My Prediction if Romney Loses

[GenSeneca]

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.

So raise it with the understanding that they will block any attempts to further increase the debt ceiling after that. Republicans have to go on offense, they can't keep playing defense and expect to win. Force Dems to work within the fiscal constraints of the new debt limit with whatever magical solutions they're offering. Dems keep overspending because they know Republicans don't have the political spine to stand up to them.

When Republicans overspent, Dems were screaming like chicken little, even Obama himself said that the $4 Trillion in debt that Bush racked up over 8 years was proof that he was irresponsible and unpatriotic:

All of a sudden, now that Dem's are in charge, the debt doesn't matter... Obama racked up 5 trillion in just 4 years and he's on track to rack up 8 or 9 trillion by the end of his 8 years. I guess it's only irresponsible and unpatriotic to rack up debt when Republicans do it.

Republicans need to remind Dems about the Pay-As-You-Go rules Democrats were crowing about the entire time Republicans were in control, they've totally ignored those rules since taking power and Republicans could hammer Dems on that issue. Dems want to return to Clinton era tax rates but, for some strange reason, have no interest in returning to the Clinton era PAYGO rules that forced Congress to fund expenditures without borrowing.

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.

I sure as hell didn't vote for them to go to Washington and play footsie with Democrats and fold like card tables every time the dems pick a fight.

Didn't we learn the lesson with Reagan that you don't make concessions now in the hopes of future changes.

Isn't that exactly what you're suggesting Republicans do? Work with Democrats for the sake of bi-partisanship, sing kumbaya, and make compromises in order to get at least SOME of what they want?

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.

I disagree. Force Dems to return to PAYGO by blocking any further increases of the debt ceiling. If they object, there are countless soundbites from when Republicans were in charge where those same Dems who would now complain were then demanding Republicans be forced to use PAYGO instead of additional borrowing. Republicans could win on this issue, if they had any balls.

 

[GenSeneca]

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.

If only every Republican and Conservative were as logical and rational as yourself our country would be in much better shape. I'm saddened that so few Conservatives have come to terms with such a simple and obvious truth. It's a problem Republicans and Conservatives (in general) don't seem to grasp...

If you concede that any amount of forced redistribution is good, then there is no objective basis for opposing greater degrees of redistributive policy, it becomes entirely subjective. Dems always claim they have the moral high ground when they seek to expand forced redistrubtion and the Republicans, who oppose those expansions, are left without a moral defense of their position because they've abandoned morality entirely by agreeing with the morality of the welfare state in the first place.

Is it moral to take, by threat of force, the fruits of one mans labor and give it to another man who has not earned it and does not deserve it? Of course not, it's immoral, it's legalized theft, it is slavery by degree. Opposition to policies of forced redistribution is the moral high ground. Once the Republicans agreed with the Dems that it IS moral to forcibly redistributed X amount of wealth, there is no argument they can make for why it's less moral, rather than more moral, to allow Y or Z levels of forced redistribution. Democrats will always win that argument and, worse yet, get the "moral" credit for being the more compassionate party.

 

[Gipper]

It would be silly to blame the conservative part of the party for a moderates loss.

It is silly to blame conservative ideology for Romney's lose (particularly when he is a progressive who ran a terrible campaign against a POTUS who was easily beatable). But that is exactly what the establishment Rs are doing. See Big Rob posts for confirmation.....

This dislike of conservatives/libertarians by the R establishment is nothing knew. It has been going on for decades. The Bushs, Doles, McCains, Romneys, etc all dislike conservatives.

Reports indicate several million conservatives and libertarians did NOT vote in this election. Had they, maybe the progressive Romney wins. One would think the check pants country club Rs would take notice and not further insult conservatives.

Genuine Conservatives and Libertarians should abandon the R party. This would result in the Rs dying altogether, which would be a wonderful thing.

 

[Cruella]

[quote="Gipper, post: 202560, member: 2419]

Genuine Conservatives and Libertarians should abandon the R party. This would result in the Rs dying altogether, which would be a wonderful thing.

