Talk Elections

Lets say the Rominee wins in November. The GOP isn't gonna have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and the Tea Party is gonna be pushing Romney, so Dems aren't gonna vote for Romney's bills. If Romney does win, what exactly is he ACTUALLY gonna be able to do with a democrats in congress against everything he tries and Tea Partiers pushing him to the right. What exactly does a Romney Term look like, and no BS about how him just being President will encourage businesses to hire.

I wonder if he's even going to be able to finish his term. Look what happened in Iceland.

Don't worry, Democrats will cave again and again.

A minority government lost a vote of no confidence and then lost power? While remaining the Official Opposition? That's quite normal, but it can't happen in the US because we have set elections. The only way Romney won't finish his term is if he dies, but in that case he'll certainly be succeeded by a Republican. (Your belief in the Occupy Revolution is becoming more laughable by the day, if becoming more laughable was at all possible).

Romney seems to know what it will take to at least mitigate the effects of Obamacare. I still don't see a permanent repeal right away, but if the conditions are right after 2014 or a possible second term, it could happen.

Short term? I believe he'll be able to streamline the bureaucracy and cut back the size of government departments. There are a lot of agencies that are doing the same jobs that could operate in closer unison, I think.

Also, the Keystone Pipeline is a big deal for me as a Canadian. And it's also in America's interest too. That's something Romney could get built. It doesn't create this immense number of jobs, but it will be a symbolic step in the right direction.

Reconciliation!

Repeal the Healthcare Law.

Reduce government spending. He promised to reduce overall public sector spending from the current level of 37% of GDP to 32% of GDP. To achieve that, he would have to abolish many unnecessary rules and regulations, terminate many federal programs and lay off many public sector employees.

Start real economic recovery.

Cut taxes and parafiscal burdens.

As soon as the Republicans take the Senate back, they'll abolish the filibuster on day 1. That should be obvious.


You're a funny guy, Liffy Jube.

I don't think they'll abolish the filibuster. If they gain the majority in 2012, there's a good chance the Democrats take it back in 2014, because the GOP's majority would be of about one seat or so, and the fear that Hillary Clitnon would defeat Romney in 2016.

As the Wall Street Journal pointed out earlier this week, you could fire every single government employee, both civilian and military, and we'd still be running a deficit.  Payroll is only a small part of the budget.


I'd like to hope they would, but I doubt it.  There are enough people in both parties who think it is their party's political self-interest to preserve the filibuster.  The Republicans will need at least 55 Senators to get rid of the filibuster.

The way things are shaping up, I doubt that whoever wins in November will be having a happy 2013.  Between Europe and the drought, I think we'll be headed back into recession, if we don't get there sooner.  Then there is the headache of Iran, not to mention some other crisis that is likely to pile on.

...and also note the fact that the states who have adopted the highest public sector job cuts, have been the ones to see the lowest private sector job growth as well as overall economic improvement.

If the public sector jobs that have been cut were to be restored, the unemployment rate would be somewhere around 7.5%... plus despite what the right says, public sector jobs are real jobs. If you consider that jobs = disposable income = economic activity - trying to find opportunities to lay more people off at a time of economic sluggishness seems utterly stupid to me. PLUS, despite what people say, most are very fond of the services provided by the government, so you get less people, trying to deliver the same services at the same levels, now that seems incredibly inefficient.

I hope they do abolish the filibuster -- or at least reform it to end the de facto rule that 60 Senators are needed to pass most legislation.  It will be a popular reform (or abolition) across the political spectrum.  We are left to wonder why the Democrats didn't abolish or reform it when they had the power in 2009-10.

I doubt the Dems can retake the Senate in 2014, though I agree with you that "the GOP's majority would be of about one seat or so".  From what I can tell, in 2014 the Dems have to defend 20 seats -- including five in the South and two in solidly red states (MT and SD) -- and the Republicans only 13.

Public sector employees providing services and working efficiently won't lose their jobs. It's those public sector employees that create their work by imposing rules and regulations and charging fees for enforcing them that are superfluous.

Look, if you don’t like the temporary rise in unemployment that’s going to happen, it’s better to just tell those bureaucrats to stay home and keep receiving their paychecks doing nothing. Remember the Parkinson’s law:

Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.

