PDA

View Full Version : Economics The political brinksmanship of the GOP.


Direckshun
06-05-2012, 11:15 AM
Sad, sage words from Ezra Klein.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-keynesian-case-for-romney/2012/06/04/gJQAIETuDV_blog.html

The Keynesian case for Romney
Posted by Ezra Klein
02:45 PM ET, 06/04/2012

Even if you disagree with every one of Mitt Romney’s policies, there’s a chance he’s still the best candidate to lift the economy in 2013.

That’s not because he has business experience. For all his bluster about the lessons taught by the private sector, his agenda is indistinguishable from that of career politician Paul Ryan. Nor is it because he’s demonstrated some special knowledge of what it takes to create jobs. Job growth in Massachusetts was notably slow under Romney’s tenure. It’s because if Romney is elected, Republicans won’t choose to crash the economy in 2013.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if Congress gridlocks this year — if it simply gets nothing done — the economy will take a $607 billion hit in 2013 as the Bush tax cuts expire, the payroll tax cut expires and assorted spending cuts kick in. Falling off that “fiscal cliff,” they predict, will throw us back into recession.

But it’s worse even than that: Speaker John Boehner has said he wants another debt-ceiling showdown. We’re not expected to hit the debt ceiling until February or March, and so the only scenario in which the debt ceiling matters is one in which Congress has already pushed us over the fiscal cliff. So as bad as the last debt-ceiling crisis was — and Gallup’s polling showed it did more damage to consumer confidence than the fall of Lehman Bros — this one would be worse.

Miles Nadal, CEO of the marketing and communications firm MDC Partners, says that at a recent event with executives of more than 100 companies, the business leaders, panicked about this possibility, agreed on the best outcome for the economy: “a Republican landslide.” Why? “Because anything that breaks the logjam is positive,” he says. “The quality of the leader is less relevant than the ability to break gridlock.”

There’s no reason to believe Romney could “break” gridlock. But there’s reason to believe he wouldn’t face it in the first place. Republicans control the House. They’re three seats from controlling the Senate — and, because this Senate election follows 2006, which was a wave election for Democrats, Republicans are defending 10 seats while Democrats are defending 23. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which Romney wins the White House and Republicans don’t control the House and Senate. On the other side, while it’s not impossible to imagine President Obama winning the White House and Democrats taking back the House, it’s unlikely.

Romney and the Republicans are not likely to reach 60 seats in the Senate, but they won’t need them. The major issues on the table are budgetary. That means they can be considered using the budget reconciliation process, which can’t be filibustered. So if Republicans can maintain party unity — and they usually can — they’ll be able to govern effectively. And there’s no way that they’ll permit the Bush tax cuts to expire or the debt ceiling to lapse. Investors, knowing that, would likely stop worrying about the debt ceiling the moment a Romney win became clear.

Now, Republicans could still push the economy into recession if they pass an immediate austerity budget that slashed spending in 2013. And, given Republican rhetoric about how slashing the size of government will lead to more growth because the confidence fairy will come out and persuade businesses to spend more, you might think that’s exactly what they’ll do.

But Romney, though he often buys into that sort of nonsense while criticizing Obama, knows better. Time magazine asked him about cutting spending in 2013. “If you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent,” Romney said. “That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.” You couldn’t have gotten a clearer definition of Keynesian budgeting from Obama.

There’s a good chance that a Romney administration would extend both Bush and Obama’s tax cuts and delay the scheduled spending cuts. Congress would raise the debt ceiling after Romney promised congressional Republicans that he’d sign some variant of Paul Ryan’s budget as soon as it’s sent to him. Somewhere along the way, Romney would pass both more short-term tax cuts and a long-term transportation bill — something Republicans have been blocking under Obama — that doubles as an infrastructure package and includes, to secure Republican support, the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Nor is it clear that this will come at the cost of harsh deficit reduction in coming years. There will almost certainly be deep spending cuts if Romney is president, but both the Romney and Ryan proposals include trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts and defense spending. If Republicans clear that hurdle by simply assuming that deep tax cuts will lead, through supply-side magic, to larger revenues, their deficit-reduction plans might well end up increasing the deficit over the next few years. “Remember,” wrote Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal, “Republicans were pro-deficit, and pro-entitlement expansion under Bush and Reagan. Deficit cutting only became part of the party’s ideology under Obama.”

