With Perry having slumped in the polls, however, and Romney the more likely nominee, the odds tilt slightly toward Obama joining the list of one-termers. It is early, and almost no matter what, the election will be a losable one for Republicans. But Obama’s position is tenuous enough that it might not be a winnable one for him.
३ नोव्हेंबर, २०११
"Is Obama Toast? Handicapping the 2012 Election."
Lots of detailed analysis from Nate Silver, who sums it up like this:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१९८ टिप्पण्या:
I will have plenty of scorn for whatever side loses.
And whatever side wins, for that matter.
The article starts with the infuriatingly dumb cliche dominating political discussion... the assertion that Obama "compromised" over budget considerations with Republicans.
He didn't compromise. The Tea Party dominated elections of 2010 sent reps to Congress with the specific mission to stop Obama's runaway spending.
Obama had to accept reality. He didn't compromise.
I think Obama is likely to win re-election. The racial, sexual and ethnic grievance industry will back him, as will the unions. That's a hefty block.
Doesn't look like anybody's going to be very enthused about the Republican candidate.
And, once we really get going, the race baiting, and media cheer leading for Obama will become intense.
I expect Obama to win, and I expect the Republicans to win both houses of Congress.
Unfortunately it ain't over till the fat lady sings. A year is a long time in politics. Odds are he won't win based on the current situation but unfortunately that isn't a certainty. On the other hand Obama might get the worst of all, a win and wind up with a veto proof congress that will spend 4 years investigating him. It will make for great TV as the Administration goes on a perp walk as each indictment comes down.
The real determinant will be the economy and the very real possibility things will look a lot worse a year from now. Add to that whatever fallout comes from Egypt, Libya (especially), the PIIGS, possible Red Chinese meltdown, and Iran.
We could be looking at ABB - Anybody But Bummer.
I really like the idea of both parties losing.
Okay, in reality that would be disastrous.
But I agree with both of chuck b.'s assertions.
Not time to go through the pockets for loose change, yet.
@cubanbob: "A year is a long time in politics. Odds are he won't win based on the current situation but unfortunately that isn't a certainty."
You said it! I seem to recall things changing rather suddeningly and rather drastically in the days before the 2008 election. Funny that...
Dims still trying to pick our candidate, just saying.
The Israeli attack plans for Iran have been hamstrung by disclosure that they were in the "implementation stage."
That is one time sensitive issue. If the attack on Iran's nukes is ever going to happen it has to be before the election so that Obama only secretly restrains them.
After November 2012 thecurrent attack plan will either be openly shot down (literally) by Obama, or it will not be necessary since the USA will cooperate in doing it.
The secret is that Israel has all the middle east power it needs right now, and they can do what they want to do.
Either he is, or we are.
"I have estimated extremism scores for this year’s Republican candidates by combining data from the three principal objective methods that are used to estimate ideology, one based on Congressional voting, one based on fund-raising contributions and the other based on voters’ assessments of the candidates’ ideology in polls."
So how did he determine Romney's score, when he has no Congressional record?
Anyway, the article seems to assume that if the challenger matters at all (i.e. if the deciding factor isn't just the incumbent's record), then all that matters about the challenger is ideology. All of the plausible Republican nominees are quite conservative, but they would have very different chances of beating Obama based on more intangible factors like personality, charisma, and debating skills.
Re: Iran,
How stupid do you have to be to develop your nuclear program in bomb targets? Your opponents main strength is air power. You build multiple dummy sites along with the intelligence effort to make each one appear "genuine" and put the real deal in seclusion under a mountain somewhere. I hear they have plenty to pick from.
Romney is the only candidate right now with even the slightest possibility of beating Obama. The latest state polls have him soundly beating everyone, especially in PA, OH, FL, and even NC. Romney is ahead in NC and tied in FL. The rest are well behind.
Unless the GOP pulls someone better out of their ass, the nominee will have to be Romney if they want a shot of winning.
