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:

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

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

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.

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"

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

"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...