Senate The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election has begun

It's still 2013. Can we stop making much ado about Hilary having meals with Obama and Biden?

 

FWIW, the hot new consulting firm in DC is 270 Strategies and is run by the senior, major players of the Obama 2012 campaign (namely Mitch Stewart and Jeremy Bird). And as of a month or so ago, they've signed with Ready For Hillary to develop the SuperPAC's "field" program. I think that's the clearest sign that she's running (although I think it's been a given for quite some time). I don't see the major brain powers behind Obama 2012 signing up with a pre-Hillary group unless they know she's running and will clear the field.

 

I honestly would be that Limbaugh wants her to run and possibly win. The difference in revenue for him between a Hillary candidacy/presidency against a boring Democrat candidacy/Rubio presidency are astronomical.

 

IIRC, that's partly why McCain lost in 2000, Republicans had a stranglehold on Congress and wanted the White House back to boot and as I recall, the party intially didn't want either Bush Jr. or McCain; Bush because of both his drinking past and some of the missteps he made in the primaries (which continued on into the general election and beyond of course) and McCain because the GOP didn't think he was 'conservative enough (Keep in mind the McCain of 2000 came off very different than the McCain of '08 and beyond).' Ultimately it came down to McCain and Bush and the base felt Bush gave them the better option.

Worse still, she's a woman and the GOP seems to have this massive war on women these days wanting them to go back to being silent, barefoot and in the kitchen.

 

I weirdly never listened to Limbaugh and Hannity much during the Bush years, but I remember this the few times I did (railing against the immigration reform of 2007 by McCain, etc.). Even if McCain would have won - or Romney - they would have constantly been fear mongering over them governing from their true beliefs (moderate). During the GOP primary of 2011/2012 I know for a fact that they were raising the alarm of Romney winning and trying to rally behind whoever the flavor-of-the-week Tea Partier was.

 

On a side-note, I've seen many GOPers on Twitter trying to say Democrats are the real War on Women because of Weiner and Bill Clinton. I think it would take too much effort to explain to them that being a cheater doesn't necessarily make you anti-women as much as favoring non-equal wage and intrusive abortion/birth control laws.

 

That's in part due to several of those True Conservatives making several missteps (Perry: "Ooops"), was never going to be elected by the base (Ron Paul), and/or was the butt of jokes from the start (Santorum). Bottom line, is as much as the base hated him, Romney made the least amount of mistakes during the primary fight (and pretty much butchered everybody but Gingrich in the debates), and the base felt, that in order to beat Obama (because that was seemingly their only mission in 2012, never mind that putting nearly all their focus on the Presidential race more than likely cost them a few House and Senate seats), they had to go with Romney. Which of course backfired spectacularly on them.

 

My favorite meme of all time is the picture that shows a defeated Tea Partier and says "Constantly complains about Obamacare. Has to vote for the guy who originally implemented it."

 

Can we also define "true conservatives" because there are those people who are against big government and want to balance the budget and not overspend... and then there are those people who want G-d back in the White House and/or are social conservatives (which had nothing to do with actual Conservatism back in the day)...

 

I'd love to have a balanced budget and a government that didn't overspend. But when we put Bush in the White House, there was a surplus; eight years later, the ultra-"conservative" Bush and his "conservative" Congress had dug us into the hole everyone's blaming Obama for. I agree; let's make a distinction between "Republican" and "conservative." There was nothing conservative about the Bush years, at least not fiscally.

For what it's worth, I'd love to see some government slashing done. But when they tried to take the totally reasonable step of eliminating Saturday mail delivery, which no one frigging needs anymore, there was such outcry that they had to back down on it. Honestly, if we can't agree that mail delivery (snail mail!) on Saturday can't be cut, what on earth will anyone ever be willing to give up. I mean, as a nation, it's time for us to grow up and say goodbye to some of the benefits we've gotten used to. However, no one gets out of debt purely by slashing expenditures; you get out of debt by raising revenues as well. So, to all the people who say that making over a million bucks a year doesn't make them "rich," I say, "Go screw yourself." Lower your damned standard of living to something more reasonable, for God's sake. Your dog doesn't need five diamond collars and how many square feet can one family actually use in a house anyway? I mean, hell, I make . . . well, way, way, way, way less than that and I'd take a tax raise if it would help us balance our books. I have enough to live on and have some small luxuries; take a few more bucks out of my check if it'll return us to the morally righteous position of being out of debt.

