Presidential contenders in 2012

[Astronuc]

Well, we'll probably be seeing people start to line up in 2010 (next year), if not already.

David Petraeus, Joe Scarborough eyed for '12

Some major donors and GOP strategists have approached Joe Scarborough, the host of MSNBC’s "Morning Joe,” about a national run, according to party sources.

Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas, the Republican nominee in 1996, told POLITICO that he would like to see Army four-star Gen. David Petraeus — the head of the U.S. Central Command, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan — run for president as a latter-day Ike.

Interesting. Certainly, a run by David Pertraeus would be very interesting.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26741.html

 

[WhoWee]

I expect Rick Santorum to be among the top contenders.

 

[mheslep]

Well, we'll probably be seeing people start to line up in 2010 (next year), if not already.

David Petraeus, Joe Scarborough eyed for '12
Interesting. Certainly, a run by David Pertraeus would be very interesting.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26741.html

Bob Dole mentioned Petreaus today too, though I don't know if anyone even knows what party he supports.

 

[mgb_phys]

Bob Dole mentioned Petreaus today too, though I don't know if anyone even knows what party he supports.

I'm not familiar with American politics is there a transfer window for star candidates to switch teams - or is it a draft system where the losers get first pick of new stars?

 

[mheslep]

I'm not familiar with American politics is there a transfer window for star candidates to switch teams - or is it a draft system where the losers get first pick of new stars?

Hmm I'd say neither applies here. Petreaus has not yet declared a team, nor will he as long a he's remains a top commander answerable to the President. He is a star of sorts since the surge, and particularly appealing I think to the Republican side because of that success, and because he was http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html" pre-surge by some of the fringe left.

 

[mgb_phys]

His father is apparently dutch - I hope he has an original copy of the kid's birth certificate handy ;-)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Finally a political issue that I can ignore! For the moment I consider the point moot - purely an academic exercise.

 

[kyleb]

It is at least a slight improvement from McCain/Palin.

 

[WhoWee]

Hmm I'd say neither applies here. Petreaus has not yet declared a team, nor will he as long a he's remains a top commander answerable to the President. He is a star of sorts since the surge, and particularly appealing I think to the Republican side because of that success, and because he was http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html" pre-surge by some of the fringe left.

That seems to be the problem with military leaders. They're accustomed to saying "yes Sir" to whomever is in charge. Colin Powell being the best example - not what you might call a "free thinker".

Yes Mr. President, Yes Mr. Vice President, Yes Mr. Candidate Obama (who is ahead in the polls) - you never really know their position on issues - just that they'll follow the rule book.

 

[mheslep]

That seems to be the problem with military leaders. They're accustomed to saying "yes Sir" to whomever is in charge. Colin Powell being the best example - not what you might call a "free thinker".

Yes Mr. President, Yes Mr. Vice President, Yes Mr. Candidate Obama (who is ahead in the polls) - you never really know their position on issues - just that they'll follow the rule book.

For good officers, no, that's not how it works. A good officer has an obligation to vigorously raise objections, and a good commander should create an environment open to them - at least until the final decision has been made, then it has to be "yes sir".

 

[Al68]

That seems to be the problem with military leaders. They're accustomed to saying "yes Sir" to whomever is in charge. Colin Powell being the best example - not what you might call a "free thinker".

Yes Mr. President, Yes Mr. Vice President, Yes Mr. Candidate Obama (who is ahead in the polls) - you never really know their position on issues - just that they'll follow the rule book.

Presumably he is saying "yes sir" only to those above him, not those below him. It's not like they're not also accustomed to making decisions and giving orders.

And following the "rule book" isn't a bad thing if we have a President that considers the rule book to be the U.S. Constitution.

Of course Petraeus is a complete unknown as far as his own political beliefs, so it's hard to have an opinion either way.

 

[WhoWee]

Presumably he is saying "yes sir" only to those above him, not those below him. It's not like they're not also accustomed to making decisions and giving orders.

And following the "rule book" isn't a bad thing if we have a President that considers the rule book to be the U.S. Constitution.

Of course Petraeus is a complete unknown as far as his own political beliefs, so it's hard to have an opinion either way.

I agree completely. However, Generals follow policy - they don't create policy.