Out of all of Nate Silvers factors in determining who will win, most importantly in my opinion, is the ideology of the opponent. Romney continues to be the least of the evils in the Republican lineup to me as a liberal and most moderates I suspect.
The shift of the Republican party so far to the right will ensure their loss. If they nominate one of the far right candidates, I suspect their chances of winning are toast.
Romney is their man, if they can get past their love affair with the extreme far right.
How stupid do you have to be to develop your nuclear program in bomb targets? Your opponents main strength is air power. You build multiple dummy sites along with the intelligence effort to make each one appear "genuine" and put the real deal in seclusion under a mountain somewhere. I hear they have plenty to pick from.
Yep. The Iranians have spread things over more than a thousand sites, many of them hardened bunkers.
Best case, the Israelis can slow things down for a few months. The calculation they're trying to make now is whether or not that's worth the diplomatic price they'll pay for an attack.
The calculation they're trying to make now is whether or not that's worth the diplomatic price they'll pay for an attack.
Given the recent movements at the UN how could it get much worse?
Allie's Apple said...
Out of all of Nate Silvers factors in determining who will win, most importantly in my opinion, is the ideology of the opponent. Romney continues to be the least of the evils in the Republican lineup to me as a liberal and most moderates I suspect.
The shift of the Republican party so far to the right will ensure their loss. If they nominate one of the far right candidates, I suspect their chances of winning are toast.
Romney is their man, if they can get past their love affair with the extreme far right.
11/3/11 1:10 PM
The republican party hasn't gotten far right, whatever that means. Smaller and more limited government are traditional American norms. Of course anyone advocating a return to basics looks extreme to the extreme left. In March we will know who the republican nominee will be. The democrats want Romney, they know they are going to loose. They figure with Romney the chances of a major rollback of the FDR-LBJ and Obama progressive state would much reduced. That is the real reason they want to pick Romney as the republican candidate. They may even be right about that. Still even Romney is infinitely better than Obama, especially if he has to deal with a strong TEA Party congress.
I'm thinking of the old guy in the Bring Out Your Dead scene from Holy Grail.
I'm not dead yet!
Allie,
I enjoy the assumption inherent in your post that the Democrats have not moved to the left.
But let's examine your claim that Republicans have moved to the right. Please tell me which major position of theirs has shifted in in the past 30 years?
The only thing you could possibly claim is that they have become more outspoke on the issue of entitlement reform. But given that such programs are currently bankrupting our nation, it can hardly be ignored.
Americans are panting to get to the polls and reelect the One who has pitched them into a great depression, NOT!
In other words -- the election is a whole twelvemonth away.
It's pretty easy to say I will vote against Obama but then to face up to the dreck that will be offered as an alternative?
Hold your nose and vote. Again.
Christopher, one big issue for me is the constant barrage of bills that have been pushed through the House regarding abortion. It also is disturbing to see the escalation of the religious rights influence in the R party.
Also the fanatic adherence to Grover Norquist and the signing of his pledge regarding taxes.
The escalation of the push to privatize everything, even schools and especially SS .
The attempts to eradicate Medicare.
For starters.
In other words -- the election is a whole twelvemonth away.
Yes, Queen Boudicca, twenty-six fortnights.
Yes, Obama is toast. I've been looking for ways, and have found some, to put skin in this game. There must be a way we can do it here in the Althouse comment gallery.
The stakes: if you win, you get to gloat as usual. If you lose, you must post, within 24 hours of CBS, NBC, and ABC announcing the winner (in case of a Bush v. Gore situation) the following comment: "I was so wrong that I think nobody should bother reading my comments after this one. I am an idiot whose opinions on electoral matters should be ignored-- nay, shunned. Look away; do not amplify my shame."
The proposition: Obama will win the 2012 election.
My call: get me some butter and jam!
Romney is the only one with a chance and he will most likely be your nominee. But most anyone who follows politics already knows this.
