business of a nation.

I'm not sure what "progressive ideology" I've ever expounded on???

But certainly we're competing with nations that are playing by a different set of rules.

-spence

I think if you were to attempt to name the "god-awful" Tea Party candidates, the list would be quite short, they'd be those that the media focused on intensely casting a shadow over the entire Tea Party effort in certain races and they most likely lost their races, which means they aren't in Washington doing harm....many "outstanding" candidates from both parties get elected and turn out to be "god awful" legislators and governors....then get re-elected for decades..I can name quite a few...can you name a "Tea Party leader" or two? and explain why exactly they are "god-awful"....I'm just curious to know exactly who it is that you find so much worse than the existing "god-awful" entrenched legislators and governors...it seems to me that the candidates for the most part, who were supported by various Tea party organizations that were successful in getting elected have been the enemy of both parties in Washington as well as the media exactly because they've insisted on holding the line on spending accountability and have been working against the establishment in that regard...for that they are demonized by the establishment and it's allies...and I believe they are the only "group" that can claim to be fighting for the things that many will tell you are wrong with the current system

I'd also suggest that the average "god-awful" candidate is most likely someone like you or me....the "outstanding" candidate is most likely a product of the corrupt system with all of the connections, media savy, ability to lie and deceive on a dime in front of the spotlight and during the pressure of a campaign...I think we have a Washington full of those, not sure why Jim thinks the Tea party should be looking for those....

the "ideal" candidate would be someone who understands and will reflect the concerns and needs on the different issues of the people that they want to be elected by, has some measure of honesty and integrity and considers their time in Washington or State office or local to be a privilege rather than an opportunity for self enrichment and is not beholden to special interests of the various kind to the extent that they will compromise their principles to fulfill the wishes of those special interests....sadly...few of those exist I think and those skills and qualities do not make for a "good" candidate in our current state of affairs...we choose candidates that are outside of the establishment like sports teams draft talent, you do your best to locate and promote someone with ability and skills who has had success at the previous level or in another endeavour, but you never know how they will hold up under the bright lights in the big game or during the rigors of a political campaign particularly going from local to national and you don't always know what they've said and/or done in the past or what they will say or do that may seized on by media and political rivals....it's a crap shoot many times, there are a lot of Heisman Trophy winners who never amounted to anything in the NFL and there are many who will never get beyond state and local races, but not because they don't have the ability or talent as in the sports analogy but because the skill set necessary to climb the ladder has little to do with their ability to govern or legislate and everything to do with their ability to project a superficial cult of personality and a willingness to follow a party line and conform to the desires of the special interests that fund their climb....they succeed or fail based on how the media judges their performance and on factors that have little to do with their abilities and everything to do with the ability and willingness to follow one party line or another...those that don't comply and display reverence for the corrupt system are labeled all sorts of things by the media and the establishment.... "crack pots"by God awful, I don't mean ideologically pure. By God-awful, I mean completely unelectable, like the witch that got nominated for the Senate.

by God awful, I don't mean ideologically pure. By God-awful, I mean completely unelectable, like the witch that got nominated for the Senate.

This?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJyPsmEask

I guess I haven't considered the future of my children as an "interesting contest" but agree it would be interesting.

The contest between free market versus government controlled market would be more than interesting.

The outcome would determine, on the one hand, whether the future of your children is a place in a static society in which most are on the distant economic bottom, and with the very few at the very wealthy top. Good luck with that.

Or, on the other hand, whether they are free to make their way to whatever level they are comfortable.

The long-term value proposition here may be if such action could accelerate global transformation towards a more free market. Would this offset potential short-term losses? What's really our endgame, to be true to an American-centric vision or transform others?

The "end game" is toward a more free U.S. market. It is to end the trajectory toward national fiscal insolvency, and to replace it with a move to solvency by an more open and competitive market.

But the raising of corporate costs often results in benefits for the consumer or workforce.

They usually result in rising product costs for consumers. Any temporary short term gains by the workforce are soon offset by the rising costs throughout the economy and the ensuing inflation.

Many corporate officers are certainly well intentioned stewards of their ship, but if history is any measure shareholder value is a difficult vice.

A more difficult vice is maintaining uncompetitive policy in the face of competition. Such a face would lead to zero shareholder value.

I don't see how this is a fake rise in GDP but perhaps a fake rise in shareholder value.

Isn't GDP the value of domestic product. If the value is artificially inflated by government manipulation which creates rising costs, the monetary face value rises without a rise in production. The rise in value is simply a rise in cost.

That's a pretty generic rebuttal of Keynesian economics. So how do you make the argument to the people that they need to sacrifice short-term gain for long-term sustainability? Couldn't you make the same argument about the vision for the ACA?

