News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[WhoWee]

How is that a good thing? You want amateurs to plan the US government's economy?

Do you go to someone who's not a career stock broker for your investment advice?

Part of the rationale of a representative democracy is that you elect someone with expertise to devote all of their time to running the government instead of something like a direct democracy where you'd have to vote on these individual bills and you'd have to find the time to research all of these issues in your spare time.

Aside from that, how do you know that they're not career politicians. Every Congressman had to start somewhere with no experience. If they were good enough to get re-elected, then they became career politicians. If they weren't, they had to give up politics and go into some other career.

In other words, you don't know whether they're career politicians until they've had a chance to show how competent or incompetent they were. Non-career politician is just one that was really bad at his job.

Being a freshman Congressman is no sin. But, usually, a freshman Congressman tries to learn the ropes before deciding they're qualified to take control of Congress.

Are the freshman Congress members planning the US Government's economy - or trying to figure out how to pay the bills left over by the former Congress?

The results of the 2010 election were very clear - they were sent to Washington to cut spending. Now, they need to learn when to take a win and move on to the next battle.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama Strategy for 2012

Offer the tea party $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next ten years, with as much as a 4:1 spending-cuts-to-tax-increase ratio, and wait for them to refuse. Then make it clear to everyone in 2012 that the tea party refused to cut $4 trillion in debt, much more than we will actually get now, because the Republicans refused to tax billionaires.

Swing the house back to the left, or at least the middle, allowing room for Obama to implement his long-term goals in his second term, which is when Presidents do that, with the partiers now made irrelevant.

 

[WhoWee]

Obama Strategy for 2012

Offer the tea party $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next ten years, with as much as a 4:1 spending-cuts-to-tax-increase ratio, and wait for them to refuse. Then make it clear to everyone in 2012 that the tea party refused to cut $4 trillion in debt, much more than we will actually get now, because the Republicans refused to tax billionaires.

Swing the house back to the left, or at least the middle, allowing room for Obama to implement his long-term goals in his second term, which is when Presidents do that, with the partiers now made irrelevant.

Dare to dream.

 

[Vanadium 50]

because the Republicans refused to tax billionaires.

Please cite a Democratic proposal that taxes only billionaires, or admit that this is pure flamebait.

And, just FYI, the net worth of the US's ~500 billionaires is $1.2T. The deficit for this year is $1.6T. Even if the government confiscated everything they own - I'm talking wealth, not just income - it wouldn't close the budget gap. This is not a statement about right vs. left, liberal vs. conservative or GOP vs. Democrat. It's just arithmetic.

 

[BobG]

Please cite a Democratic proposal that taxes only billionaires, or admit that this is pure flamebait.

Yeah, that was getting to me, too. I think the idea was to increase taxes for people making as little as $250,000 a year. But Ivan's estimate only looks 3.6 times too large if you plot it on a logarithmic scale.

 

[WhoWee]

Swing the house back to the left, or at least the middle, allowing room for Obama to implement his long-term goals in his second term, which is when Presidents do that, with the partiers now made irrelevant.

The President pushed all of his programs through when he had a majority. Could it also be argued that now it's time to undo the harm he has done - which keeps the Tea Party relevant?

Actually, I think the President needs an active Tea Party to rally his base.

 

[BobG]

Actually, I think the President needs an active Tea Party to rally his base.

This is a good point. The Tea Party could even rally independents and moderates.

Certainly part of the calculations is the fact that the party of the winning candidate usually does very good. That means if the Tea Party can damage Obama's election hopes, they mitigate any damage they cause to themselves along the way.

I don't think they'll eliminate it completely. In fact, they could wind up suffering more damage from the debt ceiling debate than Obama (especially if the economy recovers and jobless rates fall). Obama leaves this with a perception that he lacks leadership, but that also makes his role in this debacle very forgettable. The Tea Party left a pretty memorable impression.