Any other candidate - among the group now running for the GOP nomination - would lose significantly. Why? Because by and large most American voters are moderates who slide a little left or a little right every few years - but never all the way right or left.
The thing to keep in mind though about Obama is that he is likely going to be able to outspend his Republican challenger 2-1 again. That may not be sufficient, but will be a factor.
Keep in mind that prior to Obama for the last numer of Presidential elections, the candidates spent essentially the same on both sides, through federal matching funds. Last election, Obama opted out of federal funding, turned off credit card verification, and spent far more than his much more ethical opponent.
Of course, some, if not most, of those additional contributions were illegal, coming from labor unions, foreigners, etc. But with the win came the Department of Justice, which, not surprisingly, showed no interest in tracking down who made all these, likely illegal, contributions.
This is the sort of horse race analysis I love from an election forecaster.
Is Obama toast? Maybe!?
Can Republicans lose? Sure?!
Matt, your bias is showing. Care to take a bet?
Bruce Hayden, with Citizens United the right will be spending amounts equal or more than Dems, no worries.
"... Bruce Hayden, with Citizens United the right will be spending amounts equal or more than Dems, no worries..."
Bambi is expecting to raise another billion dollars in campaign contributions.
One billion dollars.
Allie must have seen the video of Republicans pushing Grannie over the cliff.
with Citizens United the right will be spending amounts equal or more than Dems, no worries.
You don't actually know what Citizen's United was about, do you?
WV: (not making this up): "hellyz!"
(OK, I added the !, but come on, it needed it.)
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/01/21/how-the-citizens-united-case-affects-money-politics-and-transparency-as-we-know-it/
This is a good overview of how it affects Campaign contributions. Worth reading.
The proposition: Obama will win the 2012 election.
Great idea Bob Ellison. I'd gladly go on record and pay the penalty if wrong. Now Althouse just has to put it to a vote.
Bob Ellison
Truth has a liberal bias.
Bet on what? That Romney will win or lose the GOP nomination or that Obama will win or lose re-election?
The former isn't worth betting - Romney will win. Who the heck among the current group of clowns will beat him?
The latter I wouldn't bet because I am not 100% sure Obama will win.
So Garage, one year out: What's your prediction (it can't be milqutoast like Nate Silver).
Mine: Obama, narrowly. It will be because of a weak R candidate ratehr than Obama's record.
Does anyone else think a presidential candidate having a billion dollar campaign war chest is obscene?
I mean with the whole inequality meme going on.
Allie,
-Abortion
The right has consistently opposed the on demand abortion championed by the left since Roe v. Wade (the degree to which they want restrictions varies). Given the current administration's attempts to weaken or circumvent restrictions on abortion funding it is hardly shocking that they would take action.
-Religion
Please tell me how this has changed. Are you arguing that religious concerns were not prevalent in previous decade; or that only Republicans use religion for political gain. If it's the former then that is BS, as anyone who can remember the Civil Rights movement can tell you. If it's the latter then I would point out that within the past 3 years I've been told by Democrats numerous times that Jesus would want us to pass major social programs. Why do they get a break, but the Reps. don't?
-Taxes
Republicans have opposed major taxes increases for a long time, so that hardly signals a shift to the right.
But let's look at your statement by itself. Why should taxes be increased? If you want more spending then there will naturally be a conflict with those who oppose bigger govt. (i.e. most republicans). If your point is that we must pay down the debt I would point out that federal govt. spending is currently over 20% of our GDP, a rate which has only been matched by spending in WW2. By all indications the govt. doesn't appear serious about bringing that number down. Why should taxes be increased when there has been no indication that the govt. is going to spend them wisely.
-Privatization
The push for vouchers and other such programs is hardly new. But lets assume that it is. In regards to school, the failures of our education system are too obvious to ignore. Private schools regularly do better than public schools with far fewer resources. I would also point out that one of the Democrat's most loyal constituencies (black voters) is overwhelmingly in favor of school vouchers and privatization so this is hardly a partisan issue (unless your political party happens to be a slave to teachers unions).
