Election 2012- Post Mortem

[Wrong Direction]

WD, in the aggregate what I get from these posts is an angry, frustrated refusal to deal on the part of Republicans. Controlling only the House, they might not have the strength to force what they want onto the Democrats, but instead can make damn sure to inflict the maximum political damage on them. Not to mention significant economic damage to the country in the hopes the country will view this as Obama's fault.

I, like you, expect the President to lead on the impending fiscal issues. He needs to work with his guys in Congress and come up with a plan. But I expect the Republicans to work with him, including swallowing the bitter pill that they lost and that the proper response is not to simply dig in even more determinedly.

This could be accurate, but I think the R's would likely characterize their position as more nuanced. Band aids and continuous expansions to the debt ceiling are why we got here. If the Pres wants more extensions, there will be significant cuts and/or reform. Nothing resembling our fiscal status quo can be further supported by the R's without meaningful progress to fix the problem. What that specifically means in practice, I don't know.

I still want to be optimistic. I always thought that all Presidents from either party wanted reall SS reform and real Medicare reform. They know the country needs it but Washington never lets it happen. Both W and Clinton wanted to put SS on more sound footing. It was Washington that wouldn't. Medicare is even more pressing now. I also think Obama is incented to make major reform to Medicare because that's his preferred model (as opposed to private models). This all adds up to an opportunity for change, but little confidence (within the audiences I had) that the President will make any real concessions to get what he wants. That is why the impending problems with health care reform really matter. The President might need Congress to bail him out of that problem. If so, he'll have to give somewhere else in a big way because the R's really have no incentive to help Healthcare reform actually work out.

[JMS]

Wrong Direction
One more thing:

I didn't hear this from anyone...just my thought. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a government shutdown in this environment. The debt ceiling, whenever hit, would be the trigger. It really seemed to me at least from yesterdays talks that R's will make Obama put his plans out there. No more implications about the right's positions behind closed doors. If O really wants to reform taxes, or Medicare, or pass a budget or whatever, he'll have to lead with real ideas on paper for the public to see. This was implied, but not stated.

It was a depressing day. I really hope this is day-after-the-election stuff, but I was expecting hopeful feedback and all I got was pessimism. At least I wasn't talking to members of Congress or leaders in the executive branch. It was just plugged-in consultants, so take this for what it's worth.

Yes I agree entirely... If Barak Obama can't give the republicans exactly what they need to hear on how he's going to fix the budget deficit.. I think it's the republican right to not raise the debt ceiling causing us to default on our national debt, our GDP to plumit, the entire world economy to go into recession, our credit rating to again be reduced and all future debt payments to go up significantly due to higher interest rates...

Awsome, great idea.. hear hear..

[Wrong Direction]

So, what you are saying is that the GOP will refuse to cooperate at all, and that somehow will make Obama the one who will politically "own" the mess that will result.

What I was told is they'll deal if the President makes real concessions. If it's more of the same, his refusal to deal will make them walk away. Put yourself in the R's seat. If they just approve a bunch of more spending with little structural change, they're the same old republicans from W's years. That's what the Tea Party hated. They can't go back to being a big part of the problem in their constitutent's eyes.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 07:20 PM ----------



---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 07:18 PM ----------

I think this PoV is from before the election.
...
I think something will get done.

This was my feeling until I got that feedback the day after the election. It wasn't week-old PoVs. It was same day. We'll see.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 07:26 PM ----------

As long as our elected officials consider their positions with their hands out, they will be, too.

Lobbyists exist because of government. Without government, they'd just be considered a business marketing team. More government = more lobbyists, regardless of campaign finance etc.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 07:30 PM ----------

Yes I agree entirely... If Barak Obama can't give the republicans exactly what they need to hear on how he's going to fix the budget deficit.. I think it's the republican right to not raise the debt ceiling causing us to default on our national debt, our GDP to plumit, the entire world economy to go into recession, our credit rating to again be reduced and all future debt payments to go up significantly due to higher interest rates...

Awsome, great idea.. hear hear..

Check your pm. I've sent you my login information for this site. You're so good and accurate at presenting what I'm saying that I think I'll just let you post as me from now on. That way there's no duplication.

[JimboDaMan]

What I was told is they'll deal if the President makes real concessions. If it's more of the same, his refusal to deal will make them walk away. Put yourself in the R's seat. If they just approve a bunch of more spending with little structural change, they're the same old republicans from W's years. That's what the Tea Party hated. They can't go back to being a big part of the problem in their constitutent's eyes.