Compared to anything Obama is likely to get from a Republican House, that is, at least in the short term, a much more expansionary, Keynesian approach. But it’s also an awful precedent. In a sense, Republicans are holding a gun to the economy’s head and saying, “vote for us or the recovery gets it.”

That might well prove an effective political strategy: The more they say that they’re willing to let the debt ceiling expire and the economy run over the fiscal cliff, the more businesses will pull back and households will stop spending in order to make sure they have enough cash on hand to ride out another crisis. That will further depress the economy this year, making it more likely that Romney wins, and that Republicans embrace the smooth Keynesian glide path that they’re denying Obama.

If Obama wins, it’s of course possible that the two sides will come to a swift agreement. That’s the president’s prediction. “I believe that if we’re successful in this election, when we’re successful in this election, that the fever may break, because there’s a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that,” Obama has said. “My hope, my expectation, is that after the election, now that it turns out that the goal of beating Obama doesn’t make much sense because I’m not running again, that we can start getting some cooperation again.”

But privately, many top Democrats admit that congressional Republicans, angry after a narrow loss and appealing to a base that is likely to blame the defeat on Romney’s moderate past, might prove just as obstructionist after the election than before it. If that happens, they say, the president can’t keep giving into Republican threats. Much as the government shutdowns in the 1990s discredited Newt Gingrich’s hardball tactics, Obama will have to let voters see the consequences of the Tea Party’s approach. But while that might be sage political advice, the economic consequences could be devastating.

This is the logical conclusion of a system biased toward gridlock: The out-party benefits when the public feels that Washington is failing and it often has the power to make Washington fail. Which, arguably, leads to another unusual reality about this election: Even if you agree with Romney’s policies, it may be that voting for Obama, and delivering a landslide against the GOP’s economic brinksmanship, is the only way to end the dangerous appeal of strategic gridlock going forward.

So which are you more worried about? The fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling? Or the political system?

Direckshun
06-05-2012, 11:19 AM
One of the many lessons of the Obama administration is what happens when one political party in a two party system decides to take their ball and go home.

The Republican party wants what, 20-to-1 returns on the debt ceiling standoff? And on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts?

If they don't get it, they will risk tanking the economy. Darn near hostage situation.

If they get it, they are getting an austerity package that will likely risk another recession.

Neither result particularly hurts the GOP. Who it hurts is Obama and the DNP.

A President Romney likely means the GOP will go right back to the Keynesian economics that would allow the economy to continue to surviving, much of the austerity pretending goes away.

Those are our likely consequences, one of those two.

Of course, the other option is Obama wins reelection and says "make my day," and embraces Clintonian hardball tactics. In which case, he may win the political fight, but the economy is again in a recession.

Because that's what happens when one party is able to take the ball and go home.

It's striking.

donkhater
06-05-2012, 11:42 AM
This is a pretty ballsy analysis given the FACT that the democrat-controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 3 years. And the GOP can do nothing to stop a budget bill since it doesn't require 60 votes to come to the floor. So lets look a little bit in the mirror before we start throwing rocks out of our glass house shall we?

headsnap
06-05-2012, 11:46 AM
Because that's what happens when one party is able to take the ball and go home.

no, that party didn't have the ball, they went home because the party with the ball wouldn't play!


three years and no budget... two years with their party in control of the WH, Senate and House... :shake:

Direckshun
06-05-2012, 12:04 PM
This is a pretty ballsy analysis given the FACT that the democrat-controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 3 years. And the GOP can do nothing to stop a budget bill since it doesn't require 60 votes to come to the floor. So lets look a little bit in the mirror before we start throwing rocks out of our glass house shall we?

no, that party didn't have the ball, they went home because the party with the ball wouldn't play!

three years and no budget... two years with their party in control of the WH, Senate and House... :shake:

I'm not going to deny the incompetence of the Democratic Party.

