The Republican Long Game

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

As a political strategist, totally bad move. Case in point: Clinton gets credit for budget surplus, not the republican congress…[/quote]

I disagree, mainly because that’s apples and oranges - economic boom times aren’t the product of the politicians in a direct way that negotiations on a budget bill are, and people get that.

One other aspect - from a purely Machiavellian point of view, do you think that Obama would sign it if it had huge cuts, especially to Medicare, which is the main thing that needs to be cut? His base just delivered him a victory despite 4 years of a bad record and a loss of American independents - he’d be between a rock and a hard place.

That’s what makes the election so interesting - for Obama to reverse his presidency and deal with the most pressing issue of the day, he needs to do things that will make his base quite angry - a base that just delivered him the White House.

And one more thing - the GOP just got spanked: what do they have left to lose? Why try the same things that didn’t win? No need to be reckless, but the idea that the GOP will just hunker down for 4 years and try it again is a bad idea.

The times demand bold action, and the GOP could lead, and shouldn’t worry about who gets the credit. Elecotorally, they won’t suffer for doing the right thing, even if Obama gets disproportionate credit.[/quote]

Good point, particularly the end.

122

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It is going to work like the tax code. The more money you make the more you pay. And the more you have in retirement the less you receive.

Involuntary means testing every 36 months and voluntary (optional) means testing every June, without permanent loss in benefits if you test above the limit should solve some of the problem.
[/quote]

Somehow this has to be tied to lifetime gross earnings. A working class individual that pays their own bills will have lifetime earning below 2.5 million and spend a significant % of those earning on subsistence. A lawyer, doctor, banker, etc. situation would be much different. However, something like this seems like the only practical approach.

123

What I hear when I hear compromise from obama is that the other side must cave and give in because he won’t. That’s obama’s definition of compromise.

124

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It is going to work like the tax code. The more money you make the more you pay. And the more you have in retirement the less you receive.

Involuntary means testing every 36 months and voluntary (optional) means testing every June, without permanent loss in benefits if you test above the limit should solve some of the problem.
[/quote]

Somehow this has to be tied to lifetime gross earnings. A working class individual that pays their own bills will have lifetime earning below 2.5 million and spend a significant % of those earning on subsistence. A lawyer, doctor, banker, etc. situation would be much different. However, something like this seems like the only practical approach.
[/quote]

Agree. Just have to make sure it doesn’t become taxation without representation.

And the means testing should help. But the administrative costs of it will be higher, because there is income mobility, so means testing has to be periodic.

The major issues here are the details though, and some how keeping medicare and things like AARP out of the conversation.

125

Isn’t means testing just going to acknowledge it’s a welfare program?

126

[quote]pat wrote:

What I hear when I hear compromise from obama is that the other side must cave and give in because he won’t. That’s obama’s definition of compromise. [/quote]

Then don’t let him define the terms of the deal or what constitutes a compromise here. Go on offense and make the proposal. That way, the President can’t way “here is a deal, and my way or the high way”. Present a big deal that includes Democrats, and make him say no.

Obama should compromise, but if he won’t for the reasons you say, fine - then play that card against him, and force him to turn down a good deal.

If he doesn’t play ball, ignore him. House and Senate Democrats have made it absolutely clear they will negotiate without the president, and they actually seem to prefer to (they did last time). Cut the president out of the deal-mkaing, if necessary.

127

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Isn’t means testing just going to acknowledge it’s a welfare program?[/quote]

Yes.

SS works like a ponzi scheme, as such if you run out of new money, the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

One way to sort of combat this is if someone is smart with their money, lives within their means, and defers some of their earned benefits because they came in over the means limits they can pass their remaining benefits on to heirs. (The left would lose their minds over this idea though.)

Thing is, everyone likes to call SS (forced) retirement savings. It isn’t. It is social welfare for those that A) weren’t able to make enough to save for retirement and still want to retire B) lose everything in a situation like the FC C) were plain stupid with their money.

I’m not saying we should ignore these people and let them die, not, but we need to encourage people to at least try and sustain themselves with saved money, and not rely on SS to live out the rest of their lives. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore.

128

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

SS works like a ponzi scheme, as such if you run out of new money, the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

One way to sort of combat this is if someone is smart with their money, lives within their means, and defers some of their earned benefits because they came in over the means limits they can pass their remaining benefits on to heirs. (The left would lose their minds over this idea though.)

Thing is, everyone likes to call SS (forced) retirement savings. It isn’t. It is social welfare for those that A) weren’t able to make enough to save for retirement and still want to retire B) lose everything in a situation like the FC C) were plain stupid with their money.