Typically, an opinionated General is not favored by politicians. Remember when Patton wanted to push the Russians back to Russia? Conversely, can anyone remember when Westmoreland wanted to fight to win - instead of managing a (politicians) war of attrition?

Did Colin Powell want to continue on to Baghdad or did Bush follow his advice?
http://books.google.com/books?id=Rl...olin powell march to baghdad gulf war&f=false

We seldom know what a General really thinks.

 

[ideasrule]

Ha! For a moment, I thought you were talking about http://www.instituteforhumancontinuity.org/. Then I realized this was the politics forum.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, we'll probably be seeing people start to line up in 2010 (next year), if not already.

David Petraeus, Joe Scarborough eyed for '12
Interesting. Certainly, a run by David Pertraeus would be very interesting.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26741.html

Have you read "Rome Wasn't Burnt In A Day"?

If Axelrod is wrong about the public sentiment - Scarborough might be a contender.

 

[Count Iblis]

Having made such a strong argument against health care reform, the Republican candidate would have to run on an agenda to roll back health care reform. Without that, you won't get the support of the, say, 30% who are very conservative. But that position would certainly be unacceptable to the 50% who currently support health care reform. So, the outcome of the election is a foregone conclusion: Obama will easily win a second term.

In 2016, Hillary would make a good chance. In 2020 she should be able to win a second term. In 2024 Chelsea Clinton may be elected and perhaps again in 2028.

So, I think the Republicans may be out of power until 2033.

 

[tchitt]

I don't see Petraeus running in 2012. He's one of those people I believe when he says he's got no intention of running for POTUS. Also, I doubt the electorate would put "someone like him" in office given the current political climate. Palin is a virtual impossibility. Not sure about Joe Scarborough's chances but I certainly wouldn't vote for him. I'd like to see Mike Huckabee give it another whirl, personally.

Count Iblis: You assume that a health reform bill that conservatives are opposed to will pass at all.

As for the rest, lol.

 

[humanino]

I support Ivan. If we all start to support Ivan, maybe Greg will become the secret master turning all knobs in the shadow.

 

[WhoWee]

Chelsea? Well, at least you didn't say Pelosi.

I like Huckabee, but I don't think he has a snowballs chance. I do however think we need to look at all of the Governors - someone with executive experience.

I'd like to actually vote FOR someone, instead of against bad choices.

 

[LewisEE]

If the right nominates a moderate with executive experience, e.g. Pawlenty or Romney, they have a good chance. Well, their best chance, anyway. Obviously it depends on how the economy recovers and what Afghanistan looks like by then. No way in hell someone like Santorum or Huckabee wins.

 

[cristo]

Election talk, already? It's not even been a year since the last one yet!

 

[WhoWee]

Election talk, already? It's not even been a year since the last one yet!

Classify it under the "light at the end of the tunnel" - a change we can believe in.

 

[cristo]

Classify it under the "light at the end of the tunnel" - a change we can believe in.

LOL, how can you be sick of a president that you voted in after less than a year of his office?

 

[D H]

LOL, how can you be sick of a president that you voted in after less than a year of his office?

Given that WhoWee could support Huckabee, I strongly suspect that you cannot blame Obama's election on WhoWee.

 

[WhoWee]

Given that WhoWee could support Huckabee, I strongly suspect that you cannot blame Obama's election on WhoWee.

Actually, I said I like Huckabee and that he doesn't have a snowball's chance. To further clarify, I like his personality. I find him entertaining and, on occasion, insightful about current events. He understands politics.

However, in a different thread (regarding qualifications of Congresspersons), I speculated that PF Staffers (Astronuc, Evo, and Russ) are all more qualified (based upon known education and experience) to be President of the United States than Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House and 2nd in line to succeed the President).

So far nobody (except Cyrus) has defended Pelosi's qualifications - (and in fairness to Cyrus) he doesn't really like her but pointed out she's been there 22 years.

 

[Galteeth]

Having made such a strong argument against health care reform, the Republican candidate would have to run on an agenda to roll back health care reform. Without that, you won't get the support of the, say, 30% who are very conservative. But that position would certainly be unacceptable to the 50% who currently support health care reform. So, the outcome of the election is a foregone conclusion: Obama will easily win a second term.