But let's not ignore the fact that this is a largely GOP Congress that wants to raise the debt ceiling war again, and demand some hilariously one-sided arrangement, something like 15-to-1, to resolve the Bush tax cuts expiring.

Anybody thinking they'll be doing this dance under a President Romney is naive.

FD
06-05-2012, 12:58 PM
Very interesting article. Thanks for posting.

vailpass
06-05-2012, 01:09 PM
TL/DNR.

I'm guessing you aren't pissed because the GOP engages in political brinksmanship. You are pissed because the GOP is so much better at it than the Dems.

Amnorix
06-05-2012, 01:38 PM
TL/DNR.

I'm guessing you aren't pissed because the GOP engages in political brinksmanship. You are pissed because the GOP is so much better at it than the Dems.


Mostly I'm pissed because playing dice with the American economy in order to win some political points if just bad, bad governance.

I increasingly dislike both parties.

vailpass
06-05-2012, 01:40 PM
Mostly I'm pissed because playing dice with the American economy in order to win some political points if just bad, bad governance.

I increasingly dislike both parties.

Fully concur.

donkhater
06-05-2012, 01:42 PM
I'm not going to deny the incompetence of the Democratic Party.

But let's not ignore the fact that this is a largely GOP Congress that wants to raise the debt ceiling war again, and demand some hilariously one-sided arrangement, something like 15-to-1, to resolve the Bush tax cuts expiring.

Anybody thinking they'll be doing this dance under a President Romney is naive.

Maybe. You obviously don't agree with the Tea party's stance on all things fiscal, but you can't disagree that they have had impact on GOP elections.

Now does the tea party reamin as vocal under a Romney presidency or does it fade into the background? The answer to that question will show how much the tea party has retained it's grass roots backing or if it has become an extended arm of the GOP. I'm skeptical that it is free and clear of the GOP establishment.

DementedLogic
06-05-2012, 01:43 PM
A President Romney likely means the GOP will go right back to the Keynesian economics that would allow the economy to continue to surviving, much of the austerity pretending goes away.

How many Keynesians predicted the housing bubble collapse? Keynesian Economics don't work, and it has been proven many times.

However, I do agree that if Romney wins the presidency, the Republican will go back to being big government Keynesians like they do everytime they are in control. That is not a good thing.

patteeu
06-05-2012, 05:24 PM
Ignored by Direckshun and Ezra Klein:

1. When it comes to our fiscal future, the biggest problem facing our country are out-of-control entitlements.

2. The only serious hope to reform our entitlement system lies in the election of a Republican Congress and a Republican POTUS.

Direckshun
06-05-2012, 07:20 PM
Ignored by Direckshun and Ezra Klein:

1. When it comes to our fiscal future, the biggest problem facing our country are out-of-control entitlements.

2. The only serious hope to reform our entitlement system lies in the election of a Republican Congress and a Republican POTUS.

The last Republican President expanded entitlements, not only failing to pay for them, but actually cutting revenue in the meantime.

La literatura
06-05-2012, 07:35 PM
Fully concur.

You increasingly dislike the Republican Party? Why?

patteeu
06-05-2012, 08:25 PM
The last Republican President expanded entitlements, not only failing to pay for them, but actually cutting revenue in the meantime.

The last Republican President isn't running this time. Next?

La literatura
06-05-2012, 08:28 PM
The last Republican President isn't running this time. Next?

Perhaps entitlements are the long term fiscal problem, but in the short term, I think the most important thing to do is create a national environment that stimulates the economy towards a long term growth. I don't believe that makes entitlement reform the most prominent issue.