Yes, I said morally righteous. That's right, I'm a Christian. So, do I want God in the White House? Sure. I'd like to see Him everywhere. I'm not going to pretend I wouldn't. But is it really the "Christian" thing to do to legislate straight from the Bible? The right thing to do is to raise up leaders who have a sense of morality and common sense and then legislate out of quantifiable data. Why, after all, do all those Christians who want "sodomy" outlawed for no other reason than the Bible (and their own ingrown prejudices) hate Sharia law anyway? All they want is the "Christian" version of it. You outlaw things because, as a society, you have to protect the common good and also protect the individual. Not because a religious text says so. Even if everyone in government was a Christian, I'd still not want them to use the Bible as a bedrock of legislation. That's not what the Bible is for, that's not why it was written. Let's put God in the White House; and then do the genuinely Christian thing - not legislate out of religious texts. What was Jesus so mad at the Pharisees for anyway if it wasn't that? Jesus didn't come to set up an earthly kingdom; the Jews of the time had trouble realizing that, but then it seems like most Christians today do as well. The only time Jesus ever ran from anything was the time when a mob came in order to "set him up as king."

And while I'm ranting, which I am, let me just say a word to all my "Christian" friends who take every opportunity to spew bile about Obama. I've seen people who identify as Christians use slurs of all kinds, pass around all kinds of absurd urban legends, make really offensive remarks of just about every kind about Obama, all the way down to attacking his family. I'm really sick of that. Allow me to use the Bible as it was meant to be used: a tool of teaching. "Fear God; honor the king." "Pray for those who have authority over you." "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

Okay, rant over. And it's mostly off topic too. Once again, dp4m has got me going.

EDIT: And, you know what, I don't make a whole lot of money. It's always been enough, thank God for His provision and for the good sense He gave me. I have a credit card; I pay it off every month. I have lived debt free my entire adult life and am currently carrying not one dollar of debt. And a millionaire just can't have a higher tax rate because if they do, they just won't have enough to make ends meet? Come on, guys, let's call bull**** bull**** if you know what I mean. How about we just figure out that if you can't make your life work on a million dollars a year, you need to scale back your life somewhat. Greed, greed, greed!

Augh! I am in a fine lather here. This is the spirit of the street-corner preacher comin' on me right now, but, seriously, it's so simple if people would just set aside their pre-conceived notions and their arrogant self-interest and come to the table prepared to solve some problems . . . well, we'd be okay.

 

Numbering thoughts because I'm a dumb JCC'er.

1. Running a deficit is not necessarily "overspending." How would one define overspending anyway? Sovereign debt is nothing like personal debt, and even a person can maintain large, usually low-interest debts such as student loans and car loans and mortgages without it being a problem.

2. There's nothing wrong with having a national debt. At a certain point it gets unsustainable, but that point is very unclear and controversial.

3. The United States Postal Service is self-funded and hasn't been paid for by taxpayers since the 1970's. The money saved from eliminating Saturday delivery would only have internal benefit. The self-funding is a huge problem because Congress still controls everything they do. For example, the biggest reason the USPS is in trouble is not because of falling mail volume but because they have to pre-fund pension obligations for hypothetical employees that haven't even been hired yet. This is a crushing burden that no private or government agency has to endure. Hey, it's almost as though there are people actively trying to kill affordable, non-profit, quasi-governmental postal service (GO FIGURE). A lot of people, especially the elderly and the poor, still receive important things such as bills and Social Security checks through the mail. Cutting down the number of delivery days would not only harm them, but businesses as well.

4. For all practical purposes, there is no such thing as a "fiscal conservative" whose beliefs don't go hand-in-hand with "social conservatism" and right-wing ideology (yes, there are plenty of right-wing Democrats). Fiscal conservatism means screwing over people who aren't well-off white men. Look at the latest farm bill. Food stamps were threatened, but no one really considered taking on the disgusting "corporate welfare" farm subsidies.

 

I can't remember the last time we had delivery on a Saturday. I'm pretty sure we haven't for decades. We survive okay.

 

The point is, it wouldn't really help-- and it can't help with any larger government deficit. It would save an agency that is running a deficit of billions of dollars less than one billion. The Postmaster General proposed it more out of desperately clamoring for any sort of relief or concession in exchange for a bailout.

 

We can begin parsing where exactly overspending begins and ends at a later date. Wherever it starts, we are far, far past that point at the moment, even conceding that you can run a deficit and not be overspending. At over sixteen trillion dollars in the hole, I think it's safe to posit that there was a moment or two when we spent more than we should have. Let's not split hairs; we shouldn't be sixteen trillion dollars in the red. Can we agree on that?

And, yes, a person can run a large debt for a long time. So can a nation. The problem is that these debts aren't a problem until they are. How many people across the nation do you think defaulted on student loans or car loans or had their mortgages foreclosed on. Debt can be a manageable thing; it can also be totally unmanageable. And, again, sixteen trillion dollars. Manageable?