In 2016, Hillary would make a good chance. In 2020 she should be able to win a second term. In 2024 Chelsea Clinton may be elected and perhaps again in 2028.

So, I think the Republicans may be out of power until 2033.

Alot can happen in a few years.

 

[WhoWee]

Alot can happen in a few years.

A lot has happened since the 2008 elections. The Democrats are like spoiled children - I want, give me, I need - if you don't agree you're a racist.

The candidate that runs on change and transparency, no earmarks or special interests allowed, line by line review of ALL spending, fiscal responsibility, support of the "good war" in Afghanistan, and smart diplomacy - needs to practice what he preaches. The first step might be to get out of "campaign mode" - 112 interviews as of Monday and a full hour on Letterman is a bit much.

 

[BoomBoom]

The Democrats are like spoiled children - I want, give me, I need - if you don't agree you're a racist.

Hmmm sounds familiar...like the Republicans in 2001-2008 - I want, give me, I need - if you don't agree you're un-patriotic.

 

[Count Iblis]

Alot can happen in a few years.

Passing and implementing a health care bill amounts to a lot. In almost all countries where they have universal health coverage, people are against replacing their system by a system in which coverage is not guaranteed.

 

[WhoWee]

This is an overview of the specific "problem with health care" that Obama and Congress actually need to address. The ongoing debate rarely touches on this reality. Obama has now refocused attention onto the insurance companies. In reality, Congress has looted the trust funds and needs more options. This problem will be exasperated by Obama's "Reform" if it DOES add to deficit spending.

This issue will certainly be a primary concern facing the next President. A universal health care plan will only add to the shell game.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662

"Social Security and Medicare Projections: 2009

Brief Analysis | Social Security

No. 662

Thursday, June 11, 2009

by Pamela Villarreal

The 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached nearly $107 trillion in today's dollars! That is about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt.

The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised to current and future retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, this debt rose by $5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax increases, large benefit cuts or both.

Social Security versus Medicare. Politi*cians and the media focus on Social Security's financial health, but Medicare's future liabilities are far more ominous, at more than $89 trillion. Medicare's total unfunded liability is more than five times larger than that of Social Security. In fact, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2006 (Part D) alone adds some $17 trillion to the projected Medicare shortfall - an amount greater than all of Social Security's unfunded obligations.

Future Payroll Tax Burdens. Currently, a 12.4 percent payroll tax on wages funds Social Se*curity and a 2.9 percent payroll tax funds Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance). But if payroll tax rates rise to meet unfunded obligations:

* When today's college students reach retirement (about 2054), Social Security alone will require a 16.6 percent payroll tax, one-third greater than today's rate.
* When Medicare Part A is included, the payroll tax burden will rise to 25.7 percent - more than one of every four dollars workers will earn that year.
* If Medicare Part B (physician services) and Part D are included, the total Social Security/Medicare burden will climb to 37 percent of payroll by 2054 - one in three dollars of taxable payroll, and twice the size of today's payroll tax burden!

Thus, more than one-third of the wages workers earn in 2054 will need to be committed to pay benefits promised under current law. That is before any bridges or highways are built and before any teachers' or police officers' salaries are paid.
Figure I: General Revenue Transfers to Social Security and Medicare

Impact on the Federal Budget. The combined deficits of both programs now require about 14 percent of general income tax revenues [see Figure I]. As baby boomers begin to retire, however, that number will soar, and it will be increasingly difficult for the government to continue spending on other activities. In the absence of a tax increase, if the federal government keeps its promises to seniors and balances its budget:

* By 2020, in addition to payroll taxes and premiums, Social Security and Medicare will require more than one in four federal income tax dollars.
* By 2030, about the midpoint of the baby boomer retirement years, the programs will require nearly half of all income tax dollars.
* By 2060, they will require nearly three out of four income tax dollars.

Impact on Federal Revenues. On average, every year since 1970, Medicare and Medicaid spending per beneficiary has grown 2.5 percentage points faster than per capita Gross Do*mestic Product (GDP). In the future, Medicare spending may rise even faster than the Trustees estimate. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), if Medicare and Medicaid spending continues growing annually at 2.5 percentage points above GDP growth:

* By 2050, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (health care for the poor) will consume nearly the entire federal budget.
* By 2082, Medicare spending alone will consume nearly the entire federal budget.