Just go Nike--Just do it. That's how government got big and entangled itself with the corporate world, giving us the Big Government/Big Business complex. It didn't make an argument to the people. It just went about dismantling the constitutional order gaining more and more power to do what it wished. The control of the "economy" required replacing market forces with political control and the consequent transfer of individual freedom to government's freedom to do as it wishes. It was natural for a centralized government to create a more centralized "market" under the control of its regulations. It is not a new model, just a different version that is supposed to create social order and justice. We have argued over the details of why that doesn't work, why socialism or Marxism or communism don't work. At least not work in a way satisfactory to Americans. Though that view is changing. At any rate, what has happened is that instead of stability, we have constant change and a trajectory toward economic collapse. And justice is merely that which is preferred by prevailing government. And rendered for those who are in the moment preferred by government.

And it's not about the form of the argument. It's about the substance. The form of the argument can be applied to any government imposition, or removal of that imposition.

The substance of the oligarchic nexus between Big Government and Big Business which includes the ACA is not only the trajectory to economic collapse, but the loss of constitutional unalienable rights.

I think people expect Government to provide a sense of stability that they don't believe will come from the free market alone. It's funny, even with all these "oppressive regulations" how much corruption and manipulation of the market is out there? It's massive.

Would ending all regulation lead to more stability? I don't believe this for a second.

Don't be such a crackpot extremist. I didn't say ALL regulation. Government has its place, and constitutional regulation can be beneficial. And corruption is inherent in human nature. It applies in all forms of government or human relations. Virtue is required even in the most despotic regimes for the process to work for the benefit of all rather than only for the few.

As for stability--where in the record of Big Government/Big Business do you find stability? Government regulations are pumped out by the thousands every year. The legal environment is constantly changing. As is the social environment. Morays are changing apace. And we are heading for financial collapse.

I'm not sure what "progressive ideology" I've ever expounded on???

You don't expound it. You exude it.

But certainly we're competing with nations that are playing by a different set of rules.

-spence

And if we play by their rules we become like them. Cogs in a top down all powerful government in tandem with highly centralized Big Business, rigidly heading toward economic nightmare.

Keep beating that paper tiger.

like FOX, BUSH, GREEDY CORPORATIONS, TEA PARTY...etc...


The message and tone of the Tea Party darlings is out of step with most of America.

huh?...no...they're out of step with the establishment elitists and the media that dutifully supports the establishment...that makes them BAAAADD....like Ebens earlier quote indicated, if you tell a lie long enough it can become reality in the minds of many..."The Tea Party" doesn't get much good press, primarily endless, mindless bashing from folks like you, the elites and the media...it's a wonder they're still around at all


You left out the Tea Party's inability to process things like facts or reason. It's infatuation with contradiction and incoherence.

wow..."the Tea Party's"...assigning those individual qualities or shortcomings in blanket form to a group shows an obvious "inability to process things like facts or reason" and a strange tendency to project your own qualities on those that draw your ire .....you seem to make a living at doing exactly this Spence ....talk about the pot calling the "crack pots" black

-spence

all of these judgments coming from a guy that supported Joe Biden for President??
:biglaugh:

It's a component of it...saying Federal Spending has a big impact on GDP is misleading.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, there are a lot of components and Federal spending is a big one.

I think the CBO predicted that the Sequester -- which was a drop in the bucket some claimed -- would depress GDP 1.5% in 2013. Given that the difference between recession and strong growth is in the single digits that's a significant impact.

-spence

Sure, there are a lot of components and Federal spending is a big one.

I think the CBO predicted that the Sequester -- which was a drop in the bucket some claimed -- would depress GDP 1.5% in 2013. Given that the difference between recession and strong growth is in the single digits that's a significant impact.

-spence

If we rely so much on federal spending for GDP and if it is such a BIG component as you say...then we have a big problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, there are a lot of components and Federal spending is a big one.

I think the CBO predicted that the Sequester -- which was a drop in the bucket some claimed -- would depress GDP 1.5% in 2013. Given that the difference between recession and strong growth is in the single digits that's a significant impact.

-spence

It's obvious, without debating abstruse theories (those academic discussion you like to disparage), that government spending has impacts, significant or otherwise. The important question is whether the impact is good or bad, short term or long term. As far as short term GDP goes, there is also the question of mirage or reality. GDP inflated by government spending which does not actually reflect organic economic growth is illusory and accompanied by a rising government debt. In the short term it may appear that so-called GDP has grown due to government spending due to raw numbers of dollars spent, but numbers adjusted to inflation and debt to GDP ratio may tell a different story, especially in terms of the long term economic health and government's credit reliability. The sequester (which was a bit of a mirage itself since only discretionary spending, not mandatory spending, was cut, and since actual spending would grow, just at a slightly smaller pace) would presumably have not only an illusory negative impact on GDP, but also a positive impact on debt to GDP ratio. Which would, supposedly, have a positive long term effect on growth.

