Will 2016 Be a Pivotal Election?

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Romney will cut spending; I have no doubt about it.......he has said in interviews that if he is a one term president so be it, he intends to cut spending, reform entitlements, restructure the tax code, lower taxes and work to a balanced budget.

I don't believe for a minute that Romney would cut spending, at least not in any substantial way. Politicians say all kinds of things on the campaign trail, but let's be realistic here. What, exactly, is he going to cut that's going to make any real dent in the deficit?

Remember all the caterwauling over attempts by congressional Republicans to cut about $37 billion from the budget a couple of years ago? And that's only about one-quarter of one percent of GDP. To balance the budget, you'd have to cut about thirty times that much. Even to reduce the deficit to what most economists consider an acceptable level, you'd need to find a combination of spending cuts and tax increases more than twenty times that large.

The notion that Romney can cut taxes 20% across-the-board (which he has said he'll try to do) while reducing the deficit to acceptable levels is simply ridiculous.

Romney would almost certainly reduce spending (or at least the rate of growth of spending) relative to what Obama would do, but that's not saying much.

Originally Posted by Laz

As for tax cuts we do not need any. However, tax reform that stimulates economic activity we need badly. Things like cutting business taxes sound like gifts to the rich but they would help keep businesses in the US and incentivize investment here. That sounds like and is easy to claim in sound bites as a gift to the rich but it should actually increase revenues to the government.

Quite correct.

The U.S. corporate income tax rate has become one of the highest in the world, since nearly every other industrialized Western nation began slashing rates substantially in the 1990s. We are left with an uncompetitive code that's riddled with loopholes and exclusions. The effective rate paid by corporate America is actually fairly low, but the problem is that the code's complexity offers relative benefits to very large, politically connected firms, thus rendering some of their smaller competitors unable to compete.

This is not a brand new problem. Even Jason Furman spoke of the need for rate-lowering and base-broadening reforms back around 2007. But after January of 2009, he seemed to have forgotten all about the issue.

Comprehensive tax reform, in my opinion, is an urgent priority. We need a code that looks like it was designed on purpose, not a monstrosity that just gets junked up with more and more crap every year.

[Texas Contrarian]

This is just amazing. Looks like I hit some nerves and posted something that aroused the ire of a couple of zealous partisans from both sides of the aisle! Fast Gunn apparently thinks the Obama economic agenda is just fine and dandy, and that extreme fiscal recklessness is OK as long as it's his guy who's responsible for it. Apparently he hasn't stopped to consider that we're simply following the George W. Bush economic agenda, extended and expanded. Nothing has been meaningfully reformed or fixed. Obama has spent almost four years showing that he has no intention of making a tough decision on any fiscal or economic issue.

People talk about the "fiscal cliff." But what we really face is a fiscal abyss.

And just look at that nonsense Whirlaway posted. I must say, though, it's pretty funny to be called "stupid" by some dim-witted buffoon who actually claims that Romney is going to cut taxes and balance the budget! I mean, really. Isn't that about like being called "shorty" by Danny DeVito?

In what way does anyone capable of critical thinking believe that Romney is going to substantially cut spending? When pressed, all he does is talk about stuff like PBS and funding for the arts. Just wait and see what happens if he manages to win the election and is forced to make hard choices. As I said, he would restrain the growth of spending relative to what Obama would do, but that's not exactly a very high bar.

I got a PM from someone who said, in essence, that we'll really be voting for Supreme Court Justices and other judicial appointments. I think he has that about right. The political pendulum swings from party to party. I still believe the probablity is very high that whichever party wins the White House this year will lose it in 2016. The enormousness of the challenge is such that it will be difficult for the president not to fail politically. No matter who wins, taxes will be (eventually) raised, ObamaCare will be fixed or adjusted by congress, and all sorts of other battles will be waged.

But changes to the makeup of the Supreme Court will affect us for a generation.

[CuteOldGuy]

The Supreme Court has become a joke. I don't expect Romney to make any courageous appointments. But otherwise, you are spot on, Cap'n!