 

[Char. Limit]

Please cite a Democratic proposal that taxes only billionaires, or admit that this is pure flamebait.

Whether there is one or not, I'd be willing to bet that we WILL hear such rhetoric from at least one prominent Democratic candidate. So really, if Ivan is speaking in terms of potential Democratic rhetoric, he's perfectly valid.

 

[russ_watters]

The President pushed all of his programs through when he had a majority.

No, WhoWee, I think what Ivan is trying to say is that a 1st term president, such as Obama, is motivated primarily by trying to get re-elected and therefore saves the important work for the second term. So Obama focused on the unimportant but politically hot tasks of attempting healtchare reform, attempting to fix the economy without bankrupting us, and halfheartedlly starting a new war in the Middle East in his first term. Perhaps in his second term, he'll takle the more important tasks of healthcare reform, fixing the economy without bankrupting us and starting a new war in the Middle East?

Pointed sarcasm aside, if ever a new President had an opportunity to implement his vision of "change", Obama had it. It's gone for good now and if he squandered it then in favor of playing re-election politics as soon as he got into office, as Ivan suggests, then few presidents have ever been more deserving of being voted out than Obama.

Obama has expressed admiration for Reagan. Reagan was a leader in a time that required one and he siezed his mandate for change. Obama came into power at a similar time, under a similar mandate, and by Ivan's tacit acknowledgment, has not done so effectively.

I think as time passes, Obama's strategy options become tougher and tougher to sell and - like the one we saw above - will require selling bigger and bigger lies.

 

[WhoWee]

No, WhoWee, I think what Ivan is trying to say is that a 1st term president, such as Obama, is motivated primarily by trying to get re-elected and therefore saves the important work for the second term. So Obama focused on the unimportant but politically hot tasks of attempting healtchare reform, attempting to fix the economy without bankrupting us, and halfheartedlly starting a new war in the Middle East in his first term. Perhaps in his second term, he'll takle the more important tasks of healthcare reform, fixing the economy without bankrupting us and starting a new war in the Middle East?

Pointed sarcasm aside, if ever a new President had an opportunity to implement his vision of "change", Obama had it. It's gone for good now and if he squandered it then in favor of playing re-election politics as soon as he got into office, as Ivan suggests, then few presidents have ever been more deserving of being voted out than Obama.

Obama has expressed admiration for Reagan. Reagan was a leader in a time that required one and he siezed his mandate for change. Obama came into power at a similar time, under a similar mandate, and by Ivan's tacit acknowledgment, has not done so effectively.

I think as time passes, Obama's strategy options become tougher and tougher to sell and - like the one we saw above - will require selling bigger and bigger lies.

IMO - Harry Reid hand picked then Senator Obama, and worked with the Left to get him elected. Once elected, Harry Reid teamed up with Nancy Pelosi and other Dem leaders and pushed through as much as they could - their agenda was more important to them than the President's re-election prospects at that time. As the dust continues to settle - Harry Reid's speech on the floor today (before the debt deal vote) tells me his "jobs" initiatives will be designed to carry the President forward and champion Harry's next attempt at stimulus. Again all of this is IMO - to summarize (whether he knew it or not) the President was expendable to the Congressional Democrat leaders at the start of his term.

 

[mheslep]

... I think the idea was to increase taxes for people making as little as $250,000 a year. ...

Which still doesn't accomplish much, as the revenue from that proposed tax increase is ~$70B/year.

 

[WhoWee]

The DOW is down about 10% in the past 10 days - down over 500 Points today 8/4/2011.
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEXDJX:DJI#

I don't think a deep market correction (a DOW of 7,500 for instance) now in 2011 will hurt President Obama - as long as it trends up into 2012 maybe back to 10,000 or better?

However, if the companies start to use their cash to buy back shares - it could be an indicator of a further slow down in growth. If the cash is used to acquire shares - it's not being re-invested in new production capacity, inventory, marketing, or R&D.