In regards to Social Security, aside from pointing out that it is unsustainable in its current form, I would point out that nobody wished to privatize it. The plan under Bush would have instituted a system similar to that of Chile (a country that gets a far better return than our system).
-Medicare
Getting rid of Medicare? Really? The Democrats just cut a massive amount of funding for it in order to try and hide the true costs of ObamaCare and yet you attack the Reps. as wanting to destroy it?.
Hypocrisy aside, while the program is currently hideously expensive and bankrupting this nation no major Republican is seriously talking about getting rid of Medicare. They are discussing reforms which will cut some services, but given that the current system is unsustainable that is pretty much required.
So basically all of your points are either long term staples of Republican and conservative practice/belief, are non-partisan, or are necessary given the unsustainable nature of major govt. programs. Yeah, that's quite a rightward shift there.
We can still hope that OWS lasts, though. That could help the republican.
"Either he is, or we are."
This.
Obama will have to resort to Hail Marys (dreaded by WI fans) as he has no ground game to grind it out. Carney will have to brush up on the scriptures.
"... Mine: Obama, narrowly. It will be because of a weak R candidate ratehr than Obama's record..."
Obama will win only if Romney discloses he's gay, tortures puppies and roots for the Giants.
And even then I have my doubts.
Christopher I am not alone in the the belief that there has been a significant shift to the right of the R Party, I'm sure you don't agree that is has indeed shifted , but I guess we will have to see if any of the candidates other than Romney can win against Obama.
So Garage, one year out: What's your prediction (it can't be milqutoast like Nate Silver).
Romney-Obama. Toss up. If I had to pick, probably Obama, by winning Ohio due to the unpoularity there of Kasich/union busting. The voter suppression bills around the country will definitely help R's though.
The GOP didn't shift right inasmuch as the Democrats went full bore socialist.
"... The voter suppression bills around the country will definitely help R's though..."
No doubt. It will be harder for the Democrats to cheat.
Translated: We think Democrats cheat because we know Republicans already are.
The GOP didn't shift right inasmuch as the Democrats went full bore socialist.
If anything, the GOP is moving away from hardcore Evangelicals. In my thinking, at least, it doesn't matter why you want a given set of laws or controls over the liberties of the citizenry. Any increase in laws is a move to the left. Thus, Evangelical-based laws like dry counties, blue laws, no dancing (lol), are moves to the left, not the hardcore right.
You move from absolute tyranny on the extreme left to absolute anarchy on the extreme right.
The GOP didn't shift right inasmuch as the Democrats went full bore socialist.
Look up Max Black and get back to us.
Garage, remember, the ones who smelt it dealt it, lol.
"Also the fanatic adherence to Grover Norquist and the signing of his pledge regarding taxes.
The escalation of the push to privatize everything, even schools and especially SS .
The attempts to eradicate Medicare."
Your choice of words betrays your extremism.
Proving you are the person on the voter roll = voter supression.
The dead-voter suppression bills around the country will definitely help R's though.
FTFY
Poor zombies.
ScottM, I think you may have a point about Max Blacks assertion, with his Identity of Indiscernibles, so who do Libertarians feel can harm our country the least?
D'OH!
That Max Black thing was directed at GM after his Translated: We think Democrats cheat because we know Republicans already are.
"Proving you are the person on the voter roll = voter supression."
I've told this story before, but it bears repeating. I have two co-workers, both M.D.s One from New Zealand and one from Canada, both of whom have become U.S. citizens. They are both appalled that you can walk into the polls and vote with no I.D. required.
ScottM, I think you may have a point about Max Blacks assertion
Perhaps you misunderstood the particular reference. Try cross-referencing it with "gerrymandering".
