Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

there is no way to sell free market capitalism when you have half of the population receiving some form of government assistance

I think at some point people need to think about the term ``free-market capitalism'', and whether there's actual reason to fuse those two concepts together. In truth I think capitalism would prefer to live without the free markets and has gotten used to doing so, as evidenced by how many commercial successes are in truth regulatory/legal victories in Washington. I think people of all walks save for the very wealthy would quite welcome a little bit more free market in their lives, and a little less capitalism.

No. Because defending free markets always eventually forces you to take the uncomfortable position of pulling away the teat from those who "need" it. Always. No exceptions. And it takes somebody with incredible charisma and brass balls to stand behind that principle while the New York Times and CNN write a modern Charles Dickens novel about how corpses will be piling up in the streets from starvation if you cut the food stamp program. It also gives the opposition a great opportunity to call you a "racist" since brown people consume welfare, food stamps, etc at a largely disproportionate rate. Romney made a brief foray into this area and within days he was in a corner, covering his head whimpering "please don't hurt me". As always, it didn't insulate him from any attacks. All that it did was de-energize his base.

I don't say this happily, BTW. For most of my adult life I have been waiting for the magical candidate to come along and sell the country the concept of minimal government. Outside of Ted Cruz, the Republicans have pretty much given up. So I guess the next best thing is a guy who wants to restrict gimmiedats and big government to 300 million Americans instead of turning the country into the world's feeding trough.

[iam416]

It is not about being partisan,

Incorrect.

[iam416]

The Republican base has watched their elected officials completely abandon the agenda and cower in fear for over a decade now

They've also watched Republicans dominate state elections, dominate the House of Representatives and generally control the Senate. In Ohio, at least, they don't "cower in fear." I'm also reasonably sure Rs don't abandon their agenda in the bulk of states they dominate.

I get that the Electoral College math is tough for the Rs, but it's crazy to talk of the R demise.

In 2018 we'll be talking about R domination again.

And who knows, maybe in 2020 they'll actually have a capable candidate that will run against 12 years of Obama-PAH. My guess is that they will, in fact, have a good candidate in 2020 as a reaction to the disaster November is going to be -- and a measurable candidate disaster when Trump runs way behind, e.g., Rob Portman in Ohio. And he will.

[lineygoblue]

Stepping away from politics for a moment .. for something that really matters.

ESPN's John Saunders has died. He was only 61 years old. Way too young. Cause of death is not mentioned.

http://michigan.247sports.com/Bolt/ABC-ESPN-anchor-John-Saunders-dead-at-61-46687410

[iam416]

That's really sad.

I always thought he was good and definitely could pull off an authoritative, "man of respect" persona. That is way too young.

[entropy]

agree.. way too young

[hack]

Hannibal you seem to be talking about two things -- a free market, and minimal government. I don't see as tight a connection as you do. The regulatory/legal system is one thing, and determines the extent to which markets are overseen by government. How wealth is taxed and potentially redistributed is another. There is certainly overlap, such as in how taxation influences investment decisions. But that's indirect. There isn't an everpresent and/or tension between the two.

[Hannibal]

In Ohio, at least, they don't "cower in fear." .

Bullshit. When they got pushback from the public sector unions on collective bargaining rights they folded isntantly without any attempt to defend restrictions on those rights, which IMHO are very reasonable and necessary. The campaign to repeal ran against absolutely no opposition because everyone who supported SB5 went into hibernation. This is precisely the cowardly bullshit that I am talking about.

Walker in Wisconsin BTW stood his ground and survived. That's why he was initially my favorite candidate.

[hack]

They've also watched Republicans dominate state elections, dominate the House of Representatives and generally control the Senate. In Ohio, at least, they don't "cower in fear." I'm also reasonably sure Rs don't abandon their agenda in the bulk of states they dominate.

I get that the Electoral College math is tough for the Rs, but it's crazy to talk of the R demise.

In 2018 we'll be talking about R domination again.

And who knows, maybe in 2020 they'll actually have a capable candidate that will run against 12 years of Obama-PAH. My guess is that they will, in fact, have a good candidate in 2020 as a reaction to the disaster November is going to be -- and a measurable candidate disaster when Trump runs way behind, e.g., Rob Portman in Ohio. And he will.

Agree with this. The GOP isn't going to die because this happened. It will adjust. Part of the problem, though, is how they're gonna do that. Might be time to triangulate a little bit, because if you're running against Obama, exactly what is it you're running against? The basic indicators all improved on his watch, and while they may be crude indicators, that's how measurement is done currently. When it comes to specific issues there have been profound disappointments for every American -- Wall Street reform for me, entitlements for Hannibal, perhaps the failure to further distance himself from identity politics for you. Dunno. Mike can speak for himself but I would guess he might have some mixed feelings about where Obama departed from the ``Washington playbook'' in terms of military deployment. But on the broad dashboard type stuff there's more to complain about from the left than from the right. I wish he would have taken the ``crisis is a terrible thing to waste'' approach to Wall Street like Bush/Cheney did to the military.

