My Prediction if Romney Loses

[Gipper]

So, you really think we are on an "unsustainable path because of liberalism?" Not because of our HUGE defense bill that really doesn't serve ANYONE but the big defense industry corporation and the defense contractors?
Wll, I disagree. . .not that it should matter to you. Just expressing my opinion!

I am all for SIGNIFICANT cuts in defense (funny...we agree on something). Bring ALL the troops home and discontinue this constant policy of foreign interventions that only lead to more war and a bigger statist government. DO YOU THINK ALL RIGHT WINGERS WANT THIS HUGE MILITARY BUDGET AND INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY? I suspect you do.

While we agree on cutting defense, I am certain we DISAGREE on cutting the MUCH larger part of the budget....ENTITLEMENTS. With the huge baby boom generation heading for retirement demanding all their freebies and an economy incapable of supporting it, even if it were booming, its unsustainable...just as it is in Europe. The private sector is being hollowed out by liberalism, but cronyism is in full bloom. Please research the NUMEROUS job and business killing provisions in Obamacare and the NUMEROUS other big government regulations imposed on the private sector.
Without the tax revenue from the private sector to support all their socialist programs, how do liberals expect to sustain it?

America is a collectivist Kleptocracy about to implode....under the weight of too much liberalism imposed by BOTH parties.

 

[GenSeneca]

I am willing to accept a "safety net"

I say again... The Republican and Democrat policies differ only by degree, not substance. You claim the degree is a "major difference" but it's not substantive. Republicans cannot win on the issue if they agree with Democrats that a welfare state is necessary. The welfare state is immoral, it should be dismantled and abolished. Unless, or until, Republicans actually oppose Democrat support for the welfare state based on substance, they will continue to lose on the issue.

The same is true with regard to an interventionist foreign policy, both R's and D's agree on interventionism, they both agree on the premise and, therefore, only disagree on style - the manner in which we go about implementing and executing interventionist foreign policy.

Republicans need to oppose Democrats on substance if we're going to stop our nations slide to the Left.

 

[GenSeneca]

Groups are nothing more than individuals who get together. We should target groups and exploit our shared values.

You really aren't grasping the concept of individualism, are you?

Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests. Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body.​

​

You're approaching the issue from the point of view of a Collectivist:

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups.​

The Republican party needs to differentiate itself from the Democrats by establishing itself as the Individualist Right if it ever hopes to effectively oppose the Collectivist Left on actual substance, rather than merely opposing them on style or degree.

Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses "the moral worth of the individual". Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.​

Collectivism and Corporatism attempts to reduce politics to the lowest common denominator. They look at a person and don't see an individual, they see a member of this or that group and treat them like single issue voters by pandering to the group in hopes of gaining the vote of that individual. If you're going to pander, pander to the individual AS an individual, explain why your policies are good for every individual regardless of whatever group those individuals may be associated with.

 

[GenSeneca]

The dems really do have a significant socialist leaning and the pubs really do have a significant free market faction. This is not just style.

It is a difference of degree, not substance. Both R's and D's fully support government subsidies to industry, businesses, and even to individuals with regard to the welfare state. Their disagreements are over style and degree, they agree on the substance - Neither party wants to eliminate social and corporate welfare.

As for the socialist vs. free market, it's nonsense. Both R's and D's fully support a Mixed Market economy:

Mixed economy is an economic system in which both the state and private sector direct the economy, reflecting characteristics of both market economies and planned economies.​

Their disagreements come from degree and style - Neither party supports a Free Market:

Free Market: A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.​

 

[GenSeneca]

I was thinking about a Republican strategy today and wanted to see what you guys thought...

Republicans congratulate Obama on his reelection and offer the following deal to the Democrats: Republicans will not stand in the way of any fiscal legislation put forward by the Democrats, i.e. tax hikes, stimulus, bailouts, etc. Like Obama, they will merely vote "present" when those bills come before them - the Dems will OWN 100% of the legislation and be responsible for the results, good or bad. The only fiscal issue Republicans will stand firm on and block from passage is a raising of the debt ceiling. When the projected revenue from the massive tax hikes the Dems pass doesn't materialize (as we know it won't), they will have to solve the problem with real spending cuts rather than once again pushing us further into debt.

Thoughts?

 

[Pandora]

I was thinking about a Republican strategy today and wanted to see what you guys thought...

Republicans congratulate Obama on his reelection and offer the following deal to the Democrats: Republicans will not stand in the way of any fiscal legislation put forward by the Democrats, i.e. tax hikes, stimulus, bailouts, etc. Like Obama, they will merely vote "present" when those bills come before them - the Dems will OWN 100% of the legislation and be responsible for the results, good or bad. The only fiscal issue Republicans will stand firm on and block from passage is a raising of the debt ceiling. When the projected revenue from the massive tax hikes the Dems pass doesn't materialize (as we know it won't), they will have to solve the problem with real spending cuts rather than once again pushing us further into debt.