Another possible indicator (of a double dip recession) today is the drop in oil prices (about $7) - might indicate a contraction (drop in demand). This is not good news for the President - IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

The Asian markets also opened down about 3 to 4% on the heels of the 500 point drop in the DOW.

 

[lisab]

The DOW is down about 10% in the past 10 days - down over 500 Points today 8/4/2011.
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEXDJX:DJI#

I don't think a deep market correction (a DOW of 7,500 for instance) now in 2011 will hurt President Obama - as long as it trends up into 2012 maybe back to 10,000 or better?

However, if the companies start to use their cash to buy back shares - it could be an indicator of a further slow down in growth. If the cash is used to acquire shares - it's not being re-invested in new production capacity, inventory, marketing, or R&D.

Another possible indicator (of a double dip recession) today is the drop in oil prices (about $7) - might indicate a contraction (drop in demand). This is not good news for the President - IMO.

A double dip recession will not be good new for anybody. I'm quite sure the organization I work for would not survive - we're strongly tied to residential building .

 

[WhoWee]

After the credit downgrade of the United States of America - President Obama gave a speech that actually calls for additional spending to stimulate the economy. The DJI dropped a few hundred points before his speech - down over 5% and 600 points for the day.

 

[BobG]

The full impact of the final debt ceiling agreement/credit downgrade probably hasn't shown up in polls yet, but the initial indications are that this hasn't affected Obama's approval ratings at all.

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htm

His ratings are essentially the same as they were in mid July - the middle of the debt ceiling crisis.

His approval ratings have gone down some from the beginning of May, however. Looking at those drops, Obama's strategy for 2012 should be to swing back to the left. There's been a slight decrease in the number of people that think Obama is too liberal, but not enough of a decrease to counter the number of people that think he has become too conservative.

He should spend more time bashing Bush, too. Bush bashing never goes out of style.

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
44% blame Bush for the federal deficit, while Obama and Congress each get the blame from 15% of the people.

 

[WhoWee]

The full impact of the final debt ceiling agreement/credit downgrade probably hasn't shown up in polls yet, but the initial indications are that this hasn't affected Obama's approval ratings at all.

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htm

His ratings are essentially the same as they were in mid July - the middle of the debt ceiling crisis.

His approval ratings have gone down some from the beginning of May, however. Looking at those drops, Obama's strategy for 2012 should be to swing back to the left. There's been a slight decrease in the number of people that think Obama is too liberal, but not enough of a decrease to counter the number of people that think he has become too conservative.

He should spend more time bashing Bush, too. Bush bashing never goes out of style.

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
44% blame Bush for the federal deficit, while Obama and Congress each get the blame from 15% of the people.

He clearly ran against Bush last time - but unless everyone forgot that he was elected - he'll have to own-up to his own promises from last time.

 

[turbo]

IMO, Obama needs to spend time on the campaign trail reminding people that he was willing to put entitlements on the table (which infuriated progressives and most liberals in his own party) but that the GOP failed to negotiate in good faith WRT letting tax cuts expire and cleaning up all the targeted tax-breaks that plague our tax code.

Plus, he should make it crystal clear that the Tea Party and the hard-right wing of the GOP manufactured this phony debt crises. Yes, the US has some long term problems with spending and revenue, but there was no need of threatening to force the US to default if Tea Party demands weren't met by August 2. Setting up short term deadlines to deal with complex long-term problems is stupid in the extreme. Political gamesmanship of this magnitude (threatening default on US debt) is dangerous behavior, and it has thrown our stock markets into turmoil, and will probably make it more expensive to service our existing debt.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO, Obama needs to spend time on the campaign trail reminding people that he was willing to put entitlements on the table (which infuriated progressives and most liberals in his own party) but that the GOP failed to negotiate in good faith WRT letting tax cuts expire and cleaning up all the targeted tax-breaks that plague our tax code.