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

This is just amazing. Looks like I hit some nerves and posted something that aroused the ire of a couple of zealous partisans from both sides of the aisle! Fast Gunn apparently thinks the Obama economic agenda is just fine and dandy, and that extreme fiscal recklessness is OK as long as it's his guy who's responsible for it. Apparently he hasn't stopped to consider that we're simply following the George W. Bush economic agenda, extended and expanded. Nothing has been meaningfully reformed or fixed. Obama has spent almost four years showing that he has no intention of making a tough decision on any fiscal or economic issue.

People talk about the "fiscal cliff." But what we really face is a fiscal abyss.

And just look at that nonsense Whirlaway posted. I must say, though, it's pretty funny to be called "stupid" by some dim-witted buffoon who actually claims that Romney is going to cut taxes and balance the budget! I mean, really. Isn't that about like being called "shorty" by Danny DeVito?

In what way does anyone capable of critical thinking believe that Romney is going to substantially cut spending? When pressed, all he does is talk about stuff like PBS and funding for the arts. Just wait and see what happens if he manages to win the election and is forced to make hard choices. As I said, he would restrain the growth of spending relative to what Obama would do, but that's not exactly a very high bar.

I got a PM from someone who said, in essence, that we'll really be voting for Supreme Court Justices and other judicial appointments. I think he has that about right. The political pendulum swings from party to party. I still believe the probablity is very high that whichever party wins the White House this year will lose it in 2016. The enormousness of the challenge is such that it will be difficult for the president not to fail politically. No matter who wins, taxes will be (eventually) raised, ObamaCare will be fixed or adjusted by congress, and all sorts of other battles will be waged.

But changes to the makeup of the Supreme Court will affect us for a generation.

The spending cuts, required to avoid the abyss, are not politically possible, IMHO. The majority of the people will not support the draconian cuts that are necessary to avoid an economic collapse. Romney will be more responsible than Obama, but I doubt he will even attempt to do what's really necessary.

There's an outside chance Romney might be brutally honest, and explain our real predicament to people, to at least give them the chance to make an informed choice. Even now, as bad as things have gotten, I don't think the average person is aware that we may be very near a complete economic collapse.

When a doctor has a patient, that is drinking himself to death, he has an ethical obligation to inform his patient, that if he continues to drink, it will kill him. He has an obligation to inform the patient, even if he's convinced the patient won't stop, and will probably not continue to be his patient, because of the bad news he was given. That is Romney's moral dilemma with the national debt.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

But otherwise, you are spot on, Cap'n!

Ut oh! StupidOldFart just hand delived the kiss of death for the Cap'ns theory!

How could we forget SOF's oft stated kiss of death he delivered to Romney's Chrysler fiasco?

Let's count the ways he and Romney recently had their asses handed to them, shall we?

PolitiFact (check), FactCheck (Check), Washington Post Fact Checkers (Check), Chrysler Spokesman (Check), Chrysler CEO (Check).

And last but certainly not least...................

Your friendly, neighborhood Eccie Fact Checkers (Checkmate).

[fetishfreak]

The original post was very well thought out and delivered. I agree with the assesment. It is unfortunate that the "eyes wide shut" crowd will pick it apart because they support there guy no matter what.

[IIFFOFRDB]

We got two choices A or B.

I wish the USA was smarter but I do not have hope for that. I live for today. I want a economy so I can make a living. I feel my choice will make that happen.

Is this considered critical thinking...

[WTF]

[QUOTE=IIFFOFRDB;1051834226]We got two choices A or B.

I wish the USA was smarter but I do not have hope for that. I live for today. I want a economy so I can make a living. I feel my choice will make that happen.

Is this considered critical thinking...[/QUOTE]

At the risk of stirring up COLiar, it is the Adam Smith invisible hand theory at work.

We vote for who we think will work out best for our future, not our neighbors but our own.

As we should.

[CuteOldGuy]

WPF, go back to your Wiki, and review "invisible hand". You haven't a clue. That happens when you cut and paste, call it your own, and don't understand it.