Is Mitt Romney still a viable candidate for my views? If so, why?

Direckshun
06-05-2012, 08:29 PM
The last Republican President isn't running this time. Next?

I wasn't the one saying "a Republican would fix this!"

If you want to say Romney will fix this, fine. But the last time we gave "a Republican" a chance at the Oval Office, he blew entitlements out in the other direction.

patteeu
06-05-2012, 09:23 PM
Perhaps entitlements are the long term fiscal problem, but in the short term, I think the most important thing to do is create a national environment that stimulates the economy towards a long term growth. I don't believe that makes entitlement reform the most prominent issue.

Is Mitt Romney still a viable candidate for my views? If so, why?

The OP article argues that he is and it's author isn't even a Romney supporter. I don't think we need to go any further than that.

patteeu
06-05-2012, 09:24 PM
I wasn't the one saying "a Republican would fix this!"

If you want to say Romney will fix this, fine. But the last time we gave "a Republican" a chance at the Oval Office, he blew entitlements out in the other direction.

Romney is the Republican POTUS we're talking about in 2012. I didn't realize there was still confusion over this (outside of ronpaul circles, at least).

La literatura
06-05-2012, 09:25 PM
The OP article argues that he is and it's author isn't even a Romney supporter. I don't think we need to go any further than that.

Not much of an endorsement, though.

patteeu
06-05-2012, 09:30 PM
Not much of an endorsement, though.

Do you disagree with their analysis?

La literatura
06-05-2012, 09:31 PM
Do you disagree with their analysis?

No, I don't. In fact, I said something similar on this forum months ago.

Amnorix
06-06-2012, 07:34 AM
The last Republican President isn't running this time. Next?


The one running for President this time adopted something somewhat similar to ObamaCare the last time he was the CEO of a governmental entity, i.e. the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

In all seriousness, you have no evidence at all to support Romney doing anything significant on either entitlements or on the deficit. You merely have hopes and desires.

notorious
06-06-2012, 07:39 AM
I increasingly dislike both parties.


Welcome to the party, pal. This was me after Bush signed that huge pharm. drug bill years ago.

HonestChieffan
06-06-2012, 07:50 AM
The one running for President this time adopted something somewhat similar to ObamaCare the last time he was the CEO of a governmental entity, i.e. the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

In all seriousness, you have no evidence at all to support Romney doing anything significant on either entitlements or on the deficit. You merely have hopes and desires.

Isn't that always the case? What you vote for is what you believe can happen. We vote for people who most similarly reflect our values, ideas, and hopes. We also know what we vote for in a POTUS is not someone who writes laws, we vote for the person we believe has the best set of leadership skills to bring enough votes together from both sides to pass bills that best reflect our interests.

When an incumbent runs he has to run on the basis of what he/she has done, produced and demonstrated. In that case you have evidence or at least enough information to speculate what another term would be like for that person. There is far less unknown in that case.

We also vote on a basis of trust. Who of the candidates do you really trust? Do you trust them as a person to be honest? Do you trust they will do what they can within the framework of how things get done? And do you trust that he or she will use principles you agree with to guide decision making.

This garbage of wanting proof that one or the other will do exactly what they say is nothing more than foolishness. We go with our gut. Sometimes we are pleasantly surprised. But in any case we never get exactly what we want and they don't get exactly what they hoped for.

patteeu
06-06-2012, 07:51 AM
The one running for President this time adopted something somewhat similar to ObamaCare the last time he was the CEO of a governmental entity, i.e. the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

In all seriousness, you have no evidence at all to support Romney doing anything significant on either entitlements or on the deficit. You merely have hopes and desires.

Which is why I used the word "hope" in my post. What we do know is that there is no hope for serious reform under Obama.

patteeu
06-06-2012, 07:53 AM
Isn't that always the case? What you vote for is what you believe can happen. We vote for people who most similarly reflect our values, ideas, and hopes. We also know what we vote for in a POTUS is not someone who writes laws, we vote for the person we believe has the best set of leadership skills to bring enough votes together from both sides to pass bills that best reflect our interests.