Plus, he should make it crystal clear that the Tea Party and the hard-right wing of the GOP manufactured this phony debt crises. Yes, the US has some long term problems with spending and revenue, but there was no need of threatening to force the US to default if Tea Party demands weren't met by August 2. Setting up short term deadlines to deal with complex long-term problems is stupid in the extreme. Political gamesmanship of this magnitude (threatening default on US debt) is dangerous behavior, and it has thrown our stock markets into turmoil, and will probably make it more expensive to service our existing debt.

I could not agree more - that President Obama needs to talk more about his plan to address entitlement reform. The sooner he puts a specific plan on the table - Congress can address the issue - no need to wait until after the election to get started. As they say - time is money.

As for continuing to blame his failures on the TEA Party and George Bush - I agree again that he should keep on insisting it's not his fault.

I do need your help with one point turbo. Is President Obama for ending the Bush tax cuts or is he in favor of extending his extensions of the Bush tax cuts - or does he want to end his extension of the tax cuts of Bush that he didn't allow to expire?

 

[turbo]

As you are well aware, Obama can administrate, but he cannot legislate. Indicating his willingness to sign a debt-ceiling bill that contained reforms to SS and Medicare was about as far as he could go, leaving it up to the House and Senate to deliver such a bill.

 

[WhoWee]

As you are well aware, Obama can administrate, but he cannot legislate. Indicating his willingness to sign a debt-ceiling bill that contained reforms to SS and Medicare was about as far as he could go, leaving it up to the House and Senate to deliver such a bill.

There is absolutely nothing preventing him from putting a specific plan to address entitlement reform on the table right now - other than the pending election - he's had at least 5 years (since being elected to the Senate) to think about it.

 

[turbo]

There is absolutely nothing preventing him from putting a specific plan to address entitlement reform on the table right now - other than the pending election - he's had at least 5 years (since being elected to the Senate) to think about it.

Let's back up a bit. What specific legislative proposals did W propose? The Right seems to demand a lot of Obama, while having expected very little of W.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's back up a bit. What specific legislative proposals did W propose? The Right seems to demand a lot of Obama, while having expected very little of W.

Forget about Bush. You want President Obama to hit the campaign trail and talk about entitlement reforms - I agree and want to hear some specifics - just as everyone else will and especially during the debates.

 

[russ_watters]

Let's back up a bit. What specific legislative proposals did W propose? The Right seems to demand a lot of Obama, while having expected very little of W.

I'm not sure 'But I'm better than Bush was! ' Is going to fly next year.

 

[turbo]

The point is that Presidents can't legislate. They can rally their troops and ask for legislation that they are willing to sign, but all the dirty work is done in committees, by Congressional staffers and aides. There is no way that Obama should have been expected to come up with a comprehensive debt-reduction bill, like some on the right are claiming. Such claims show a shocking lack of comprehension about how the US government works.

 

[KingNothing]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

His LOWEST approval rating is higher than the past 8 president's LOWEST approval ratings. (Back to Kennedy), what are you comparing?

He said "one of the", meaning you can say whatever you want after that. I'm one of the richest men in the whole world.

 

[WhoWee]

The point is that Presidents can't legislate. They can rally their troops and ask for legislation that they are willing to sign, but all the dirty work is done in committees, by Congressional staffers and aides. There is no way that Obama should have been expected to come up with a comprehensive debt-reduction bill, like some on the right are claiming. Such claims show a shocking lack of comprehension about how the US government works.

my bold
I am responding to your comment "IMO, Obama needs to spend time on the campaign trail reminding people that he was willing to put entitlements on the table (which infuriated progressives and most liberals in his own party) but that the GOP failed to negotiate in good faith WRT letting tax cuts expire and cleaning up all the targeted tax-breaks that plague our tax code. "

The President called for entitlement reform today - why not put his plan on the table now?

 

[turbo]

You didn't answer my question. You complained that Obama didn't come up with a comprehensive debt-reduction plan (which is clearly the job of the legislative branch). Since you set the bar very high for him, please show what detailed legislative proposals that W came up with. Double-standard, anyone?