[iam416]

Yeah, I'm not sure that they will adjust any more than the Ds, i.e., any more than either party continually tries to recalibrate. I'm not sure they need to adjust much.

That said, both parties will have to figure out ways to respond to the "outside" blocs in each party and to take enough of their ideas to keep either end engaged. That's probably a little more of a challenge for the Rs insofar as some of Trump's ideas are at odds with traditional conservative thou

[Hannibal]

Agree with this. The GOP isn't going to die because this happened. It will adjust. Part of the problem, though, is how they're gonna do that. Might be time to triangulate a little bit, because if you're running against Obama, exactly what is it you're running against? The basic indicators all improved on his watch.

Depends on what your point of comparison is. The basic indicators right now are anemic. GDP growth has been hovering at about 2% or less for almost two years now and the unemployment figures are wildly skewed by low labor force participation and underemployment. The national debt, budget deficit, and the amount of money that the country spends on means-tested transfer payment programs (i.e. Gimmiedats) have skyrocketed to unimaginable levels. And we haven't even converted to fully Socialized medicine yet or given citizenship to 10+ million illegal immigrants! Imagine what it will look like then. Compared to a recession, yeah I guess it's better, but that's not saying much (and FTR W. inherited one too, albeit not one as bad as the one he left behind). Compared to the economy of the mid to late 80s, the mid to late 90s, and the middle Bush years, this economy sucks.

[hack]

The GOP now knows that if you keep using social issues to crowd out economic debate, you get Trump. Or maybe Cruz next time. The Dems know that they need the votes of a growing demographic of tantrum-prone millenials.

The GOP has an easy decision in terms of when to adjust -- they need it now and the election results could make that very obvious. They have a hard decision in terms of how to adjust. The old ways of masking the economic agenda no longer work, so it's either a new mask or a leftward shift in economic policies. In other words, share more of the pie. Historically not an easy thing to do.

The Dems have the opposite, IMO - the recalibration will be easy but the impetus for change smaller. There will be less pressure to adjust because they'll have just won an election, probably. But when it's time to make that adjustment it'll be easy. Easier for the left-wing party to move left than for the right-wing party, especially when the left-wing party is to the right of almost every other democracy's politics.

[hack]

Depends on what your point of comparison is. The basic indicators right now are anemic. GDP growth has been hovering at about 2% or less for almost two years now and the unemployment figures are wildly skewed by low labor force participation and underemployment. The national debt, budget deficit, and the amount of money that the country spends on means-tested transfer payment programs (i.e. Gimmiedats) have skyrocketed to unimaginable levels. Compared to a recession, yeah I guess it's better, but that's not saying much (and FTR W. inherited one too, albeit not one as bad as the one he left behind). Compared to the economy of the mid to late 80s, the mid to late 90s, and the middle Bush years, this economy sucks.

Valid points. In truth I don't think it makes any sense to credit presidents for economic performance, but that's how it works. And, in truth, the US is doing much better than most of the rest of the developed world economically. I don't know that Hillary in 2020 is going to win votes by saying ``yeah well things are worse in the UK'', for example. But I also don't think that voters are going to be increasingly concerned about the debt and deficit. When your own balance sheet isn't too healthy you have less room to worry about other balance sheets.

[Hannibal]

The GOP now knows that if you keep using social issues to crowd out economic debate, you get Trump.

I don't know if the GOP knows anything. I'm seeing scant evidence of introspection and realistic reflection. There's a tiny bit here and there but neither the Mitt Romney types nor the National Review types seem to understand what happened.

It's a little different for the Democrats, because their most popular figure in the past half century became popular largely by ignoring the traditional Leftist agenda. So while the Democrats might be to the right of most other countries' Liberal parties, they are miles to the Left of what everyone remembers working most recently. But at the same time, the demographics have changed, so Bill might even be unelectable pretty soon.

[iam416]

The GOP has an easy decision in terms of when to adjust -- they need it now and the election results could make that very obvious.

Yeah, that's short-sighted. As I said/predicted, the GOP will assrail the Ds in 2018.

I get that Ds can promise and endless amount of benefits despite the economic impossibility of it all -- FREE COLLEGE FOR ALL! Fortunately, little gets legislated because, well, the Rs aren't dead and are, in fact, very much alive.

The depressing thing, however, is that there is no politically viable way to address the massive future obligations the US has. I mean, cutting some of these obligations HAS to be part of the plan, and there ain't no way the Ds won't demagogue the shit out of that and win the election. So, off we go...