The end of the Republican party

[Jim in CT]

We all need to calm down and take a breath, and stop listening to what they say on MSNBC.

This election was not a widespread repudiation of the GOP. The popular vote split was 51-49. It just doesn't get a whole lot closer than that. This was not a Ronald Reagan-Jimmy Carter smackdown. And even if it was, the Democratic Party survived that, and they did it by becoming way more radically liberal.

The GOP will do fine in midterm elections, when the media can't demonize every single Republican running for the house and the senate.

There are 2 economic high-speed trains on a collision course in this country. (1) Our national debt is $16T, and growing by $1.5T a year. (2) FAR MORE IMPOERANTLY, 10,000 baby boomers a day are turning 65, making them eligible for social security and Medicare. Ten thousand a day, and that will last for 15 years. When enough of those boomers are old, sick, and have dementia, that's when we run out of money. This issue will make the current national debt look like a hiccup in terms of magnitude. The lowest estimate I have seen, for the projected shortfalls for SS and Medicare, is $40 trillion. Probably closer to $60 trillion. Ponder that for a minute.

When those 2 things collide, liberals won't be able to demonize conservatives for saying we need fiscal responsibility.

In the meantime...I'm converting 100% of my 401(k) to cash, and I'm waiting it out. When the inevitable happens, the result will be a recession that makes 2008 look like the roaring 1920's, and that's a damn good time to get back in the stock market.

And Marco Rubio has a damn good shot at becoming the President in 2016.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We all need to calm down and take a breath, and stop listening to what they say on MSNBC.

I used to think that FOX was the worst, clearly MSNBC is the most biased media outlet for the past 6-8 years. I can no longer watch it and it was the one I watched the most. CNN runs circles around MSNBC in objectivity.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This election was not a widespread repudiation of the GOP. The popular vote split was 51-49. It just doesn't get a whole lot closer than that. This was not a Ronald Reagan-Jimmy Carter smackdown. And even if it was, the Democratic Party survived that, and they did it by becoming way more radically liberal.

The GOP will do fine in midterm elections, when the media can't demonize every single Republican running for the house and the senate.

The election was close but until the GOP changes course on a few things they will continue to be close losses. At best it will be quick swings back and forth.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There are 2 economic high-speed trains on a collision course in this country. (1) Our national debt is $16T, and growing by $1.5T a year. (2) FAR MORE IMPOERANTLY, 10,000 baby boomers a day are turning 65, making them eligible for social security and Medicare. Ten thousand a day, and that will last for 15 years. When enough of those boomers are old, sick, and have dementia, that's when we run out of money. This issue will make the current national debt look like a hiccup in terms of magnitude. The lowest estimate I have seen, for the projected shortfalls for SS and Medicare, is $40 trillion. Probably closer to $60 trillion. Ponder that for a minute.

When those 2 things collide, liberals won't be able to demonize conservatives for saying we need fiscal responsibility.

In the meantime...I'm converting 100% of my 401(k) to cash, and I'm waiting it out. When the inevitable happens, the result will be a recession that makes 2008 look like the roaring 1920's, and that's a damn good time to get back in the stock market.

THESE TWO things are going to crush us but we keep kicking that down the road. Instead of acting like adults, our elected officials are refusing to deal with this. This is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And Marco Rubio has a damn good shot at becoming the President in 2016.

Don't know about that and 2016 is a little early to ponder.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=JohnR;968195until the GOP changes course on a few things they will continue to be close losses. At best it will be quick swings back and forth.



.[/QUOTE]

I'll respectfully disagree. At the national level, the democratic party embraces partial birth abortion, and literally no limits to spending, and persecution of the Catholic Church. Most Americans don't like those things. The problem is, only one network talks about those things,all the other networks are essentially 24/7 commercials for Obama. For example, none of them are doing any reporting on Benghazi. Unbelievable.

Marco Rubio has it all. As you said, we'll see.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

THESE TWO things are going to crush us but we keep kicking that down the road.



.

You can no longer say "we" keep kicking the can down the road. Rmoney/Ryan had a plan. It is now "they", meaning liberals, who keep kicking the can down the road. The conservative position on this is clear, that we need to fix entitlements. The liberal response is, "you hate poor people!!" Not exactly a solution, is it?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'll respectfully disagree. At the national level, the democratic party embraces partial birth abortion, and literally no limits to spending, and persecution of the Catholic Church. Most Americans don't like those things. The problem is, only one network talks about those things,all the other networks are essentially 24/7 commercials for Obama. For example, none of them are doing any reporting on Benghazi. Unbelievable.

Marco Rubio has it all. As you said, we'll see.

The last election might say otherwise.