 

[WhoWee]

You didn't answer my question. You complained that Obama didn't come up with a comprehensive debt-reduction plan (which is clearly the job of the legislative branch). Since you set the bar very high for him, please show what detailed legislative proposals that W came up with. Double-standard, anyone?

Turbo, you entered this thread (re: Obama Strategy for 2012) today with a post about what President Obama needs to do on the campaign trail.

My response is that Obama will need to share the details of his plan if he wants to hit the campaign trail talking about entitlement reform.

The President indicated today that entitlement reform IS a priority - not WAS a priority. Accordingly, President Obama needs to put his plan for entitlement reform on the table. This has absolutely nothing to do with Bush - nor does the 2012 election.

 

[turbo]

The right is willing to put our current woes on Obama and to complain that he has not offered detailed plans for debt-reduction on the table. That is NOT his job. It is his job to work with his advisers, and decide what legislation he can sign, and then let the legislators craft it. You and others on the right are holding Obama to a standard that W couldn't possibly have met on his best day. This is presumably a thread about the strategies that Obama might employ in the 2012 campaign, but there is a whole lot of partisan bashing going on with very little balanced perspective from the right. I ask you again to please provide us with a detailed legislative proposal that W came up with. If you can't, then please cease the demands that Obama do so. Our government is designed with a series of checks and balances, and as you know, the President can rally his troops, but cannot legislate.

 

[WhoWee]

The right is willing to put our current woes on Obama and to complain that he has not offered detailed plans for debt-reduction on the table. That is NOT his job. It is his job to work with his advisers, and decide what legislation he can sign, and then let the legislators craft it. You and others on the right are holding Obama to a standard that W couldn't possibly have met on his best day. This is presumably a thread about the strategies that Obama might employ in the 2012 campaign, but there is a whole lot of partisan bashing going on with very little balanced perspective from the right. I ask you again to please provide us with a detailed legislative proposal that W came up with. If you can't, then please cease the demands that Obama do so. Our government is designed with a series of checks and balances, and as you know, the President can rally his troops, but cannot legislate.

If I recall turbo - you've used the word "blather" in situations like this?

I'm responding to your first post in this thread today:
"IMO, Obama needs to spend time on the campaign trail reminding people that he was willing to put entitlements on the table".

I could care less about him not offering a plan for debt-reduction in this thread - ok?

All I'm saying is that if you want President Obama to hit the campaign trail to talk about his position (then or now) on entitlement reform - he better have a plan as he will be challenged.

Now I realize it would be better for President Obama if the House Republicans are dumb enough to offer another plan to cut entitlements before 2012 - that he can throw darts at - but is that the type of Presidential leadership we (as a country) deserve?

 

[SixNein]

Obama Strategy for 2012...

In my opinion, Obama is going to need to step up his game. He allowed republicans to gain way to much leverage over him, and it has hurt him politically. The republicans took the economy hostage and made demands, but the democrats come out more looking like the bad guys. Obviously, the democrats are politically incompetent. He's doing his job more as a bureaucrat than a leader. He avoids conflict when he needs to meet it.

The only bright side for Obama is the weak republican field.

 

[turbo]

The only bright side for Obama is the weak republican field.

Bachman/Palin or Palin/Bachman for P/VP in 2012!

 

[WhoWee]

Obama Strategy for 2012...

In my opinion, Obama is going to need to step up his game. He allowed republicans to gain way to much leverage over him, and it has hurt him politically. The republicans took the economy hostage and made demands, but the democrats come out more looking like the bad guys. Obviously, the democrats are politically incompetent. He's doing his job more as a bureaucrat than a leader. He avoids conflict when he needs to meet it.

The only bright side for Obama is the weak republican field.