And the Democrats would be in power forever.

 

[BigRob]

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.

Back up a moment -- I have never advocated for promising special interest groups "government goodies" in an effort to win their votes. My point is simply that in poll after poll, Republicans can win on issues with all of these demographics -- there is no harm in going out and trying to win their votes -- and targeting groups that people who also fit into those demographics choose to freely associate with is a good way to contact them in large portions.

 

[BigRob]

So raise it with the understanding that they will block any attempts to further increase the debt ceiling after that. Republicans have to go on offense, they can't keep playing defense and expect to win. Force Dems to work within the fiscal constraints of the new debt limit with whatever magical solutions they're offering. Dems keep overspending because they know Republicans don't have the political spine to stand up to them.

When Republicans overspent, Dems were screaming like chicken little, even Obama himself said that the $4 Trillion in debt that Bush racked up over 8 years was proof that he was irresponsible and unpatriotic:

Most people have seen this -- and in poll after poll Republicans still take the blame for causing these "problems" that "required" all this new spending. Simply restating it to the same audience won't change any minds.

All of a sudden, now that Dem's are in charge, the debt doesn't matter... Obama racked up 5 trillion in just 4 years and he's on track to rack up 8 or 9 trillion by the end of his 8 years. I guess it's only irresponsible and unpatriotic to rack up debt when Republicans do it.

No argument here -- but we are making that case and losing that argument. We don't have to change principles, just the manner in which we make the argument.

Republicans need to remind Dems about the Pay-As-You-Go rules Democrats were crowing about the entire time Republicans were in control, they've totally ignored those rules since taking power and Republicans could hammer Dems on that issue. Dems want to return to Clinton era tax rates but, for some strange reason, have no interest in returning to the Clinton era PAYGO rules that forced Congress to fund expenditures without borrowing.

PAYGO expired in 2002, and we didn't adhere to it either for years -- it was not until 2007 that it was reestablished -- and then in 2010 signed into law again -- but has mostly been ignored/waived.

I sure as hell didn't vote for them to go to Washington and play footsie with Democrats and fold like card tables every time the dems pick a fight.

There is room to compromise that doesn't involve corrupting core Republican principles.

Isn't that exactly what you're suggesting Republicans do? Work with Democrats for the sake of bi-partisanship, sing kumbaya, and make compromises in order to get at least SOME of what they want?

I'm not advocating working together for the sole sake of bi-partisanship -- but the idea to basically agree to spending now in the hopes of cuts later makes no sense.

I disagree. Force Dems to return to PAYGO by blocking any further increases of the debt ceiling. If they object, there are countless soundbites from when Republicans were in charge where those same Dems who would now complain were then demanding Republicans be forced to use PAYGO instead of additional borrowing. Republicans could win on this issue, if they had any balls.

Sound bites make for good "gotcha" moments -- but on their own they are not going to accomplish anything.

 

[Cruella]

None of this matters. If nothing is done about the spending our current entitlements and interest on our debt will soon exceed our our ability to tax, borrow or print.

Maybe that was the plan after all.

 

[Pandora]

None of this matters. If nothing is done about the spending our current entitlements and interest on our debt will soon exceed our our ability to tax, borrow or print.

Maybe that was the plan after all.

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926–2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in liberal[1] magazine The Nation titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy


I think the real strategy is to collapes the current system so it can be built up and remade the way they want it.

 

[Cruella]

I think the real strategy is to collape the current system so it can be built up and remade the way they want it.

yeppers

 

[GenSeneca]

there is no harm in going out and trying to win their votes

How, specifically? They vote Democrat for a couple of main reasons - 1, Dems are Santa Claus - 2, Republicans are the Grinch.

Republicans would have to abandon their entire platform to compete, they'd have to push for higher taxes on the "rich", new entitlements, expansion of current entitlements, support affirmative action and racial quotas, open borders and amnesty, forced unionization of all labor... they'd have to copy the Dems on every issue to compete and they'll still lose if there are any differences in style or degree to what Dems are offering.

and targeting groups that people who also fit into those demographics choose to freely associate with is a good way to contact them in large portions.