When an incumbent runs he has to run on the basis of what he/she has done, produced and demonstrated. In that case you have evidence or at least enough information to speculate what another term would be like for that person. There is far less unknown in that case.

We also vote on a basis of trust. Who of the candidates do you really trust? Do you trust them as a person to be honest? Do you trust they will do what they can within the framework of how things get done? And do you trust that he or she will use principles you agree with to guide decision making.

This garbage of wanting proof that one or the other will do exactly what they say is nothing more than foolishness. We go with our gut. Sometimes we are pleasantly surprised. But in any case we never get exactly what we want and they don't get exactly what they hoped for.

Good post.

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 08:00 AM
Real leaders show an ability to work and compromise.

Obama spent most of his time belittling his opposition. And never did we see any true effort to reach compromise. Not surprising, given his lack of experience in leadership. The soft skills matter. A lot. You can't just learn on the fly.

patteeu
06-06-2012, 08:03 AM
I wonder if Ezra Klein wrote a column about how democrats decided to undermine our war effort for partisan gain as Americans were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm guessing that he didn't. I know Direckshun never acknowledged it.

Unlike foreign policy during a shooting war where politics should stop at the water's edge, disagreements about how to best get the economy going are the kinds of things that should be highlighted and brought to the voters for a mandate. Current Republicans would happily vote for stimulus today if it were in the form of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. They don't agree with giving Obama the kind of stimulus he wants though. He already had a two year crack at getting things rolling his way and he failed miserably. It's time for a fresh set of eyes and ideas.

Amnorix
06-06-2012, 08:13 AM
Isn't that always the case? What you vote for is what you believe can happen. We vote for people who most similarly reflect our values, ideas, and hopes. We also know what we vote for in a POTUS is not someone who writes laws, we vote for the person we believe has the best set of leadership skills to bring enough votes together from both sides to pass bills that best reflect our interests.

Spare me. Your vote for the guy with the (R) next to his name. JFC if voting for Romney doesn't convince you of that, nothing ever will. He's adopted more positions than Linda Lovelace.

We also vote on a basis of trust. Who of the candidates do you really trust? Do you trust them as a person to be honest? Do you trust they will do what they can within the framework of how things get done? And do you trust that he or she will use principles you agree with to guide decision making.

This garbage of wanting proof that one or the other will do exactly what they say is nothing more than foolishness. We go with our gut. Sometimes we are pleasantly surprised. But in any case we never get exactly what we want and they don't get exactly what they hoped for.


My point is that the evidence with Romney actually points in the other direction, but since he has an (R) next to his name, you'll vote for him. That's fine, I get it. But spare me the sermon, because it's bullshit, and you either know it, or you're just too blind to see it.

HonestChieffan
06-06-2012, 08:17 AM
Spare me. Your vote for the guy with the (R) next to his name. JFC if voting for Romney doesn't convince you of that, nothing ever will. He's adopted more positions than Linda Lovelace.




My point is that the evidence with Romney actually points in the other direction, but since he has an (R) next to his name, you'll vote for him. That's fine, I get it. But spare me the sermon, because it's bullshit, and you either know it, or you're just too blind to see it.

No your point is that you distrust Romney for whatever list of reasons and thats good enough.

Likewise, having seen what Obama said he would do and contrast that to what he has done, and you can still support him tells me all this gobbledygook about positions and flip flops is just bullshit.

Linda at least had some skills and accomplished her objectives.

FD
06-08-2012, 10:57 AM
Klein has a follow-up post arguing that Romney is probably the more Keynesian choice:

More on whether Romney is the Keynesian choice

There are two variables worth thinking about in the 2012 election: Who is the president? And is Congress divided? That gives you four possible outcomes: Barack Obama can win with a divided Congress or a Democratic Congress, and Mitt Romney can win with a divided Congress or a Republican Congress. Here’s how I’d rank the Keynesian possibilities of those four scenarios, in descending order:

1) Obama and a Democratic Congress;
2) Romney and a Republican Congress;
3) Romney and a divided Congress;
4) Obama and a divided Congress.

