CBS Money Watch Features FREE LEADS and MARKETING TOOLS FOR REAL ESTATE AGENTS (Advertisement)

Is the GOP intentionally throwing 2012?


By Kevin   Follow   Wed, 9 Nov 2011, 8:14pm   1,270 views   12 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

After watching Rick Perry struggle to name three departments of the executive branch, I came to the conclusion that the GOP has no intention of competing in 2012.

I'm about 99% sure that they're doing this so that the entire recession (which will definitely still be going on through 2015 or so) can be blamed squarely on Democrats, and whoever they put up in 2016 can reap the benefits of a post recession boom.

Viewing Comments 1-12 of 12     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. edvard2


    Follow
    Befriend
    34 threads
    2,085 comments

    1   11:53am Mon 14 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    I don't really understand what the issue with the GOP is these days in regards to the nomination. Its so clearly been Romney for months now. They know it. The Democrats know it. Yet they can't accept it for some reason. If they have a chance Romney is clearly the only choice they've got.

  2. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    2   12:25pm Mon 14 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Kevin says

    and whoever they put up in 2016 can reap the benefits of a post recession boom.

    Lot of optimism there. We're in the midst of a decade long, very drawn out process of credit de-leveraging. You can say it will be a long-drawn out depression, but it won't be clear until 7-10 yrs have passed by. This is a secular cycle and it is a test of US as a society if we can get through it with minimal damage. But the politics is so broken in the country that I doubt this will be done without large scale damage to middle class.

  3. mdovell


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    28 threads
    776 comments

    3   1:18pm Mon 14 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    I wouldn't exactly say you are right but I would argue that if they lost it wouldn't be a "huge" loss.

    Consider the time bombs going on. By the time it is 2016 baby boomers would retire en masse. The left created social security and medicare so if they cannot fix their own programs it make them look weak. Just on the same note with the right if you cannot get us out of war (which has been the case in the past) then they look weak.

    There were some on the right that felt that when George HW bush lost that it was a good thing because he wasn't conservative enough.

  4. ¥


    Follow
    Befriend
    35 threads
    5,700 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    4   2:02pm Mon 14 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    mdovell says

    The left created social security and medicare so if they cannot fix their own programs it make them look weak

    Social security has zero problems until 2030 or so (sooner if employment doesn't grow like the overly-optimistic projections say it will).

    Medicare is another story, but Medicare was broken not by liberals but by conservatives (Parts B, C, D).

  5. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    40 threads
    2,652 comments

    5   11:41pm Mon 14 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Social Security is not a big problem. You can raise contribution caps (or remove them), you can raise the retirement age, you can means test, and you can lie about COLA.

    Medicare is a very real problem. You can't fix Medicare in a vacuum though; you have to fix the entire health care system.

    Given that Medicare is close to half of all medical spending now, you can easily make the argument that it already *is* the medical system.

    The only viable option for medicare in the short term is probably to raise contribution rates. Long term, we need to replace the entire system with something new.

    I do feel pretty confident about the economy in 2016, at least relative to things today. I'm not saying we're going back to 1999 or even 2003, but I do think it'll be much better than now.

  6. ¥


    Follow
    Befriend
    35 threads
    5,700 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    6   12:01am Tue 15 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Kevin says

    The only viable option for medicare in the short term is probably to raise contribution rates. Long term, we need to replace the entire system with something new.

    Per-capita healthcare costs are $8000, more than twice the global average. The long pole in the tent is the cost of hospitalization. Our political process is completely fubar'd up now. There is going to be no "replacement".

    Kevin says

    I do feel pretty confident about the economy in 2016, at least relative to things today.

    Why?

  7. Kevin


    Follow
    Befriend
    40 threads
    2,652 comments

    7   2:35am Tue 15 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Bellingham Bill says

    Per-capita healthcare costs are $8000, more than twice the global average. The long pole in the tent is the cost of hospitalization. Our political process is completely fubar'd up now. There is going to be no "replacement".

    Oh please. There's always change. Not tomorrow and maybe not this decade, but there will eventually be a complete overhaul of the medical system.

    Bellingham Bill says

    Why?