There's nothing particularly right about it either. As to the point at which it becomes unsustainable, I'll just say this: under Clinton, there was a small surplus; admittedly, not a large one, just a few hundred billion (God, let that sink in; that's a small amount); twelve years later, well, I've said the pertinent number enough times I think. I call that a pattern of decline and one that's pretty darn unsustainable.

All excellent points, to the specific case. I have a friend who works for the Post Office, so, yeah, it would have impacted her too, as well as those you mention at the end there. However, I question whether cutting one delivery day out of every six would be that big of an impact. There would be some slight negative impact, but not enough of one to raise any kind of huge fuss over. And, anyway, I have relatives who receive government assistance . . . by direct deposit.

The main point I was trying to make stands, which is that no one is willing to sacrifice in even the slightest degree when it comes to public life.

I see what you're saying here. I've always self-defined as a fiscal conservative . . . which is apparently a mistake since I'm not a well-off white man. I think we're talking about the difference in fiscal conservatism in and out of Washington. You're definitely correct that "fiscal conservatism" inside of Washington still includes bias in favor of large corporations and the incredibly wealthy and really only targets the poor and needy. I mean, yeah, that's definitely right and infuriating.

I'm using fiscal conservative in a more basic dictionary definition kind of way: as in, I'm conservative (small-c) when it comes to fiscal matters, ergo I'm a fiscal conservative. No added baggage or anything like that. Good distinction though; if the phrase carries all the extra stuff you're talking about (and I see that it does, at least a lot of the time), then clarification needs to be made on my part. I'm not a "fiscal conservative;" I'm a guy that's conservative when it comes to fiscal matters. On the surface, those kind of seem like the same thing, but you've rightly located a distinction there. That "For all practical purposes" is pretty damning, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's correct, damning though it is. The fellows in Washington are the ones who are defining the phrase incorrectly, I think, not me. Doubt they'll come into line with Webster anytime soon though.

 

I agree that the national debt "shouldn't" be as high as it is, because much of it was caused by tax cuts, the two+ wars, and the unfunded Medicare Part D. But I don't like the idea that sovereign debt-- even a large one-- is bad in and of itself. And I don't know if you're aware of the distinction between a budget deficit and total debt (to be fair, a lot of people aren't), but the national debt was already many trillions of dollars under Clinton. The few hundred billion dollars in budget surplus were just for that fiscal year. The U.S. has always had a national debt, and during WWII it increased to 140% of GDP (it's about 100% now). Of course, at the time the economy was growing at a faster rate, but we're not exactly in dire straits yet.

And you bring up examples of people defaulting on student loans and being foreclosed on. But no large country has ever defaulted on its debt. No one knows for sure exactly what the ramifications would be, but it would probably be as devastating for the creditors as it would be for the country that defaulted. Creditors also have nothing to foreclose on, nothing to repossess-- they don't have much leverage except refusing to buy more debt, and with U.S. Treasury Securities still considered among the "safest" investments, that point is far off.

I think there's a needless focus on the debt when, at worst, it's a problem that will manifest decades from now and can be "fixed" by reforming-- not cutting-- programs. For example, forming a universal single-payer healthcare system with the ability to negotiate drug prices and other costs would significantly cut down on the long-term burden of Medicare and Medicaid.

 

Elizabeth Warren, and all 15 other female Democratic Senators, sent a secret letter to Hillary Clinton earlier this year... urging her to run for President in 2016.

 

Who are the main leading contenders from each Party?

 

Well we know who it will be for the Democrats (Hilary, if and when she announces she's running. Biden on the off - chance she doesn't.) the bigger question is who will outlast the number of contenders that will likely flood the GOP primary system next year. Given that it still seems like the GOP is being run by the Tea Party asylum, my bet is on either Rand Paul or Rick Santorium.

 

Christie will never make it out of the primary. He's blasted the Tea Party faction too many times and they won't forgive him bear hugging Obama in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy.

 

Let's say that Hillary wins the nomination... could you ever see the possibility of Biden being Vice President again? It would be interesting if there was the same VP for 16 years...

 

I could, actually, but it's more whether he wants to do it. Technically, he's not needed in the same way he was for Obama (significant foreign policy and military experience to Obama's zilch on those fronts), but he does still have a reputation for a) being respected and b) getting things done in the Legislature which Hillary would likely have an issue with being her last name is Clinton.

But realistically Hillary will need no help with foreign policy or domestic healthcare / education which were her things long before Obama.

Honestly? I could very easily see Kerry's run at SecState being his audition for the #2...