My Prediction if Romney Loses

[GenSeneca]

Yes...there is a theory that once the party of freebies (Dems - really commies) starts making cuts to their beloved welfare state, it will face a revolt. Should be fun to watch, though knowing those assholes they will try to burn the house down.

Again, so long as it's Dems in charge of doing it, there will be no revolt against the Dems. The people of Detroit have yet to catch on to the devastation that letting Dems run the show has caused, they simply blame the "rich" and Republicans for their deprivations and continue to believe that Democrats are actually trying to help.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Like cutting food stamps for Ohioans $50 a month ? That sort of cut ?
Or the Medicare voucher system trial he's been test driving ?

A part of Missus Obama's Anti-Fat Campaign?

I'd like to see them enforce food stamps with a "no-fattening food" codicil.
No Pop-Tarts.

 

[BigRob]

I welcome "questionning in good faith,". Unfortunately these are rare, and seldom done by anyone but you.

The rest usually consist in a short and belitteling refusal to even consider arguments I present (generally with evidence tha I am certainly not the only one thinking that way, reliable sources from experts), or, worst, insulting comments.

Open your eyes.

And, Obama didn't add 4 trillions dollars deficit. IF YOU ARE A BUSUPINESSMAN, you KNOW that deficits grow exponentially, and that deficits habe been growing since Reagan, with a short break at towards the end of Clinton's Administration.

It is obvious that the servicing on the accumilated deficits at the time Bush took office were a LOT SMALLER than the servicing on the accumulated deficits of $1 trillion when Obama took office.

The HIGHEST increase in deficit came in 2009, a year when the budget was STILL Bush's.

Here is another statement and another graph that shows what part of the deficit belongs to Bush (and his predecessors) and which part belongs to Obama.

I notice that you do not bother to present any alternatice sources ro support YOUR OPINION that 4 trillions in deficit is entirely Obama's fault.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/how-did-we-get-to-trillion-dollar-deficits/

This graph again -- just highlights Bush programs and then blames them for causing the debt -- nevermind that Obama continued most of those programs (but that is not his fault apparently -- he even campaigned on continuing many of them).

My point is simple -- with the massive amount of spending taking place in numerous programs -- why do we simply pick the Bush programs and say "that caused the trillion dollar deficits"?

As for links -- I posted them all when I replied to this very subject in another thread -- which was ignored.

 

[dogtowner]

A part of Missus Obama's Anti-Fat Campaign?

I'd like to see them enforce food stamps with a "no-fattening food" codicil.
No Pop-Tarts.

they claim it is due to a mild last winter (good old mystifying govt thinking) but its more likely the bulging food stamp rolls can no longer be paid for even with printed money. no poptarts ? might cause riots.

 

[Dr.Who]

they claim it is due to a mild last winter (good old mystifying govt thinking) but its more likely the bulging food stamp rolls can no longer be paid for even with printed money. no poptarts ? might cause riots.

But Pop-tarts are high in Iron. Imagine the rampant anemia if poor people were expected to eat spinach.

Since it is the gov that is handing out the cards doesn't the gov have the right to limit how the money is spent? One can't buy booze right? And if enough people use the cards doesn't that mean that the gov is gaining control over an ever larger portion of the population. Just think what politicians could do if 90% of the population were on food stamps. Why the gov could have enough influence on the eating habits of Americans as to be able to shut the doors of any business at all with one swipe of a pen. Today Sebelius eliminates Pop-tarts and tomorrow Kellog's is out of business for failing to donate enough to her Presidential re-election campaign. If a gov gets big enough in even seemingly benign areas like food stamps then it gains virtually limitless power.

 

[Cruella]

But Pop-tarts are high in Iron. Imagine the rampant anemia if poor people were expected to eat spinach.

Since it is the gov that is handing out the cards doesn't the gov have the right to limit how the money is spent? One can't buy booze right? And if enough people use the cards doesn't that mean that the gov is gaining control over an ever larger portion of the population. Just think what politicians could do if 90% of the population were on food stamps. Why the gov could have enough influence on the eating habits of Americans as to be able to shut the doors of any business at all with one swipe of a pen. Today Sebelius eliminates Pop-tarts and tomorrow Kellog's is out of business for failing to donate enough to her Presidential re-election campaign. If a gov gets big enough in even seemingly benign areas like food stamps then it gains virtually limitless power.