Can Higher Taxes Solve the Prob*lem? The CBO also found that if federal income tax rates are adjusted to allow the government to continue its current level of activity and balance its budget:

* The lowest marginal income tax rate of 10 percent would have to rise to 26 percent.
* The 25 percent marginal tax rate would increase to 66 percent.
* The current highest marginal tax rate (35 percent) would rise to 92 percent!

Figure II: Social Security and Medicare Unfunded Liabilities

Additionally, the top corporate income tax rate of 35 percent would increase to 92 percent.

Pay-As-You-Go. Social Security and Medicare are in trouble precisely because they are based on pay-as-you-go financing. Every dollar of payroll taxes is spent. Nothing is saved, and nothing is invested. The payroll taxes contributed by today's workers pay the benefits of today's retirees. However, when today's workers retire, their benefits will be paid only if the next generation of workers agrees to pay even higher taxes.

What about the Trust Funds? The Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds exist purely for accounting purposes: to keep track of surpluses and deficits in the inflow and outflow of money. The accumulated Social Security surplus actually consists of paper certificates (non-negotiable bonds) kept in a filing cabinet in a government office in West Virginia. These bonds cannot be sold on Wall Street or to foreign investors. They can only be returned to the Treasury. In essence, they are little more than IOUs the government writes to itself.

Conclusion. The Social Security and Medicare deficits are on a course to engulf the entire federal budget. If our policymakers wait to address these growing debts until they are out of control, the solutions will be drastic and painful.

Pamela Villarreal is a senior policy analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis."

 

[BobG]

One thing that will change in 2012 is the Republican nominating process, itself. The traditional early states will still go early, but we won't have a fairly early Super Tuesday to settle the nomination early. The traditional early states will be followed by small states, and the large states will have their primaries/caucuses last.

That means a darkhorse candidate has a more realistic chance of winning some early, affordable primary campaigns, which would bring in the larger money necessary to compete in the large states. It also means the nomination race will probably be undecided late into the primary season.

All in all, it's kind of an ironic development. The changes are designed to allow a darkhorse campaign similar to Huckabee's a fighting chance to succeed, yet Huckabee's campaign succeeded even without the changes. A long, heated primary race helped make what should have been a Democratic runaway into a fairly close election for a while. In fact, long primary battles usually result in the winner losing the general election.

I think the Republican nomination will be total madness. Romney should be the favorite, followed by Huckabee. But, toss in Palin and whatever Republican darkhorse emerges, and we'll wind up with a very exciting and chaotic campaign. Jindal and Pawlenty should have a good shot - if tradition prevailed, they'd be using 2012 to set themselves up for 2016. Maybe they don't have to wait so long. The true 'out of left field' darkhorse will be Haley Barbour.

The other change to the Republican Party is that it's becoming smaller as moderates leave the party and become independents (a really bad strategy, since the smart thing to do would be to become Democrats and try for more conservative Democratic nominees). Palin is wrecked no matter who's running the party, so the nomination will come down to Huckabee, Jindal, and Barbour.

I look for Barbour to be the surprise winner.

 

[Insanity]

http://www.imagerise.com/show.php/532434_CthulhuDagon2012.PNG.html

http://www.imagerise.com/show.php/532435_cthulhubumperstickerwebimage.jpg.html

Just saying...

 

[Galteeth]

A lot has happened since the 2008 elections. The Democrats are like spoiled children - I want, give me, I need - if you don't agree you're a racist.

The candidate that runs on change and transparency, no earmarks or special interests allowed, line by line review of ALL spending, fiscal responsibility, support of the "good war" in Afghanistan, and smart diplomacy - needs to practice what he preaches. The first step might be to get out of "campaign mode" - 112 interviews as of Monday and a full hour on Letterman is a bit much.

I think people are really confused about the earmarking issue. Earmarks are specific directions with regards to spending. The alternative is giving the executive broad leverage on how to spend the money allocated in a bill.

From wikipedia:

The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.

Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]