And don't get me wrong, I like Rubio. I'm not convinced that he is the guy.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You can no longer say "we" keep kicking the can down the road. Rmoney/Ryan had a plan. It is now "they", meaning liberals, who keep kicking the can down the road. The conservative position on this is clear, that we need to fix entitlements. The liberal response is, "you hate poor people!!" Not exactly a solution, is it?

We - as in the US a we / us, not a they / them. WE keep kicking the can down the road. How is that for bipartisanship .

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The last election might say otherwise.

And don't get me wrong, I like Rubio. I'm not convinced that he is the guy.

The "guy" is a rare phenomenon in life, even more so in politics. Waiting for the guy is almost like Waiting for Godot. Again, as always, I refer back to the original constitutional system that was not dependent on "the guy." It was intended not to. It was largely a system of self-government with the guy in the White House being in charge of a few limited responsibilities. What we have now, of course, is a system where the guy (usually one of middling intellect and ability)in that House is somehow responsible for just about everything. No wonder that the guy is always making mistakes that have to be covered up or glossed over or excused by media accomplices--why he might not been on top of a Benghazi situation (which, ironically, would have been one of the few types of responsibilities that the Constitutiuon actually gives him). We have been suckered into a top down system of government that has grown too large to handle for those who run it. The dispersion of power and responsibility created in the Constitution, if followed, would go a very long way to alleviating the problem. No system of government or society will be problem free. But if freedom is the goal, and if freedom is the key to economic prosperity and the key to individual responsibility, then the original constitutional system of governance beats the crap out of the current tyrannical administrative system.

We - as in the US a we / us, not a they / them. WE keep kicking the can down the road. How is that for bipartisanship .

That is why waiting for the guy is no answer. And why treating the "can" as some entity that can willingly be kicked in various directions down various roads by the switch of some ballot buttons that only elect middling guys to govern our lives by a top down central system is no answer. They will keep kicking that can down the same road in basically the same direction because that is the road our current system has built for them. There are not other roads on which to kick it, unless they build new ones or find their way back to a good one--you know--the one that begins with a capital letter C.

[detbuch]

Re the fiscal cliff and kicking the can down the road:

Originally Posted by detbuch

. . . They will keep kicking that can down the same road in basically the same direction because that is the road our current system has built for them. There are not other roads on which to kick it, unless they build new ones or find their way back to a good one--you know--the one that begins with a capital letter C.

Is that too radical to say? We know that they WILL kick the can down the road . . . the same road . . .debt ceiling will be raised . . . an agreement will be reached which both sides will claim as a compromise victory . . . it will be revisited in another 6 months or a year . . . the debt will continue to rise . . . and so on. But is that road irrevocably built into the system. Not in the same repeated manner, but, yes, in the same direction.

The can being kicked is not merely a budget, or tax reform, or even (though most importantly) reducing the national debt. It is the system itself, and the method of maintaining it, that progresses a trajectory or vector (as Spence might call it) down the same, irrevocable road to an unsustainable end which may finally force a change. Two facets of the system go hand-in-hand to drive us down that road.

The first is the type of system. It is a top-down authoritarian system that has no real legal restraints and is only restrained to a gradual pace by those who govern (to appease residual pretences of constitutional, legal, and beneficial niceties) toward an eventual openly unlimited but beneficent and efficient administration of the "needs" of the people. One might, to borrow another Spencism, see the process as a mega trend. And, of course, as Spence says, mega trends always trump partisan politics.

The second is the means of maintaining the power to drive us down this road. That would be the appearance of a democratic process of elections. Winning elections in a system whose objective is to administer to the needs of the people requires that you define those needs and convince the populace that you will attend favorably to them. Of course, various groups have different needs. So you cater to each with promises and legislation that claims to satisfy those needs. It is important that large or influential groups are identified and are made aware of what it is that they need. If you leave it up to individuals, for one, the diversity would be too great and contradictory to put forth a seemingly coherent policy. So, because most people are not expert enough to understand what is truly beneficial for them, you tell them, and then you deliver. Some outnumbered sectors will necessarily be left out of the government largesse, but they are usually the ones who would balk at the system, and, besides, they can take care of themselves. Until the end of the road is reached, and they too will need the system to provide.

Now once you have established this system and the means of maintaining power, you cannot reverse course or veer in a different direction. Not only do the people become dependent on the system, the system is dependant on their approval. So the system, and the road on which it travels cannot change. Or, as Spence might say, there are no do-overs.