But that's all academic. Besides, all that changes from election to election with future administrations cancelling their predecessors legislations and creating new ones. The trajectory consistently being growth of government debt and the debt to DGP ratio. Which leads to, as Piscator says, a big problem.

it was sequestration AND the changes "in certain tax provisions" AND 1/4% attributed to "other" factors that would cause the 1.5% in depressed GDP that Spence is referring to

february 28, 2013

The fiscal tightening in 2013 is mostly a result of two developments: the expiration of certain tax policies that will lead to an increase in tax revenue (relative to 2012, payroll tax rates are higher and tax rates on income above certain thresholds have increased); and the automatic spending reductions scheduled to occur under current law (the sequestration). In the absence of those policies, real GDP would grow about 1¼ percentage points faster between the fourth quarter of last year and the fourth quarter of this year, CBO estimates. (The remaining ¼ percentage point reduction in economic growth due to fiscal tightening comes from other, smaller changes in spending and taxes.) The expiration of those tax provisions and the automatic spending cuts account for about equal portions of that 1¼-percentage-point effect. The spending changes have a smaller budgetary impact than the tax changes, but they affect GDP by a larger amount per dollar of budgetary cost.

Nevertheless, although CBO expects that reducing the amount of fiscal tightening this year would strengthen the economy in the short term, the resulting increase in federal borrowing would weaken the economy in the longer term unless other changes in spending or tax policy were made to offset that additional borrowing.


we live from short term mirage to short term mirage digging the hole deeper and deeper

That will be the excuse running up into the election to ensure expectations are set as low as is possible. If the GOP can't articulate their message and simply runs against the ACA they will lose.


Christy isn't a "hard-line economic right winger". He's fiscally conservative but also willing to negotiate. In the eyes of his party that puts him on par with Che Guevara.


Yea, blame TV. It's not about a lack of ideas or collaborative spirit…it's about biased TV coverage :rotf2:

Keep beating that paper tiger.


Who's leapfrogging anything? The GOP has a chance of picking up Senate seats primarily because so many blue states are up for grabs.

Ultimately it comes down to who shows up to vote, and the divisions within the GOP will likely keep many voters at home.



Yes, the bellwether. Give me a break. For all your whining about the quality of news you sure are easily suckered into it.

This district was owned by a single republican for the past 4 decades. Jolly worked for Bill Young and ran as his successor. He was getting beat until outside cash helped him outspend the dem and eek out a narrow victory…that's going to be up for grabs again in November.

Really shivery stuff here.


The message and tone of the Tea Party darlings is out of step with most of America. They are offensive to many Republicans. If I was making the odds I'd be looking at how the TP will divide the GOP...


You left out the Tea Party's inability to process things like facts or reason. It's infatuation with contradiction and incoherence. That it's largely a corporate marketing phenomenon seeking not the best ideas but the most disruptive personalities.

The success of Tea Party candidates will likely be the primary factor if Hillary really is beatable or not.

-spence

"If the GOP can't articulate their message and simply runs against the ACA they will lose."

Yeah? Tell that to the 55 Dems who lost house seats in 2010 because of Obamacare, tell that to the heavily-favored Democrat who lost in Florida this week because of Obamacare.

"It's not about a lack of ideas or collaborative spirit…it's about biased TV coverage "

The fact that you would say we have a "lack of ideas", suggests that you have been duped by that TV coverage. You are proving my point quite nicely.

"Christy isn't a "hard-line economic right winger". He's fiscally conservative but also willing to negotiate" Tell that to the unions.

"the divisions within the GOP will likely keep many voters at home" Again, tell that to the lady who just lost in Florida, despite out-spending her opponent.

"This district was owned by a single republican for the past 4 decades" Interesting, then, that Obama carried that district twice.

"The message and tone of the Tea Party darlings is out of step with most of America" Like what? Living within your means? Strong national defense? The free-market, where you make your living I believe? Spence, can you please tell me which of the Tea Party's core values, is so antithetical to America? Again, you are not responding to what the Tea Party is actually saying, you are responding to what Rachael Maddow claims they are saying. When you listen to what they are saying, it's not all that radical or fringe-worthy.

"You left out the Tea Party's inability to process things like facts or reason" Ah, another generic insult for which we all see that you provided exactly zero evidence. You should demand more from yourself.

Got to go, I need to put on a white sheet and watch "Hee Haw" reruns, then wage war on women or some other bullsh*t that you claim we stand for.



Keep chugging the Kool Aid, Spence...