I've told this story before, but it bears repeating. I have two co-workers, both M.D.s One from New Zealand and one from Canada, both of whom have become U.S. citizens. They are both appalled that you can walk into the polls and vote with no I.D. required.
Do either of those placing have institutional white guilt?
The dead-voter suppression bills around the country will definitely help R's though.
Zzzzzzz.
Allie,
Ideology has little to do with success this time around than with the quality of the other candidates.
Romney will likely win the nomination due to the implosion of Perry (hint: don't call your base heartless) and the general hatred of Jon Huntsman (who makes Romney appear principled).
Those two were the only ever real competition due to their various governorships; the rest were just people looking for a bit of spotlight on the national stage.
That was a pretty well-done analysis by Nate Sliver. The things I enjoyed were:
(1)The differing economic condition in Nov 2012 scenarios with Romney or Perry as the two credible long haul candidates vs. Obama in 4 different conditions..showing Perry losing. Showing Romney walking away with a win in a bad economy and "close" in an improving but still bad economy. But Obama is now close to Romney and leads Cain (pre-blowup) by 8 points, Perry by 11, Bachmann by 14, and would beat Palin by 26 - so the conservative belief that "anyone" can beat an incumbent President, even Obama, is wrong.
2. Use of extremism quotients - voters in the middle, moderates&independents, will go against a candidate with an "extremism" score above 60. They will forgive a few extremist Left or Right positions, but not a mostly across the board Leftist of rightwinger ideologue. Huntsman is at 40, Romney 49, and all the other candidates above 60 (Cain is at 60 last week).
3. InTrade is now thought to be the best indicator out there of electability, predicting correctly each election in all 50 states in 2008, 2010.
InTrade has Romney the predicted Republican nominee by 71%.
InTrade has Obama at 48-50% likelihood at present to win the election.
Not sure I follow you, Scott. My point is that the maybe the extremists on this issue are the no-I.D.-required crowd.
Scott M, yes I did misunderstand who you were directing your comment about Max Black to, I thought it was myself and Christopher regarding the our discussion of the right moving further to the right and someone elses assertion that , no it was the lefts shifting toward socialism ,that was the true shift .
no it was the lefts shifting toward socialism ,that was the true shift
I would agree with that and Original Mike's assertion about the extremists re voter ID. While the shift to the left is huge for the Democrats, what I was trying to say was that there has been a similar shift in the GOP away from the Evangelicals. However, that shouldn't be interpreted as a shift to the left, however small, for the GOP because I don't believe Evangelicals and their readiness to use government to control moral issues are any better than socialists.
Original Mike, perhaps you are right, maybe both parties moving even further toward their polar opposites has been extreme. maybe we all need to move back toward the center again and hope that bipartisanship can get our government out of the doldrums.
What is the alternative, if we don't?
"I don't believe Evangelicals and their readiness to use government to control moral issues are any better than socialists."
Me neither. To the extent that the GOP shift from Evangelicals exists, I'd say that makes today's GOP less extreme.
cubanbob - " Still even Romney is infinitely better than Obama, especially if he has to deal with a strong TEA Party congress."
Even with Obama running in a still-bad economy, it will be far closer than far right conservatives think. Like many liberals cocooned in their own media and cultural bubbles - many conservatives cannot imagine others thinking differently than them. They love Cain as a true believer, forgive him all his flaws, and connot imagine other sectors of society do not hate Obama as much as they do.
While the Tea Party had big successes with all the anger about Obamacare and Pelosi's other agenda - they lost critical elections from running unqualified zealots whose only allure was they passed all the rightwing litmus tests. And forgetting that up to 40% of Tea Party members are not Republicans, but came from the very angry independents and blue democrat portion of the population...who don't care about RINO-calling at all. So the Tea Party hopefully has learned that electability matters and they may have to go with a candidate that has non-RINO ideas, does not think new wars are great things to do..
To the extent that the GOP shift from Evangelicals exists, I'd say that makes today's GOP less extreme.