I think the only choice on that list that’s even mildly controversial is ranking Romney and a divided Congress above Obama and a divided Congress. But Romney clearly understands and agrees with the need for short-term Keynesian budgeting, and as Jon Chait has written, “Democrats don’t have any history of opportunistically abandoning Keynesian economics when the other party’s neck is on the economic line.”

Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, do have a history of opportunistically abandoning Keynesian economics when the other party’s neck is on the economic line. Making matters worse, the Obama administration believes, rightfully, that they can’t let Republicans continuously hold the economy hostage. At some point, this brinksmanship has to end. But that means that if the GOP insists on taking us over the cliff and breaching the debt ceiling, there’s a good chance Obama will let them do it, at least so long as he’s confident they’ll be blamed. So Republicans will be holding the line for contractionary policy, and there’s a high chance of fiscal/financial disaster. That’s terrible for the recovery.

Now, let’s rank those scenarios by their probability of occurring, at least according to the InTrade market’s betting estimates:

1) Obama and a divided Congress.
2) Romney and a Republican Congress;
3) Romney and a divided Congress;
4) Obama and a Democratic Congress;

The least Keynesian outcome is suddenly the most likely outcome. The most Keynesian outcome is the least likely outcome. But Romney and a Republican Congress — the second most Keynesian outcome — remains the second-most likely outcome.

Which is the basic point of my column: If you assume the only really likely outcomes are Obama and a divided Congress and Romney and a Republican Congress, the most Keynesian outcome is probably Romney and a Republican Congress. But that’s also the outcome that’s worst for the political system’s long-term health, as it will mean the Republican Party was rewarded for the incredibly dangerous brinksmanship of the past year, and if their victory is partially because the economy slows on fears of a crisis in 2013, based on their reckless promises of more brinksmanship next year.

The overarching point isn’t that I’m telling you who to vote for — that’s not my job, and this doesn’t say anything about whose long-term policies for the economy are better, or whose Supreme Court picks would be superior, or who is more likely to go to war with Iran, to name just a few considerations you’ll want to make — but that people need to understand the role strategic gridlock is playing in our economic problems. Right now, however, neither candidate has a persuasive plan for how they’ll end gridlock going forward. The only idea with even a possibility of working is if the American people delivered a clear verdict against its practitioners at the polls.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/more-on-whether-romney-is-the-keynesian-choice/2012/06/05/gJQAgaaXGV_blog.html#pagebreak

vailpass
06-08-2012, 11:17 AM
ABO

patteeu
06-09-2012, 09:23 AM
The Republicans are perfectly willing to compromise their austerity position in favor of stimulus if the President and Senate are willing to use tax cuts to do it instead of arguing for spending coupled with anti-growth tax increases.

In any event, I think I'll take the Republican's history wrt Keynsian economics over the democrats history of putting politics ahead of national security any day.

RedNeckRaider
06-09-2012, 09:48 AM
ABO

It is a very sad, that the last two elections have come down to, anyone but the guy in office. We no longer rally around a candidate that we believe in, we just shake our heads in disgust vote for the "anybody but him" candidate. Less those who blindly follow the letter "D" or "R" none of us are truly satisfied with the choices. The thought of either of these clowns being our leader, is sickening. Here we go again, spinning the wheel of misfortune~

Chiefshrink
06-09-2012, 12:43 PM
Not much of an endorsement, though.

However, it will be "We The People" that force Romney to be more conservative than he likes as we win more 'true conservative' seats in the House and Senate this Nov and elections to come. Clean out the F"N RINOs in the process that will force even the BIG $$ RINO pricks to back conservative candidates in the future because "We The People" finally had to take the 'if you want something done right you do it yourself' approach which is where "We The People" dropped the ball and got lazy these past 50-75yrs. We trusted too much and never verified enough as Reagan always preached.