Good post. Big Ag is behind a lot of food issues, like "free" school lunches and farm subsidies. The government paying some farmers to NOT produce or the FDA imposing restrictions on others. Ever wonder why meat costs so much these days? Everyone is blaming the draught for not having enough feed. Like hay and feed grains can't be stored for draughts? Ever wonder why old Soro's bought up a bunch of grain storage businesses?

If the government can control the food they can control the people, and if they want to, they can limit what's available that is affordable.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

But Pop-tarts are high in Iron. Imagine the rampant anemia if poor people were expected to eat spinach.

Since it is the gov that is handing out the cards doesn't the gov have the right to limit how the money is spent? One can't buy booze right?* And if enough people use the cards doesn't that mean that the gov is gaining control over an ever larger portion of the population. Just think what politicians could do if 90% of the population were on food stamps. Why the gov could have enough influence on the eating habits of Americans as to be able to shut the doors of any business at all with one swipe of a pen. Today Sebelius eliminates Pop-tarts and tomorrow Kellog's is out of business for failing to donate enough to her Presidential re-election campaign. If a gov gets big enough in even seemingly benign areas like food stamps then it gains virtually limitless power.

*Requires the dog-leg detour through the liquor store barter system with the obligatory "tribute percentile" to the slum-lord merchant. Same with drugs and guns or whatever else is needed in the 'hood.

Return to commodities--FOOD--get a 10-pounder of cheese (imagine--the photo-op for Obama passing it out from a flatbed truck with Maxine Waters smiling on affectionately!), powdered milk, big cans of beef and pork and butter and whatever else can make a child grow up healthy.

And you gotta cook it yourself--hell--you got nothing else to do!

 

[Dr.Who]

*Requires the dog-leg detour through the liquor store barter system with the obligatory "tribute percentile" to the slum-lord merchant. Same with drugs and guns or whatever else is needed in the 'hood.

I think you are saying that food stamps can be used to buy booze if one trades. that is true.

Return to commodities--FOOD--get a 10-pounder of cheese (imagine--the photo-op for Obama passing it out from a flatbed truck with Maxine Waters smiling on affectionately!), powdered milk, big cans of beef and pork and butter and whatever else can make a child grow up healthy.

Are you suggesting that powdered milk and canned beef are healthy? The fact that the gov does not really know what is healthy is exactly why the gov should not be allowed to dictate who eats what. Additionally, it should stop encouraging people to make different food choices at a great expense to the rest of us.

And you gotta cook it yourself--hell--you got nothing else to do!

Other than find a job. The welfare system encourages not having a job and that is why it should be as small as possible and not run by the gov - which the Fed does not have the authority to move money from one citizen to another anyway. Not that that stops the gov from moving money from less favored people to more favored people as seemingly its major activity.

 

[dogtowner]

*Requires the dog-leg detour through the liquor store barter system with the obligatory "tribute percentile" to the slum-lord merchant. Same with drugs and guns or whatever else is needed in the 'hood.

Return to commodities--FOOD--get a 10-pounder of cheese (imagine--the photo-op for Obama passing it out from a flatbed truck with Maxine Waters smiling on affectionately!), powdered milk, big cans of beef and pork and butter and whatever else can make a child grow up healthy.

And you gotta cook it yourself--hell--you got nothing else to do!

yes
yes
and HELL yes

 

[Gipper]

I guess you haven't been listening to Obama's speeches, or you would KNOW that it includes spending cuts, but first of all, I hope it includes CORPORATE WELFARE cuts. . .and then reduction of wastes from entitlements. And, OBVIOUSLY, Obama (nor anyone else) could not erase the deficit in the next 4 years. . .I guess maybe you're the one believing in Santa Claus.

But at least Obama's plan includes a balance approach (cuts in spending AND increase in revenues through either . ..or both. . .increasing taxes for the wealthy and eliminating loopholes that allow people like Romney to pay a smaller percentage of taxes on $12.7 million annual income than the percentage most middle and upper middle class people pay!