What I read there is: we Republicans intend to leverage the fiscal crisis to our maximum advantage. We want concessions. The President wants to solve the looming fiscal crises. Therefore if he meets our price we'll play ball. We intend to make exactly zero concessions of our own. If we don't get what we want, we walk and let all hell break loose.

Am I wrong?

[War Paint]

GOP needs to appeal to somebody besides old white men.

Why are people, especially on the left, always hating on old white men? Are you guys racists or something?

[Jumbo]

Why are people, especially on the left, always hating on old white men? Are you guys racists or something?

Consequence of paying attention.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Why are people, especially on the left, always hating on old white men? Are you guys racists or something?

No one is hating on ld white men, but when you build your entire voting block out of old white men then you have a problem.

[alexey]

I write that they have little incentive to cooperate because that's how I'm told they feel. I think they felt burned by past failed negotiations, but beyond that I think there really is a huge debt/tax/entitlement/health reform challenge in the next 12 months and they see no reason to help the president get out of those problems. If he can't give a little in negotiations, they won't cooperate.

Feeling burned is probably the case for both sides... But that is beside the point. Do you think that Obama "giving a little" will change incentives enough for GOP to cooperate?

One big question is taxes. Obama wants to allow some taxes to go up while GOP wants to keep all tax breaks in place. The GOP has been very set on this issue. Is giving into their demands on taxes necessary part of Obama giving a little for them to cooperate?

[Larry]

What I read there is: we Republicans intend to leverage the fiscal crisis to our maximum advantage. We want concessions. The President wants to solve the looming fiscal crises. Therefore if he meets our price we'll play ball. We intend to make exactly zero concessions of our own. If we don't get what we want, we walk and let all hell break loose.

Am I wrong?

That's what I'm reading.

"Give us the things that we want, but can't win at the ballot box, and we will allow you to save the country from disaster. (And claim that we did it.)"

[Larry]

I always thought that all Presidents from either party wanted reall SS reform and real Medicare reform.

So how come the only proposals I see from The Right Side are "get rid of them"?

Please, tell us your idea of "Real SS Reform". Your idea of a compromise. Where you think the middle is, where we should meet.

I'll tell you mine:

• For the next two years: No change.
• Beginning three years after passage, SS retirement age goes up six months, every year, till it gets to 70.

What that means:

If you're currently 63, nothing changes.
If you're 62, your retirement age is now 65.5
If you're 61, your retirement age is 66.
59? 67.
53 or younger? It's 70.

SS is now covered, with no other changes, for the next 75 years. Unless life expectancy changes a lot, every person who can read is now set for life.

(We also haven't completely solved the Medicare problem, but we've put a really big dent in it.)

This plan will require virtually no other government changes. (I assume that there will be some. We'll probably need special rules for some professions that we don't want to work till 70. (My example is truck drivers.) But those are minor tweaks, which should only apply to very few people.)

Your turn.

[Wrong Direction]

What I read there is: we Republicans intend to leverage the fiscal crisis to our maximum advantage. We want concessions. The President wants to solve the looming fiscal crises. Therefore if he meets our price we'll play ball. We intend to make exactly zero concessions of our own. If we don't get what we want, we walk and let all hell break loose.

Am I wrong?

I don't know. I'm speculating on tactics. The main theme presented to me was that the well is poisoned, there's no confidence from the right that the President can do his job and thus there's significant doubt that anything will get done. I was told to just expect the blanket sequester to go through.

[Wrong Direction]

Re SS reform...raise the retirement age as you say or similar, means test, allow taxes on more income if people can put some portion in "safe" personal retirement vehicles in order to establish better rates of return.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Why are people, especially on the left, always hating on old white men? Are you guys racists or something?

I am on the right for sure and hate old white men

[Jumbo]

I am on the right for sure and hate old white men

One of my favorite quotes from A Fish Called Wanda: "I am only as God made me."

[brandymac27]

Why are people, especially on the left, always hating on old white men? Are you guys racists or something?

I have an honest question for you. No snarkiness intended, just an honest question for you or anyone else who cares to answer. What part of the GOP platform in your opinion, as the GOP stands right now, appeals to minorities, women, middle and lower class people, and younger voters (and anyone else other than old white men) and why?