This is why I am not afraid.

Chiefshrink
06-09-2012, 12:45 PM
It is a very sad, that the last two elections have come down to, anyone but the guy in office. We no longer rally around a candidate that we believe in, we just shake our heads in disgust vote for the "anybody but him" candidate. Less those who blindly follow the letter "D" or "R" none of us are truly satisfied with the choices. The thought of either of these clowns being our leader, is sickening. Here we go again, spinning the wheel of misfortune~

Be patient there is a true leader on the rise:thumb:

Who do you like?

La literatura
06-09-2012, 01:37 PM
The Republicans are perfectly willing to compromise their austerity position in favor of stimulus if the President and Senate are willing to use tax cuts to do it instead of arguing for spending coupled with anti-growth tax increases.

Like the $300 billion dollars of tax cuts in Obama's broader stimulus plan?

Or is the Republican Keynesian plan just tax cuts? Is that what you consider stimulus?

patteeu
06-10-2012, 01:54 AM
Like the $300 billion dollars of tax cuts in Obama's broader stimulus plan?

Or is the Republican Keynesian plan just tax cuts? Is that what you consider stimulus?

I think it would probably have to be predominantly tax cuts for Republicans to agree. And all tax cuts aren't equal so Republicans would probably insist on certain types of tax cuts.

Chocolate Hog
06-10-2012, 03:09 PM
Kenyes never works.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2

vailpass
06-11-2012, 12:00 PM
It is a very sad, that the last two elections have come down to, anyone but the guy in office. We no longer rally around a candidate that we believe in, we just shake our heads in disgust vote for the "anybody but him" candidate. Less those who blindly follow the letter "D" or "R" none of us are truly satisfied with the choices. The thought of either of these clowns being our leader, is sickening. Here we go again, spinning the wheel of misfortune~

Yes. I still believe though that brighter days are coming, that we will be able to stand with a President again in our lifetime. But for now you are correct, it's hold your nose and vote. Anything to move away from the current disgraceful debacle.

La literatura
06-11-2012, 07:27 PM
Yes. I still believe though that brighter days are coming, that we will be able to stand with a President again in our lifetime. But for now you are correct, it's hold your nose and vote. Anything to move away from the current disgraceful debacle.

What are your main problems with the Republican Party? I've never seen you say anything remotely resembling a criticism of someone who wasn't Barack Obama.

suzzer99
06-11-2012, 08:44 PM
The last Republican President isn't running this time. Next?

Ever heard the saying "fool me once"? Or in republican-fuzzy-logic-FNC-pablum-land is past performance no indicator of future?

patteeu
06-11-2012, 09:20 PM
Ever heard the saying "fool me once"?

You should write campaign ads for Mitt Romney! Or maybe run the bumper sticker operation.

HonestChieffan
06-11-2012, 10:05 PM
Ever heard the saying "fool me once"? Or in republican-fuzzy-logic-FNC-pablum-land is past performance no indicator of future?

You can have this deleted. Have you considered that?

suzzer99
06-13-2012, 04:35 PM
Nah patteu you have a much better campaign slogan "Just because the republicans shit the bed the last time they were in office, doesn't mean it will happen again."

Inspiring.

RedNeckRaider
06-13-2012, 07:47 PM
Ever heard the saying "fool me once"? Or in republican-fuzzy-logic-FNC-pablum-land is past performance no indicator of future?

LMAO this is your angle after the last 4 years. If you have read anything from me you know for ****ing fact I am no right winger. That said...this is your play? I almost spit my drink when I read your post. Fool me once LMAO I had to type again, just to see if it would make me laugh again...it did. All kidding aside, thanks for the laugh~

HonestChieffan
06-13-2012, 08:31 PM
Suzzer is cooked. Just remember this thread.