I think people are tired of hearing Democrat hacks like David Axelrod and Howard Dean parroting stupid slogans such as "TEA Party downgrade" or blaming the credit downgrade on S&P for making a $2Trillion miscalculation in the long term trajectory of the unfunded liabilities expected to reach more than $100Trillion (isn't the 2% a good margin of error?).

 

[SixNein]

I think people are tired of hearing Democrat hacks like David Axelrod and Howard Dean parroting stupid slogans such as "TEA Party downgrade" or blaming the credit downgrade on S&P for making a $2Trillion miscalculation in the long term trajectory of the unfunded liabilities expected to reach more than $100Trillion (isn't the 2% a good margin of error?).

I think the tea party is a fringe group, and I doubt it will be popular on the main stage.

 

[WhoWee]

I think the tea party is a fringe group, and I doubt it will be popular on the main stage.

If you are correct - then why are all of the major Democrat leaders and the media in continuous attack mode on the TEA Party members?

What are they afraid of if they're just some kind of a fringe group?



Btw - how did this fringe group manage to kick their butts in the last election?

 

[SixNein]

If you are correct - then why are all of the major Democrat leaders and the media in continuous attack mode on the TEA Party members?

What are they afraid of if they're just some kind of a fringe group?
Btw - how did this fringe group manage to kick their butts in the last election?

The media covers the tea party because its not boring. The members of the tea party frequently do or say crazy things. Just look at all of the comments made by Bachmann.

They picked up a little more than 50 seats in the house, and the senate remains in control of democrats. I don't know that I would call it a 'butt kicking'. But they did manage to change the control of the house.

In a basic nutshell, I don't believe the average American will subscribe to the tea party ideology. The tea party presidential favourite is weaker than weak.

 

[russ_watters]

The right is willing to put our current woes on Obama and to complain that he has not offered detailed plans for debt-reduction on the table. That is NOT his job.

As has been pointed out in this thread before, one of Obama's jobs is to put together a budget request and submit it to Congress. Obama''s last budget request didn't contain debt increase reduction elements, only debt increase increasing elements.

More to the point, much of the American public does look for leadership from their presidents - even if you don't. If you remember, Obama was heavily criticized for his role in what is now ironically called "Obamacare" for putting out some ideas, but then leaving it to Congress to hash out the plan.

Typically, the power of the presidency makes the President the de facto leader of his party. Obama came away from this debate looking like the third most powerful Democrat, behind Harry Reid and his VP.

Also:

The point is that Presidents can't legislate. They can rally their troops and ask for legislation that they are willing to sign, but all the dirty work is done in committees, by Congressional staffers and aides. There is no way that Obama should have been expected to come up with a comprehensive debt-reduction bill, like some on the right are claiming. Such claims show a shocking lack of comprehension about how the US government works.

You're not suggesting that the President can't write a bill if he wants, are you? A President's plan can be as specific as he wants it, all the way to actually writing the bill...heck, you can write a bill if you want, you just don't have quite the clout of the President to get it passed!

 

[WhoWee]

The media covers the tea party because its not boring. The members of the tea party frequently do or say crazy things. Just look at all of the comments made by Bachmann.

This doesn't explain John Kerry, Howard Dean, and David Axelrod all using the exact same slogan "TEA Party Downgrade" on the Sunday shows. When you consider Axelrod is based in Chicago as part of the Obama 2012 election campaign - it's clearly a coordinated campaign message.

 

[lisab]

This doesn't explain John Kerry, Howard Dean, and David Axelrod all using the exact same slogan "TEA Party Downgrade" on the Sunday shows. When you consider Axelrod is based in Chicago as part of the Obama 2012 election campaign - it's clearly a coordinated campaign message.

C'mon, that goes on with both sides, you shouldn't be one bit surprised...or even upset, unless you start railing against the right for doing the exact same thing.

Kerry, Dean, et al are totally within their rights to pin the downgrade on the TP, imo. If the clown shoes fit...