    Because of the amount of money sitting idle. Eventually the Apples and Microsoft's of the world are going to realize that sitting on $50B isn't really helping them, and they'll start spending. That's the catalyst that starts things really moving again.

  8. ¥


    Follow
    Befriend
    35 threads
    5,700 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    8   2:48am Tue 15 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Kevin says

    and they'll start spending

    I've cashed my share of dotcom paychecks, but $50B isn't going to replace the $1T+/yr flow that the housing bubble was throwing off.

    I just think 2002-2008 was fake, fiction, and fraud. Where does that leave us now???

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3lL

    Quite frankly, in my superbear mood I can't figure out how things are holding together as well as they are.

    Perhaps my "paycheck economy" thesis isn't as solid as I think it is -- perhaps there is more leakage from the rentier-economy to the paycheck one.

    Or perhaps there's in fact some more shoes to drop still.

    Dunno.

  9. mdovell


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    28 threads
    776 comments

    9   4:40am Tue 15 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Bellingham Bill says

    mdovell says

    The left created social security and medicare so if they cannot fix their own programs it make them look weak

    Social security has zero problems until 2030 or so (sooner if employment doesn't grow like the overly-optimistic projections say it will).

    Medicare is another story, but Medicare was broken not by liberals but by conservatives (Parts B, C, D).

    “Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

    It is largely argued that there is little fraud within medicare but sadly that is not the case. Just that fact that company have ads about products that "..bill medicare with NO cost to you" means it is up for grabs.

    Raising the age for it is political suicide. I think they might phaze it out after a given age...treat it like TANF reform. say it lasts for 20 years with a phaze out at age 85 starting.

  10. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    2 threads
    2,495 comments

    10   1:13pm Tue 15 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Kevin says

    Because of the amount of money sitting idle. Eventually the Apples and Microsoft's of the world are going to realize that sitting on $50B isn't really helping them, and they'll start spending. That's the catalyst that starts things really moving again.

    Outside of a very few apple/microsoft type players corporations sitting on cash is a myth. Look at the other side of the balance sheet for most corporations and you will find borrowing that far exceeds cash. Corporations have been stocking up on very cheap cash just in case the banking system goes south again. I wonder what they see on the horizon that we don't?

  11. APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich


    Follow
    Befriend (28)
    169 threads
    4,153 comments
    Premium

    11   3:05pm Tue 15 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    We're in the early stages of CANNIBAL ANARCHY.

    By 2016, GOP can regain the White House and respond to popular outrage at starving millions looting and pillaging and eating the remaining middle class families' pets.

    President Bachmann and VP Palin will ride to victory on a platform of 'SPARE THE BULLETS, SPOIL THE SOCIETY' platform and will call out air strikes on protesters and poor communities with the strength of numbers to plausibly cause trouble.

    Bastions of 'satanic resistance to the will of God and His America' like Boston and Berkeley will be firebombed relentlessly until the Commonwealth of Nations accepts California and Massachusetts into the conference as observer nations.

  12. mdovell


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    28 threads
    776 comments

    12   4:41pm Tue 15 Nov 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bob2356 says

    Outside of a very few apple/microsoft type players corporations sitting on cash is a myth. Look at the other side of the balance sheet for most corporations and you will find borrowing that far exceeds cas

    I used to believe that but was proven wrong. A fair amount of companies do have cash on the sidelines...so why aren't they spending?

    well

    1) Why would anyone spend money on anything now if they can get it cheaper tomorrow, next month or next year?

    2) I'm not saying obamacare is scaring businesses but the constant back and forth is. Some might save money to pay for it but if they have more bills to pay they might gut it.

    3) Some might simply be watching competitors to wait for them to fail and then buy them up.

    4) They have to hold cash because everything else is going down...

    Ever hear of gentrification? Imagine that but on a higher level..that's what might be going on.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903927204576574720017009568.html

    Corporations have a higher share of cash on their balance sheets than at any time in nearly half a century, as businesses build up buffers rather than invest in new plants or hiring.

    "Nonfinancial companies held more than $2 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of June, the Federal Reserve reported Friday, up more than $88 billion from the end of March. Cash accounted for 7.1% of all company assets, everything from buildings to bonds, the highest level since 1963."

Kevin is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net  

Page took 97 milliseconds to create.