I am very glad to see that, now that the elections are over, even some conservative Republicans are revising their views on this, and are actually recommending that the GOP adopt the "balanced" approach.

Well what happened to the spending cuts? BO presented his plan on Capital Hill and there weren't any cuts. Did he lie to YOU again or did he 'misstate' his position?

 

[PLC1]

This is my prediction if the outcome tonight is that Romney loses.

1) The rightwing of the Republican Party will lurch dramatically further to the right -- with the idea of "we nominated a moderate, and look what we got".
2) Moderate Republicans become further disillusioned with the brand being hijacked by the far right, and either A) attempt to take the party back or B) leave the party.
3) The Republican Party loses most hope of retaking the White House in the next decade or more -- and becomes a fractured party, with a tarnished brand, that struggles to attract membership in many parts of the country.

I hope that I am mistaken -- or that, should this occur, the process can be halted somewhere along the way.

OK, it is now a month past the election, and we all know the outcome by now.

At least, I think we do. A few people do have an astounding ability to ignore inconvenient facts and live in their own dream worlds.

So, have Big Rob's predictions come true? I'm not sure we're hearing a lot from the right wing of the party, other than how terrible the president is.

Are moderate Republicans leaving the party, or attempting to take it back?

Has the party lost hope of retaking the WH?

It seems all I can remember hearing from the Republican partisans is how the country is going to Hell in a handbasket due to having reelected a Democrat to the WH, but nothing about how the Republicans might regain power, about what went wrong, or what the party should look like in the future.

The Republicans nominated a good candidate last time around, certainly a better and more electable candidate than anyone else who was running, and yet was unable to unseat an incumbent Democrat despite that 16 teradollar debt and an economy that was shaky to say the least.

Perhaps it's time for some Republican introspection, to divine why the party lost and what needs to change in the future. What do you think?

 

[BigRob]

OK, it is now a month past the election, and we all know the outcome by now.

At least, I think we do. A few people do have an astounding ability to ignore inconvenient facts and live in their own dream worlds.

So, have Big Rob's predictions come true? I'm not sure we're hearing a lot from the right wing of the party, other than how terrible the president is.

Hold on now -- the time frame for these predicitions is not one month -- it is at the shortest, at least two years.. ie the 2014 elections. Time will tell which direction we are heading with who emerges from the primaries at that time.

As for hearing complaints about how we lost because Romney was a moderate -- that played out for days immediately after the election -- and antidotally, I had lunch today with the head of a Tea Party PAC, who stated that we needed to ensure we don't nominate another moderate in 2016, because the last two we nominated got beat.

The Tea Party Patriots -- a large ground that speaks for a large segment of the far right in the party released the following statement the day after the election:

""For those of us who believe that America, as founded, is the greatest country in the history of the world – a 'Shining city upon a hill' – we wanted someone who would fight for us," Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin wrote in an e-mail, quoting 40th president and conservative hero Ronald Reagan. "We wanted a fighter like Ronald Reagan who boldly championed America's founding principles... What we got was a weak moderate candidate, hand-picked by the Beltway elites and country-club establishment.""

Are moderate Republicans leaving the party, or attempting to take it back?

This is a trend that is already underway -- we saw in numerous times this last election -- with polls showing people who were previously self identifying as "Republican" now self identifying as "independent" -- and then describing themselves as "Moderates." This is a gradual trend that hopefully will be stopped, but we won't get new real data on it until at least 2014.

That said, antidotal evidence does point to moderate's pushing back -- with loud arguments that the Tea Party is the sole reason the R's don't hold the Senate, and Republicans on the Hill abandoning pledges that curried favor with the far right -- additionally, there have been larger and larger moderate immigration reform proposals coming from the right.

Has the party lost hope of retaking the WH?

This is another gradual trend, and it way to early to make this determination. We have to see how the other factors play out first.

It seems all I can remember hearing from the Republican partisans is how the country is going to Hell in a handbasket due to having reelected a Democrat to the WH, but nothing about how the Republicans might regain power, about what went wrong, or what the party should look like in the future.