I’m not saying we should ignore these people and let them die, not, but we need to encourage people to at least try and sustain themselves with saved money, and not rely on SS to live out the rest of their lives. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore.[/quote]

And, it was LBJ (as memory serves) that changed SS radically, including the way it was financed.

It was never conceived of being this general-pension for old people. FDR’s social security started paying benefits (again, as memory serves) after what amounted the year that was the average year of mortality back then. It was designed to be an emergency fund - not a 20 year retirement fund.

I like social security, and I don’t think it is a good idea to privatize it or do away with it - but it needs to be downsized to serve its original mission.

129

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Isn’t means testing just going to acknowledge it’s a welfare program?[/quote]

Yes.

SS works like a ponzi scheme, as such if you run out of new money, the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

One way to sort of combat this is if someone is smart with their money, lives within their means, and defers some of their earned benefits because they came in over the means limits they can pass their remaining benefits on to heirs. (The left would lose their minds over this idea though.)

Thing is, everyone likes to call SS (forced) retirement savings. It isn’t. It is social welfare for those that A) weren’t able to make enough to save for retirement and still want to retire B) lose everything in a situation like the FC C) were plain stupid with their money.

I’m not saying we should ignore these people and let them die, not, but we need to encourage people to at least try and sustain themselves with saved money, and not rely on SS to live out the rest of their lives. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore.[/quote]

So, how realistic is it to push for means testing, considering that it ends up finishing off “we get what we paid into it!”? Isn’t that sort of a useful misunderstanding to maintain when you’re demonizing another political party? What are the Democrats saying about this? Do they like the idea, considering it shines the light of day on what SS has actually become? Are they afraid it’ll make SS an easier target when the idea that you’re simply getting your money back is laid to rest?

130

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Isn’t means testing just going to acknowledge it’s a welfare program?[/quote]

Yes.

SS works like a ponzi scheme, as such if you run out of new money, the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

One way to sort of combat this is if someone is smart with their money, lives within their means, and defers some of their earned benefits because they came in over the means limits they can pass their remaining benefits on to heirs. (The left would lose their minds over this idea though.)

Thing is, everyone likes to call SS (forced) retirement savings. It isn’t. It is social welfare for those that A) weren’t able to make enough to save for retirement and still want to retire B) lose everything in a situation like the FC C) were plain stupid with their money.

I’m not saying we should ignore these people and let them die, not, but we need to encourage people to at least try and sustain themselves with saved money, and not rely on SS to live out the rest of their lives. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore.[/quote]

So, how realistic is it to push for means testing, considering that it ends up finishing off “we get what we paid into it!”? Isn’t that sort of a useful misunderstanding to maintain when you’re demonizing another political party? [/quote]

Means testing will be spun as “the evil republicans are taking away your benefits, taking away your money.”

I saw a facebook post from someone who was talking about SS. He went on and on, and his math was, well, wrong to be kind. The thing that struck me was his contention that 1% interest a month was meager and easy to get. He literally has no idea that is 12% a year and you can’t get that anywhere, ever.

Because of above, we’ll never get means testing or any real SS reform. We’ll do the Washington magic trick of kicking the can down the road to our kids. Triple the wage limit…

If you have facebook, go to a liberal page, find a post about SS, and call it a ponzi scheme. Watch heads explode.

131

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

SS works like a ponzi scheme, as such if you run out of new money, the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

One way to sort of combat this is if someone is smart with their money, lives within their means, and defers some of their earned benefits because they came in over the means limits they can pass their remaining benefits on to heirs. (The left would lose their minds over this idea though.)

Thing is, everyone likes to call SS (forced) retirement savings. It isn’t. It is social welfare for those that A) weren’t able to make enough to save for retirement and still want to retire B) lose everything in a situation like the FC C) were plain stupid with their money.

I’m not saying we should ignore these people and let them die, not, but we need to encourage people to at least try and sustain themselves with saved money, and not rely on SS to live out the rest of their lives. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore.[/quote]

And, it was LBJ (as memory serves) that changed SS radically, including the way it was financed.

It was never conceived of being this general-pension for old people. FDR’s social security started paying benefits (again, as memory serves) after what amounted the year that was the average year of mortality back then. It was designed to be an emergency fund - not a 20 year retirement fund.

I like social security, and I don’t think it is a good idea to privatize it or do away with it - but it needs to be downsized to serve its original mission.[/quote]

It’ll have to downsize. Sooner or later.

I just wonder about those people still living paycheck to paycheck around retirement age.

I’d hate to see the government so irresponsible with it that it just has to be eliminated one day. Do you see that as a distinct possibility?

132

I think the Republican Party has to ask itself what it is. You have a huge spectrum the party now covers.