Thoughts?

I think it’s a good idea if it would work. They promised Reagan if he granted amnesty they would take the borders seriously and it would end the illegal problems. The problems are worse than ever because dems can’t ever take responsibly or keep their promises.



But if there were a way to force them to keep the promises they made I think it would be really good.



Then there is the problem of the delusional public. Look at Greece. They know there is no money, there must be cuts but they are burning their own country down rather than accept reality.



I would like to think we are not like Greece but I am guessing about 47 percent of us might be...so even proving what we already know to the idiots who can’t figure it out might be a worthless venture if they don’t accept the truth even when its right on their doorstep.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think it’s a good idea if it would work. They promised Reagan if he granted amnesty they would take the borders seriously and it would end the illegal problems. The problems are worse than ever because dems can’t ever take responsibly or keep their promises.



But if there were a way to force them to keep the promises they made I think it would be really good.



Then there is the problem of the delusional public. Look at Greece. They know there is no money, there must be cuts but they are burning their own country down rather than accept reality.



I would like to think we are not like Greece but I am guessing about 47 percent of us might be...so even proving what we already know to the idiots who can’t figure it out might be a worthless venture if they don’t accept the truth even when its right on their doorstep.

I was thinking of that strategy in regards to the "fiscal cliff" we're heading toward. Democrats WANT to go over the fiscal cliff, automatic tax hikes and cuts to defense spending - Dems get everything they want and Republicans lose on both.

The agreement I suggested would halt the fiscal cliff but use the debt ceiling as a firewall that would force the Dems to do the unthinkable - face reality. The credit card would be maxed out and the Dems would be forced to live within their means, they can't cut enough defense to make up the difference and tax hikes will only serve to further slow the economy and result in even less revenue, forcing more and deeper cuts to their precious welfare state.

If Republicans are the ones cutting the welfare state it's riot in the street time, only Dems can cut the welfare state without revolts. Clinton signed welfare reform, it saved the country billions, put millions back to work, increasing the tax base, and helped bolster new revenue - no riots in the streets. Had a Republican signed it, there would have been riots and looting. Republicans need to force Dems to ride the third rail of politics and the way to do that is through the debt ceiling.

 

[dogtowner]

they cannot agree as they know fll well that it wont work but will say it wont work with NO increase on the credit card. but spell out in precise detail what cuts will have to be se in stone to make it airtight.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I was thinking about a Republican strategy today and wanted to see what you guys thought...

Republicans congratulate Obama on his reelection and offer the following deal to the Democrats: Republicans will not stand in the way of any fiscal legislation put forward by the Democrats, i.e. tax hikes, stimulus, bailouts, etc. Like Obama, they will merely vote "present" when those bills come before them - the Dems will OWN 100% of the legislation and be responsible for the results, good or bad. The only fiscal issue Republicans will stand firm on and block from passage is a raising of the debt ceiling. When the projected revenue from the massive tax hikes the Dems pass doesn't materialize (as we know it won't), they will have to solve the problem with real spending cuts rather than once again pushing us further into debt.

Thoughts?

The Senate has refused to pass any bills.
The (People's) House should do the same.
If the country was left of center--would not the House be as well?
Pass zero bills to fund anything.
No funding to pay Congress or any elected or appointed employee.
Or to run their offices or buildings.
Only the military.

 

[Gipper]

I was thinking about a Republican strategy today and wanted to see what you guys thought...

Republicans congratulate Obama on his reelection and offer the following deal to the Democrats: Republicans will not stand in the way of any fiscal legislation put forward by the Democrats, i.e. tax hikes, stimulus, bailouts, etc. Like Obama, they will merely vote "present" when those bills come before them - the Dems will OWN 100% of the legislation and be responsible for the results, good or bad. The only fiscal issue Republicans will stand firm on and block from passage is a raising of the debt ceiling. When the projected revenue from the massive tax hikes the Dems pass doesn't materialize (as we know it won't), they will have to solve the problem with real spending cuts rather than once again pushing us further into debt.

Thoughts?

I like it, but the result will be economic stagnation and higher unemployment (I know that is the point). However the people will be hurt by this and many will end of on the government dole....even more than are already on it. The thinking by the left is once on the dole, you always vote Democrat. Not sure this is true, but apparently BO and Ds believe it is so.

Plus you are assuming the Rs can get out a coherent message that resonants with a majority of the people. First, the Rs are not that smart and second, they fail to understand that most of the press is hostile to them and will do all they can to diminish their efforts. The ridiculously incompetent Romney campaign is a good example of the Rs inability to connect with the American people and recognize that most of the media is an extension of the D Party (really commies).