The Republicans nominated a good candidate last time around, certainly a better and more electable candidate than anyone else who was running, and yet was unable to unseat an incumbent Democrat despite that 16 teradollar debt and an economy that was shaky to say the least.

Perhaps it's time for some Republican introspection, to divine why the party lost and what needs to change in the future. What do you think?

I agree -- but there is plenty of infighting among party leaders about the lessons they learned from this election. Time will tell which side ultimately wins -- but we won't get that clear answer until really 2016, with some good evidence coming in by 2014.

 

[Cruella]

I predicted Obama would win. I also predict that with the stupidity of the voting public, Republicans will not take back any political power in the near future.

 

[PLC1]

Hold on now -- the time frame for these predicitions is not one month -- it is at the shortest, at least two years.. ie the 2014 elections. Time will tell which direction we are heading with who emerges from the primaries at that time.

As for hearing complaints about how we lost because Romney was a moderate -- that played out for days immediately after the election -- and antidotally, I had lunch today with the head of a Tea Party PAC, who stated that we needed to ensure we don't nominate another moderate in 2016, because the last two we nominated got beat.

The Tea Party Patriots -- a large ground that speaks for a large segment of the far right in the party released the following statement the day after the election:

""For those of us who believe that America, as founded, is the greatest country in the history of the world – a 'Shining city upon a hill' – we wanted someone who would fight for us," Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin wrote in an e-mail, quoting 40th president and conservative hero Ronald Reagan. "We wanted a fighter like Ronald Reagan who boldly championed America's founding principles... What we got was a weak moderate candidate, hand-picked by the Beltway elites and country-club establishment.""



This is a trend that is already underway -- we saw in numerous times this last election -- with polls showing people who were previously self identifying as "Republican" now self identifying as "independent" -- and then describing themselves as "Moderates." This is a gradual trend that hopefully will be stopped, but we won't get new real data on it until at least 2014.

That said, antidotal evidence does point to moderate's pushing back -- with loud arguments that the Tea Party is the sole reason the R's don't hold the Senate, and Republicans on the Hill abandoning pledges that curried favor with the far right -- additionally, there have been larger and larger moderate immigration reform proposals coming from the right.



This is another gradual trend, and it way to early to make this determination. We have to see how the other factors play out first.



I agree -- but there is plenty of infighting among party leaders about the lessons they learned from this election. Time will tell which side ultimately wins -- but we won't get that clear answer until really 2016, with some good evidence coming in by 2014.

Your predictions may yet prove correct. As you say, it is only a month past the election.

If the economy continues to suck along, then the country may just be ready for a real conservative by 2016, possibly.

I predict that they will never be ready for a Herman Cain, Rick Perry, or Michelle Bachmann. Maybe for a Rick Santorum, but I doubt it. The real test will be fiscal conservatism, not so called "social" conservatism.

Perhaps a younger and more charismatic Ron Paul will be a good choice.

 

[dogtowner]

OK, it is now a month past the election, and we all know the outcome by now.

At least, I think we do. A few people do have an astounding ability to ignore inconvenient facts and live in their own dream worlds.

So, have Big Rob's predictions come true? I'm not sure we're hearing a lot from the right wing of the party, other than how terrible the president is.

Are moderate Republicans leaving the party, or attempting to take it back?

Has the party lost hope of retaking the WH?

It seems all I can remember hearing from the Republican partisans is how the country is going to Hell in a handbasket due to having reelected a Democrat to the WH, but nothing about how the Republicans might regain power, about what went wrong, or what the party should look like in the future.

The Republicans nominated a good candidate last time around, certainly a better and more electable candidate than anyone else who was running, and yet was unable to unseat an incumbent Democrat despite that 16 teradollar debt and an economy that was shaky to say the least.

Perhaps it's time for some Republican introspection, to divine why the party lost and what needs to change in the future. What do you think?

the GOP will be drafted back into power when the country crashes and burns. while people are able to vote themselves money from the public trreasure they will certainly do so. but when the bender is over and the bills come due, the grownups will be looked to.