From Ron Paul Libertarianism to the right to the Tea Party (Social Conservative and Fiscal Conservatism) to John Beohner (Bush 1 Republican) to John McCain and Mitt Romney (Nelson Rockefeller Republican) in the centre. The party can continue this catch all approach or it can redefine, rebrand and resolidify itself around a core set of principles. I understand more what defines a Democrat either your a moderate like Clinton (Third Way Democrat) or your more like Elizabeth Warren. There is too much fragmentation in the Republican Party and it forces those in the party to be affiliated with those outlandish characters such as Rush.

The Republican Party is in for an uphill battle as demographics change. It has been projected that Texas could be a swing state in a decade due to a projected Latino majority in the state. Another Bush such as Prescott Bush should not be the future hope of the party. There is a need for new blood.

Edit: I forgot to mention neconservative/ Leo Strauss Republicans led by Paul Wolfowitz, and Charles Krauthammer. The believe in lots of Democratic principles yet differ because they believe the US should export democracy everywhere with military might. It is good in nature but practical application of exporting democracy is hard when history has shown those most successful in adopting democracy have been nations who have a history of classical liberalism.

133

The Republican message becomes underminded when you have the wealthy elite such as Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, the Google owners, and Warren Buffet affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party and the Koch brothers with the Republican Party.

134

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
The Republican message becomes underminded when you have the wealthy elite such as Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, the Google owners, and Warren Buffet affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party and the Koch brothers with the Republican Party. [/quote]
Lol
I find the entire republican message to be a bit underminded. Wealth doesn’t determine ones vote by necessity. Particularly if the social policies are repugnant.

135

No but a creates a mixed message to voters when Warren Buffet goes the rich should pay more and the general public is like yes they should because if Warren Buffet one of the world’s richest men thinks he is not paying his fair share then there is problem.

It automatically makes the wealthy look greedy and arrogant if they disagree with Buffet. The picture is painted before the Republicans can rebuttle.

136

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
No but a creates a mixed message to voters when Warren Buffet goes the rich should pay more and the general public is like yes they should because if Warren Buffet one of the world’s richest men thinks he is not paying his fair share then there is problem.

It automatically makes the wealthy look greedy and arrogant if they disagree with Buffet. The picture is painted before the Republicans can rebuttle. [/quote]
So what.
Its a very valid position to say the top tax rate is too low.
All you are really saying is the republicans need a better narrative. This is clearly true. If you take the result of bush versus gore as it should have gone then the last few presidential elections have not gone well either in popular or electoral votes for the republicams
Demographically this will likely continue unless there is a change. Yet the religious right along with a couple other groups doesnt get this
I have seen a few national figures say the party is not right enough and every position should be more conservative, folloe that advice welcome to never winning again.
Politics isnt about going down in flames all or nothing .its about the change you can accomplish.
Roe vs wade ain’t going away. Gay marriage will become legal. If these are important to you live your life in a fashion that reflects it and attempt to change the minds and behavior of people by example and conversion. Legislating or attempting to legislate a morality that doesnt reflect a common view is doomed.
As well kick the fucking morons out of the party that can’t seem to grasp rape. They hurt you. I think every one of the dumb rape quote guys lost. Too fucking stupid to be running.

137

[quote]groo wrote:
Legislating or attempting to legislate a morality that doesnt reflect a common view is doomed.
.[/quote]

Good thing the republicans didn’t try and legislate morality when it came to slavery.

Oh wait.

138

Now I’m not saying gay marriage and slavery are comparable, but you can’t claim we shouldn’t legislate morality.

The issue is whether or not the morals we are legislating are just.

I would imagine if the republican party were to evolve its stance to one of “silent disapproval” of gay marriage, I would doubt their vote share would jump all that significantly.

139

@Counting Beans

I disagree with you. I fee that if the Republican party became much more tolerant to the homosexual community and argued we judge a person not by age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender but by content of their character I believe they would see a growth in party affiliation. I feel uneasy with Dick Cheney denying his daughter the right to get married if she so chooses. It is hard to be the champion of individual freedom when you deny law abiding citizens the freedom to pursue there own life, liberty and pursuit of their own happiness.

The Republican party should argue in regards to domestic policy that black, white, yellow, orange, brown do not matter all that matters is the colour green.

140

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Now I’m not saying gay marriage and slavery are comparable, but you can’t claim we shouldn’t legislate morality.

The issue is whether or not the morals we are legislating are just.

I would imagine if the republican party were to evolve its stance to one of “silent disapproval” of gay marriage, I would doubt their vote share would jump all that significantly. [/quote]

Nationally they should punt/pivot to “states rights” and argue individual states should decide, IMO.