[SEE3772]

Maybe going back into a Recession?
America has been in a depression since 2007.
103% debt to GDP and growing.
220 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
U6 unemployment is around 22%.
46 million plus on SNAP.
648 trillion in derivatives.
Default and or hyperinflation... (Hyperstagnation)
the only two options for the U.S.
As soon as the Federal Reserve ends ZIRP, Operation Twist and QE
America is done. The largest debtor nation in world history.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

We got two choices A or B.


I wish the USA was smarter but I do not have hope for that. I live for today. I want a economy so I can make a living. I feel my choice will make that happen.


Is this considered critical thinking...

When I spoke of a lack of critical thinking, I was referring to the naive belief that Romney is going to be able cut taxes while moving us toward a balanced budget. That's just silly talk.

It's rational to choose between two deeply flawed candidates if you believe that one is less bad than the other. For instance, even though I will not vote for either man, I think Romney is clearly the less bad choice between the two. That's because I'm not a big fan of traveling further down the path toward becoming something closer to a European-style social democracy. To this end, Obama has sought (and brought about) a dramatically elevated level of federal government spending -- increasing it about 25% from already bloated levels. (Spending in terms of nominal dollars increased by well over 50% during George W. Bush's two terms.) Obama clearly has no plan for sustainable economic recovery, entitlement reform, tax reform, financial reform, or anything else of consequence.

On the other hand, some of my friends and relatives hold the opposing view; that is, that Obama is the less bad of two unsatisfactory choices. They feel that Romney is too out of touch with the concerns of non-affluent Americans, or that he would pander to Republican constituencies and pursue social agenda items (or some combination of both).

The heart of my premise is simply that I think we're entering an extraordinary time when it will be exceedingly difficult to tackle critical challenges without failing politically, and perhaps failing very miserably at the polls. We've made promises that cannot possibly be sustained for much longer, and a set of painful and very difficult choices will soon have to be made.

That's why I don't think progressives should be terribly upset if Obama loses this election. If Romney wins, he'll have a Republican congressional majority to work with, and they will be very likely to overplay their hand -- just like the Republicans in 2003-2006, and the Democrats in 2009. That would likely result in a shellacking at the polls in 2014, returning the congress to Democratic Party control, and probably a Romney defeat in 2016. In that event, liberals would once again have a chance to move the needle significantly.

By the same token, I'm not sure that conservatives should be too upset if Romney loses. If the economic "recovery" is sluggish for years to come, which I think will almost certainly be the case, voters may be unlikely to put another Democrat in the White House any time soon. (And the Republicans might still control the House, and by that time may even have a chance to regain the Senate.)

(I'm not saying that I think any of this will happen, but I do think there's a fair chance either scenario could come to pass.)

American voters have obviously decided that they want a certain amount of social democracy, but not nearly as much as the citizens of a country like, say, France. In a highly partisan atmosphere, vigorous battles will be fought at the polls every two years, and a lot of issues and preference sets will eventually be fleshed out.

My belief is that by the year 2020, we'll be in almost the same place regarding entitlement reform, taxes, deficits, defense spending, and a host of other issues, irrespective of who wins this election.

By the end of the decade, the pendulum may have swung two or three more times.

[Yssup Rider]

The Reoublicans do not trust Romney. with good reason. He's a fucking psychopath.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The Reoublicans do not trust Romney. with good reason. He's a fucking psychopath.

He has obviously demonstrated that his views are a little "flexible", since he seems to suffer from the sort of flip-flopperism that afflicts so many ambitious politicians.

But psychopathy? Wow.

Then I suppose a Romney presidency could offer some great entertainment!

[CuteOldGuy]

I doubt if Paul Ryan will be as funny as Joe Biden.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

He has obviously demonstrated that his views are a little "flexible"; he seems to suffer from the sort of flip-flopperism that afflicts so many ambitious politicians.

But psychopathy? Wow.

Then I suppose a Romney presidency could offer some great entertainment!

Assup is projecting again. Since he's a paranoid schizophrenic, he assumes everyone is.