 

[WhoWee]

C'mon, that goes on with both sides, you shouldn't be one bit surprised...or even upset, unless you start railing against the right for doing the exact same thing.

Kerry, Dean, et al are totally within their rights to pin the downgrade on the TP, imo. If the clown shoes fit...

C'mon WhoWee or c'mon lisab? I responded to his post that :
"The media covers the tea party because its not boring. The members of the tea party frequently do or say crazy things. Just look at all of the comments made by Bachmann."

I said his post doesn't explain the Dem Party attacks. He claims the TEA Party is just a fringe group to be dismissed - again, Kerry, Axelrod, and Dean are big guns - why do they waste their time with attacks if the TEA Party is an insignificant fringe group?

IMO - the Dems are throwing gas on the fire with their continued attacks on average voters who agree with the basic TEA Party ideas - less Government, more accountability, and reduce waste.

 

[BobG]

IMO - the Dems are throwing gas on the fire with their continued attacks on average voters who agree with the basic TEA Party ideas - less Government, more accountability, and reduce waste.

It depends on how "less government" is defined. If the Tea Party's "less government" ideology can be defined as meaning, "Let's burn down the Capitol!", then voters will blame the Tea Party for the gas being thrown on the fire.

And things such as a Balanced Budget Amendment promote that definition. A Balanced Budget Amendment reduces Congress's abilty to govern - a good thing if you think all government is bad; a bad thing if you think good government is essential.

Personally, I see the Tea Party movement as giving up on any possibility of ever electing competent people to government. The problem with that idea is that if it's true, then we're pretty much sunk regardless of cute things like a Balanced Budget Amendment or forcing the government to partially shut down to avoid defaulting on its debt.

The Tea Party appeals to the pessimists. They make an attractive target for those trying to appeal to the more optimistic voters in the country.

If the Tea Party becomes the issue in the 2012 election, it will be like the difference between Ronald Reagan's optimism about the country vs Jimmy Carter's malaise.

 

[WhoWee]

It depends on how "less government" is defined. If the Tea Party's "less government" ideology can be defined as meaning, "Let's burn down the Capitol!", then voters will blame the Tea Party for the gas being thrown on the fire.

Have any TEA Party leaders ever been quoted directly as saying "Let's burn down the Capitol!"? That's a good example of the type of characterization that will backfire on the Democrats.

 

[russ_watters]

It depends on how "less government" is defined. If the Tea Party's "less government" ideology can be defined as meaning, "Let's burn down the Capitol!", then voters will blame the Tea Party for the gas being thrown on the fire.

I'm not following the analogy, but in any case...

And things such as a Balanced Budget Amendment promote that definition. A Balanced Budget Amendment reduces Congress's abilty to govern - a good thing if you think all government is bad; a bad thing if you think good government is essential.

It doesn't need to be that broad. A balanced budget amendment says nothing more or less than that our government is typically incapable of balancing the budget on its own. So a balanced budget amendment forces a component of good government instead of allowing the bad government we have now.

Personally, I see the Tea Party movement as giving up on any possibility of ever electing competent people to government.

On certain issues, yes. Minus some blips due to wars, doesn't the past 80 years of history show a government that accumulates social programs and debt, with little or no ability to halt or reverse that trend, even in the face of certain (if not immediate) failure of our economic system? I believe that that trend points to a structural flaw in our system of government.

The problem with that idea is that if it's true, then we're pretty much sunk regardless of cute things like a Balanced Budget Amendment or forcing the government to partially shut down to avoid defaulting on its debt.

I don't think that's necessarily true. It's a big problem we're facing, but it really isn't that big a flaw in terms of the depth and complexity of the problem.

The Tea Party appeals to the pessimists. They make an attractive target for those trying to appeal to the more optimistic voters in the country.

Agreed, but we live in pessimistic times. Obama got elected by saying we were moving in the wrong direction and vowing to change it. The Republican House got elected by saying we were moving in the wrong direction and vowing to change it. If people perceive we're still moving in the wrong direction (or not moving fast enough in the right direction) next year, they may elect to make another change.