Anybody who has ever worked in government or any other type of public service knows that these are the truths:

(1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals."
(2) "Officials make work for each other."

Given unlimited funds, everybody would become part of the government.

I have worked in the public service... and they are old stereotypes.

Never trust anyone who thinks "government" is a three-sylable word.  :-)

Why? Because they have a better grasp of English pronunciation than you do?

Are you talking about the same people who treat "Worcestershire" as a three-sylable word?

Worcestershire is a place name, and the pronunciation is thus determined by the locals.
Duh.

How many syllables does it have?

Yes, Romney can repeal Obamacare and reduce government spending, and issue waivers for other programs such as Medicaid.

Just what the retirees of America want!

You're probably thinking of Medicare.

Anyway, if the GOPers take the Senate and get rid of the ... Actually, I don't think they even have to get rid of the filibuster, since budgets aren't subject to it ... they can stop Obama spending for ObamaCare.  Sure, he can shut down the government, but will he do that for such an unpopular program?

You must pronounce it "gov'ment" right?

And so people who pronounce it "gov-ern-ment" are pronouncing the root word "govern" which I guess classes with your ideology?  Is that what is going on here?

Yeah, but isn't the individual mandate what conservatives don't like, even though it was your idea. The mandate will still be there, even if you kill funding. But you guys are still gonna deny people health coverage just to peruse some right wing ideological talking point?

Just being President will encourage businesses to hire.

Universal health care is the liberal dubious ideological goal. It is certainly not a prerequisite to a growing economy.

But it is a prerequisite to a balanced budget, Medicare for all would cut billions out of our deficit.
America has the MOST exepnsive and LEAST effective Health Care System of any modernized country in the world. universal Health Care is an importan American Goal. Richard Nixon tried it. So did Mitt Romney. And don't forget, Republicans tried to pass their own Health Bill in 1993, ObamaCare was that bill. Majority Leader Bill Frist likes the bill too.

Did you notice the little smiley-face at the end of my comment?  I meant it as a joke.  A lot of my political favorites pronounce it as gov-ern-ment.

You liberals will still be permitted to donate generously to organizations that will provide low- or no-cost health care services.  You just won't be able to take as much OPM as you want.

That's not true either. America balanced a budget for decades prior to Medicare. 

In any case, the Medicaid program is currently wrecking havoc on state budgets, which can't borrow $1 trillion a year. Hence, of course, liberal states like California heavily slashing their Medicaid programs.

You can read about it here, or not. Up to you.

http://www.statebudgetcrisis.org/wpcms/wp-content/images/Report-of-the-State-Budget-Crisis-Task-Force-Full.pdf

Of course, the difference between Nixon in 1972, Chafee in 1993, and Romney in 2002, and Romney in 2013 is that the first 3 were governing growing economies with growing tax revenues and could better afford such luxuries. That was the case in the past, and no longer is. Given that, it is quite bizarre to add $800 billion in spending to the tab.

Oh no, I agree with you. My Democratic colleagues are not doing their jobs. We need major reforms to the social safety net so we can get our fiscal house in order. They haven't even passed a budget in 4 freakin years, man. That's why I have such great respect for Paul Ryan. At least he has a plan, no matter how vague and devastating it is. Don't scream "He's cutting Medicare!" if you don't even have a plan to save it.
Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, and Cantor need to get off there butts and pass Simpson-Bowles.

That uninspirational leader?

A filibuster majority isn't likely but not out of the question. I don't think the tea party will ever have the effectiveness in Washington D.C. that is has in red states and red districts. Democrats didn't vote for Bush's bills with the exception of No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Reform Act. Now Bush didn't get alot of his agenda done but he still got some of it passed. Him being president will encourage businesses to hire but unless we do something about the corporate tax and minimum wage, we'll never see jobs return from overseas. It's just not as profitable to keep a business here anymore. In fact, the only reason we saw a slightly promising economy running up to the 2010 midterm election is because people figured that the Republicans were going to take over at least one if not both houses. Anyone who has been successful and held a private sector job without a union knows that Obama is everything that will destroy our economy. It won't turn around overnight or become perfect without some changes being made so please don't say that I'm suggesting everything will be fine once Obama is out. Also if we're ever going to get our nation off the ground again we need to stop blabbering about higher education at the political level so that voters support politicians and we need to start encouraging vocational schools for trades. There's workers who make 16-20 an hour with their skills who never went to college and then you have people with Ph.D's in philosophy who can't hold a job at McDonald's. But, oh higher education we have to have that because it's not cool in America unless you go to college and have a white collar job........... That last part was my sarcasm. Sorry if I went overboard and feel free to break down disagreements or ask questions.