It is a closed system that can only move in one direction. The promise of this system is an eventual fair and equitable distribution on Marxian or socialistic lines. I know we're not supposed to call it socialism, but obviously that's what it is. There is talk of "mixed" economy, and it certainly started that way. But there is that trajectory thing. Stasis is not the order of the universe. Change is inevitable. That is, more so, the order of the universe and life itself. The present central, top-down, system of government depends on a rigidity in the relation of the people to it. It doesn't lend itself to evolutionary change except toward greater centralized power and control. Experience to date informs that socialism evolves from moderation in government power to unlimited power. Milton Friedman said that everyone agrees that socialism "doesn't work" but that we keep drifting toward it. But maybe that's OK. If we keep going in that direction, people may consider it good. If it keeps giving us stuff with less effort on our part, that must be good. But, the Hegelian dielectic on which Marxism and our present administrative state are founded, does not end. Utopia cannot be a final never ending change. Hegel's process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis continues. This closed system which can only move in one direction will be blasted by the philosophy that brought it into being. If there is enough elasticity left to allow market forces to drive a vibrant economy, the system can go on. But for how long will the growing welfare aspect of the state be sustained by a shrinking free market that progressively becomes a command economy? If the system must become financially stable, can it survive the means to power--delivery of all the people's needs by government?

The system that was discarded, constitutionalism, provided for individuals to create the market to reflect their private needs and desires. It thrived through a high degree of personal motivation to survive and prosper. And, deriving its power from the diverse individual interactions, it was potentially more evolutionary, thus more capable of lasting. And it limited the central power's ability to dictate the needs of the people. And prohibited the ability of central government from taxing, borrowing, confiscating the wealth of the nation and driving it into unpayable debt.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The last election might say otherwise.

And don't get me wrong, I like Rubio. I'm not convinced that he is the guy.



We - as in the US a we / us, not a they / them. WE keep kicking the can down the road. How is that for bipartisanship .

"The last election might say otherwise."

Can you elaborate? I saw polls that say a small majority don't support abortion. I saw polls that said a huge majority thought the country was going in the wrong direction under Obama. I saw polls that said that huge majorities specifically didn't trust Obama to lead the economy. I saw polls that said huge majorities don't believe the Catholic Church should be forced to provide birth control. I saw polls that showed that a majority of Americans think the debt is a national security threat.

I saw nothing, anywhere, to suggest that a majority of Americans are more in tune with liberalism than conservatism. In my opinion (I could be wrong), we lost a very close race (51-49) because people don't know what conservatives stand for. They only know that all the networks except for one, are actively rooting for Obama. That, plus Romney is not a great campaigner, and the media/Obama machine spent a jillion dollars telling the lie that Romney is a real-life Mr Potter from "It's A Wonderful Life". That crap works, otherwise they wouldn't spend a billion dollars on smear ads. It couldn't be any more dishinest, but it's effective as hell.

We lost 51-49. When the economy collapses (not 'if', but 'when') we will get a whole lot more than 2% to switch sides. They'll flee liberalsim like rats off a sinking ship, Spence will be telling us how much he loves Newt Gingrich. It's inevitable. Absolutely inevitable.

I'd love to know what your reservations are with Rubio, other than he's inexperienced, but we were told in 2008 that experience isn't a qualifying attribute. Rubio is young, handsome, articulate, from Florida, Catholic, and Hispanic. I can't imagine a more attractive candidate, except for Condaleeza Rice.

I commend you on some serious bipartisanship!

Have a great holiday season John. At this time of year, I thank you for creating this site. Personally, I only went fishing once this year, which is pathetic. But that one trip was on Cape Cod with my 6 year-old, and this site, and the great folks here, helped make that vacation the best it could have been.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We all need to calm down and take a breath, and stop listening to what they say on MSNBC.

This election was not a widespread repudiation of the GOP. The popular vote split was 51-49. It just doesn't get a whole lot closer than that. This was not a Ronald Reagan-Jimmy Carter smackdown. And even if it was, the Democratic Party survived that, and they did it by becoming way more radically liberal.

The GOP will do fine in midterm elections, when the media can't demonize every single Republican running for the house and the senate.

There are 2 economic high-speed trains on a collision course in this country. (1) Our national debt is $16T, and growing by $1.5T a year. (2) FAR MORE IMPOERANTLY, 10,000 baby boomers a day are turning 65, making them eligible for social security and Medicare. Ten thousand a day, and that will last for 15 years. When enough of those boomers are old, sick, and have dementia, that's when we run out of money. This issue will make the current national debt look like a hiccup in terms of magnitude. The lowest estimate I have seen, for the projected shortfalls for SS and Medicare, is $40 trillion. Probably closer to $60 trillion. Ponder that for a minute.

When those 2 things collide, liberals won't be able to demonize conservatives for saying we need fiscal responsibility.

In the meantime...I'm converting 100% of my 401(k) to cash, and I'm waiting it out. When the inevitable happens, the result will be a recession that makes 2008 look like the roaring 1920's, and that's a damn good time to get back in the stock market.

And Marco Rubio has a damn good shot at becoming the President in 2016.

Exactly