 

[BigRob]

You really aren't grasping the concept of individualism, are you?

Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests. Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body.​

​

You're approaching the issue from the point of view of a Collectivist:

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups.​

The Republican party needs to differentiate itself from the Democrats by establishing itself as the Individualist Right if it ever hopes to effectively oppose the Collectivist Left on actual substance, rather than merely opposing them on style or degree.

Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses "the moral worth of the individual". Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.​

Collectivism and Corporatism attempts to reduce politics to the lowest common denominator. They look at a person and don't see an individual, they see a member of this or that group and treat them like single issue voters by pandering to the group in hopes of gaining the vote of that individual. If you're going to pander, pander to the individual AS an individual, explain why your policies are good for every individual regardless of whatever group those individuals may be associated with.

Let us look at the definition you put forth for individualism.

Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses "the moral worth of the individual". Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.

If a group of individuals gets together, they do so of their own free will and because it is in their own self-interest to do so.

These groups then are often used to oppose external interference upon their own interests by the government....I see no contradiction at all to an individualist theory when these individuals form groups to promote their own self-interests.

 

[BigRob]

I was thinking about a Republican strategy today and wanted to see what you guys thought...

Republicans congratulate Obama on his reelection and offer the following deal to the Democrats: Republicans will not stand in the way of any fiscal legislation put forward by the Democrats, i.e. tax hikes, stimulus, bailouts, etc. Like Obama, they will merely vote "present" when those bills come before them - the Dems will OWN 100% of the legislation and be responsible for the results, good or bad. The only fiscal issue Republicans will stand firm on and block from passage is a raising of the debt ceiling. When the projected revenue from the massive tax hikes the Dems pass doesn't materialize (as we know it won't), they will have to solve the problem with real spending cuts rather than once again pushing us further into debt.

Thoughts?

It is wishful thinking -- and bad politics. The debt ceiling is going to be reached at the end of this year -- there is no room to enact any program to raise revenue and even if there was a massive tax hike, whatever revenue they project wouldn't come in anyway for quite some time. All you get is a government shut down, a forced default, and all easily blamed on Republicans who are playing politics.

I don't know about you, but I didn't vote for my leaders to go to DC and vote "present" in some effort to make a political point. Didn't we learn the lesson with Reagan that you don't make concessions now in the hopes of future changes.

All that said, the whole debt ceiling vote is idiotic and should be abolished. Congress already votes to approve the spending in the budget, appropriations bills etc ... it should go without saying if Congress gives you authority to spend it, then you by extension have the authority to borrow it.

 

[GenSeneca]

I see no contradiction at all to an individualist theory when these individuals form groups to promote their own self-interests.

The "contradiction" comes when you use the Collectivist Left tactic of going after those groups by pandering to them as monolithic voting blocks. The "black" vote, the "Hispanic" vote, the "woman's" vote... What you're suggesting the Republicans start doing is exactly what the Dems already do, pander to specific groups in hopes of getting entire voting blocs. Republicans won't win elections trying to copy Democrat tactics.

Individualism transcends group politics, as every member of every group is an individual. The individual is both the smallest minority and, ironically, the largest single voting bloc. Republicans need a strategy that "panders" to individuals rather than groups, win the individuals and you win the groups. Promising special interest groups government goodies paid for at taxpayer expense is how Collectivists operate, that's how the Dems win elections. Rather than ratcheting up their efforts in Collectivist politics, Republicans need to abandon that strategy entirely as they will never be able to play Santa Claus better than the Dems.

 

[Dr.Who]

It is a difference of degree, not substance. Both R's and D's fully support government subsidies to industry, businesses, and even to individuals with regard to the welfare state. Their disagreements are over style and degree, they agree on the substance - Neither party wants to eliminate social and corporate welfare.

As for the socialist vs. free market, it's nonsense. Both R's and D's fully support a Mixed Market economy:

Mixed economy is an economic system in which both the state and private sector direct the economy, reflecting characteristics of both market economies and planned economies.​

Their disagreements come from degree and style - Neither party supports a Free Market:

Free Market: A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.​

I stand corrected. There IS a significant difference between the two parties as I said but I now see that as you said, it is only a difference of style not subtance. It is not enough to be significantly different from socialist but only in terms of style. The pubs must get back to basics so that they can understand the differnces in substance that must be made to exist.

We conservatives must always bear this in mind and not fall into the trap of arguing that our stylistic differnces are important because then we will have already wrongly conceded that some degree of socialisim is good.

 

[Dr.Who]

It wojld be irresponsible of the republicans not to oppose any legislating they thought would hurt the country.