¶

Please explain how "Obama is everything that will destroy the economy". It's almost as if he has supernatural powers....

Actually, one of the major expenses of Medicaid is paying the nursing home expenses of the indigent elderly.  Medicare has absolutely no provision for long term care.

As for defunding Obamacare, yeah, the GOP can do that without getting rid of the filibuster, but they can't eliminate the must carry provisions that would fall upon insurers and which without some incentive to cause people to get insurance would end up destroying the private health insurance market if not taken care of.

If you ask Google you can find some data in a few seconds. For example:

Total Health Expenditure per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2008

()

Total Health Expenditure Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2008

()

Source: OECD

Compare the last graphic with the budget balances for the period 1970-2008. Thank you.

Sure, the right-wing never has any problem implementing their agenda.

I've already explained it above. Obama stands for higher taxes than the Republicans do which takes money out of the private sector which goes to Washington D.C. and is then redistributed to people who don't work. Now if tax payers could keep more of their own money they could hire those who are unemployed. Let's say the tax payers spend it on something else for themselves. No problem there because where they spend the money will create jobs. My point being that at some point down the line having more money in the private sector will create jobs. All Obama does for the economy is scare companies into going overseas by supporting higher wages and taxes while at the same time complaining about everyone who has done well on their own.

In the unlikely event that Romney wins the 2012 election, I will have my popcorn ready for the debt ceiling fight in 2013. Prepare to watch the GOP rip its self apart, Romney is not the type of man that can unite the paranoid lunatics with the beholden, it should be a debacle of enormous proportions.

That's one bad ass name but why so grim?

I enjoy the R-PA avatar. :D

what about it? lol thanks

Thank you, I'm a dinophile. :P

I'm grim because I'm a realist. Romney has failed to unite the warring factions of the GOP behind his candidacy to replace a President they loathe; why should I believe that he can get the party to work together on something as difficult and politically challenging as spending? The next 4 years are stacked against whoever wins this election; the dark parts of my political conscience would rather it be the Democrats problem.

I don't think our party needs to be united to vote though. We turned out for McCain. It's all about selling himself to independents and how things go for Obama in the next few months. With two conventions, 3 debates, and Labor Day coming alot can happen.

I'm not saying Romney can't win the election (though if I were a betting man my money would be on Obama), he can. More importantly though, I don't know how Romney intends to bring the GOP together to enact his agenda (the tea party/establishment split is a very real thing), let alone convince Democrats to come aboard. The next four years are nothing to be excited about politically, regardless of who wins this election. Our political infrastructure is approaching a massive turning point, one that will not be kind to either party.

But wouldn't giving money to the unemployed also help the economy since they will go out and spend that money. Many taxpayers would save that money which isn't as good for the economy as spending.

Economically speaking, I'd rather have Romnye win. Because of the drought and Europe, there'll probably be a double dip in 2013. That would benefit Democrats in the midterms and would set us up for a win in 2016.
But I want Obama to win for the bragging rights. We can be able to say that he came in with a recession and high unemployment and still won re-election. If Obama loses this year, there won't be another Black President for 50 years.

That's possible too but we want as many people working as possible. Unemployment will never be at 0% but there's a better chance of directly creating jobs if money is kept by people rather than given to the government and then redistributed in exchange for votes. I do think there's a point to be made about unemployment checks going back into the economy especially if people pay into it with their taxes prior to being laid off. I'm not against unemployment either but a line has to be drawn. My buddy was laid off and collected unemployment for over a year and a half when he only worked at the post office for a few weeks during the holidays. The main reason he started working there in the first place was so that he could collect unemployment and the only reason he got the job is because his parents work there. I'm very much in the middle when it comes to this issue but the way I look at it is that if someone makes money then it should be there's to keep minus 15% in federal taxes and whatever their state and local taxes are. After that discussions take place on how to spend taxes.