So target blacks, hispanics, women, Unions etc as voting blocs... Right? So, affirmative action and racial quotas, open borders and amnesty, free contraception and forced unionization... Those are what Dems offer to attract the leftist LEADERS of those voting blocs, the NAACP, La Raza, and the Feminazi's, and the Union bosses, that is why those groups break for Dems - because their leadership sells them on Democrat policies.

 

[GenSeneca]

Most people have seen this -- and in poll after poll Republicans still take the blame for causing these "problems" that "required" all this new spending. Simply restating it to the same audience won't change any minds.

No argument here -- but we are making that case and losing that argument. We don't have to change principles, just the manner in which we make the argument.

You just said simply restating it to the same audience won't change any minds but then say that's exactly what Republicans need to do...

There is room to compromise that doesn't involve corrupting core Republican principles.

I agree... But that's because Republican "principles" differ from Dems only by style and degree, their differences as NOT substantive.

I'm not advocating working together for the sole sake of bi-partisanship -- but the idea to basically agree to spending now in the hopes of cuts later makes no sense.

The Dems entire plan is the same plan they've had for 100 years - Tax and Spend. Any compromise Republicans make would be to increase spending now in hopes of getting their own cuts in the future - You're right, that doesn't make sense but that does seem to be exactly what you're saying Republicans should do.

Sound bites make for good "gotcha" moments -- but on their own they are not going to accomplish anything.

What I've outlined is a strategy to contain the debt and force Dems to be fiscally responsible, the soundbites are just fodder.

 

[Gipper]

How, specifically? They vote Democrat for a couple of main reasons - 1, Dems are Santa Claus - 2, Republicans are the Grinch.

Republicans would have to abandon their entire platform to compete, they'd have to push for higher taxes on the "rich", new entitlements, expansion of current entitlements, support affirmative action and racial quotas, open borders and amnesty, forced unionization of all labor... they'd have to copy the Dems on every issue to compete and they'll still lose if there are any differences in style or degree to what Dems are offering.


So target blacks, hispanics, women, Unions etc as voting blocs... Right? So, affirmative action and racial quotas, open borders and amnesty, free contraception and forced unionization... Those are what Dems offer to attract the leftist LEADERS of those voting blocs, the NAACP, La Raza, and the Feminazi's, and the Union bosses, that is why those groups break for Dems - because their leadership sells them on Democrat policies.

Agreed.

Now what about the Ds? BO has to govern now and with the nation nearing bankruptcy, how is he to fund the welfare state? If he cuts benefits and spending, the Democrat brand could be irreparably harmed. The Ds stand for big government, dependency, and class warfare. Those on welfare and entitlements have an entitlement mentality and will not accept change gracefully.

I expect the Ds to further damage the private sector going forward. Obamacare alone could break the back of the private sector. This will result in high unemployment common in Europe and when accompanied with austerity programs, unrest will result. History shows that when the people take to the streets, the ruling elite starts a hot war.

 

[dogtowner]

Agreed.

Now what about the Ds? BO has to govern now and with the nation nearing bankruptcy, how is he to fund the welfare state? If he cuts benefits and spending, the Democrat brand could be irreparably harmed. The Ds stand for big government, dependency, and class warfare. Those on welfare and entitlements have an entitlement mentality and will not accept change gracefully.

I expect the Ds to further damage the private sector going forward. Obamacare alone could break the back of the private sector. This will result in high unemployment common in Europe and when accompanied with austerity programs, unrest will result. History shows that when the people take to the streets, the ruling elite starts a hot war.

let them eat cake

Its almost like Russia and/or China manufactured Obama

 

[Johnny Tremain]

let them eat cake

Its almost like Russia and/or China manufactured Obama

And--what makes you think they didn't?

 

[dogtowner]

And--what makes you think they didn't?

not much except that the braniacs in Chicago are stupid enough to come up with this on their own.