If the Tea Party becomes the issue in the 2012 election, it will be like the difference between Ronald Reagan's optimism about the country vs Jimmy Carter's malaise.

Um...the above implies you think Obama is Reagan and the Tea Party is Carter. I think you have it backwards, despite Obama's concerted effort to label himself a Reagan.

 

[WhoWee]

A Balanced Budget Amendment reduces Congress's abilty to govern - a good thing if you think all government is bad; a bad thing if you think good government is essential.

A balanced budget amendment is certainly not a TEA Party idea - it just makes sense to anyone that manages a household budget. The support is bipartisan.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...nounces-support-for-balanced-budget-amendment

 

[ParticleGrl]

A balanced budget amendment says nothing more or less than that our government is typically incapable of balancing the budget on its own. So a balanced budget amendment forces a component of good government instead of allowing the bad government we have now.

Here is the glaring problem- lots of programs (unemployment, medicaid, etc) should cost little in good times, but might cost quite a lot during recessions, which is just the time that revenues fall. A good budget should probably run surplus in good times, and deficit in bad times.

doesn't the past 80 years of history show a government that accumulates social programs and debt, with little or no ability to halt or reverse that trend, even in the face of certain (if not immediate) failure of our economic system?

No, it doesn't. The US has among the weakest safety nets of the first world countries- we haven't been piling on social programs and debt. Keep in mind only two presidents in the history of the country have accumulated debt in a time of economic expansion, Reagan and W. Bush. Clinton ran surpluses, and Obama came in during the worst economic contraction must of us will ever live through (hopefully).

 

[BobG]

Um...the above implies you think Obama is Reagan and the Tea Party is Carter. I think you have it backwards, despite Obama's concerted effort to label himself a Reagan.

Only in terms of optimism vs pessimism.

And my comments about our ability to elect competent leaders applies to government in general; not just our economic problems. You can't solve problems about the quality of our leaders by making them powerless to make decisions. It defeats the purpose of having any leaders at all.

A Balanced Budget Amendment makes it practically impossible for government to react to a crisis, a war, a huge natural disaster in any sort of timely manner. It takes away the responsible things a Congress might possibly do as well as takes away the damage they might do. I think in our current times, it might be reasonable to say people in Congress are more likely to do damaging things than responsible things, but that's a problem with our ability to choose leaders - not a problem with our current system.

 

[WhoWee]

Here is the glaring problem- lots of programs (unemployment, medicaid, etc) should cost little in good times, but might cost quite a lot during recessions, which is just the time that revenues fall. A good budget should probably run surplus in good times, and deficit in bad times.

I would expect variables of this type to be anticipated in the design of serious proposals.

 

[WhoWee]

A Balanced Budget Amendment makes it practically impossible for government to react to a crisis, a war, a huge natural disaster in any sort of timely manner. It takes away the responsible things a Congress might possibly do as well as takes away the damage they might do. I think in our current times, it might be reasonable to say people in Congress are more likely to do damaging things than responsible things, but that's a problem with our ability to choose leaders - not a problem with our current system.

The President typically goes to Congress after a crisis or due to a conflict - for example (ONLY) Bush went to Congress after 9/11.

 

[BobG]

A balanced budget amendment is certainly not a TEA Party idea - it just makes sense to anyone that manages a household budget. The support is bipartisan.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...nounces-support-for-balanced-budget-amendment

It makes sense to every household that refuses to spend more than they earned that year - which is every household that only pays cash for their cars and only pays cash for their house. There's good reasons to run up debt.

The important thing is that your average spending is less than your average income. That what you spent in year one for your house (and the interest to finance it) averages out to less than you make over the course of your mortgage - and that you're not one of those people that once you've spent that money on the house, decide that's the average amount of debt you're going to carry for the rest of your life and keep taking out second mortgages as soon as your equity increases.