Exactly my point.
I hope you're both right, that the GOP has truly moved away from the Evangelicals.
I hope you're both right, that the GOP has truly moved away from the Evangelicals.
I don't know about "moved", but certainly "moving". Hopefully 2010's momentum will carry us to "moved".
The escalation of the push to privatize everything, even schools and especially SS .
I agree the idea that some fictitious entity called a "private school" could educate a child is ludicrous, as is the fanciful "private retirement fund".
"Original Mike, perhaps you are right, maybe both parties moving even further toward their polar opposites has been extreme."
I don't agree that the GOP has become more extreme. Now, I think to really analyze the situation you need to look at specific issues and characterize each one separately. Regarding SS and MediCare, for example, the status quo can not continue. Virtually everyone except certain politicians agrees with that. Ergo, IMO, the party that argues for no change are the extremists.
If Barack Obama wins re-election, Ann, I'll buy you a hat - and then eat your fucking hat.
03 November 2011 - Nevadabob predicts the election a year out.
Original Mike, I agree that reform of SS and Medicare must happen, but that doesn't mean it must be privatized. THAT would be extreme.
Original Mike, I agree that reform of SS and Medicare must happen
Medicare is one thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Social Security though. Don't buy into that nonsense.
Allie - The use of the word "privatize" is a misleading (dare I say extreme characterization of the most common proposals.
What's you plan for change?
Garage is a Trust Fund baby, Allie. Ignore him.
Allie, you're a loony leftist.
It doesn't matter what you think of Republican candidates.
You're not going to vote for a Republican.
Obama isn't crazy enough for you.
You can stop "helping out," now with the Republican nomination.
Original Mike, I love Garage, we liberals don't hate on each other when we disagree,lol.
As for Medicare,
Fraud and waste, we can do so much better, reign it in.
Put caps on medical costs charged by healthcare providers.
Raise the premium on everyone according to ability to pay.
As for SS, means testing for starters.
"garage mahal said...
Medicare is one thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Social Security though. Don't buy into that nonsense."
Yep, nothing that trillions in new taxes won't fix.
Aw Shouting Thomas, we were getting along so nicely, but hey at least you didn't call me a Mf-er today, thats sweet of you.
As for SS, means testing for starters.
Keep the promise for 50+. Allow anyone younger to opt out. Set it up as publicly-held private accounts untouchable by the federal government.
Keep the promise for 50+. Allow anyone younger to opt out. Set it up as publicly-held private accounts untouchable by the federal government.
Because....?
Because....?
Liberty, maximized for every citizen as much as possible.
Allie,
Fraud and waste, while a problem, don't account for nearly enough to fix the program.
Price ceiling cause shortages (look at the gas lines in the 70's). Unless I'm reading this incorrectly and you mean it will only cover medical costs up to a particular amount.
In regards to raising taxes, that issue has been argued so much there is really no reason to rehash all that has been said.
And as for means testing for SS, I'm all for it. However we could avoid that somewhat by allowing for methods of saving which earn more interest than currently occurs (given that it is essentially nothing, this shouldn't be too hard).
Liberty, maximized for every citizen as much as possible.
Great! I don't feel free either. Can I give a list of things I wish to opt out of paying into as well?
I think they all kind of suck.
Which is what the majority of American's think
No winners.
Just losers.
At least we still have tits.
Hmmmm,rethinking my agreement with you Scott on SS.
"As for Medicare,
Fraud and waste, we can do so much better, reign it in."
Small potatoes, but fine.
"Put caps on medical costs charged by healthcare providers."
Allie, I have cancer. Perhaps you've seen in the news lately the shortage of certain drugs, including one of the ones I'll need someday. The Bush administration put price controls on it, and now the manufacturers aren't producing enough because it loses them money. Price controls on health care kills people.
"Raise the premium on everyone according to ability to pay."
I'm all for that (that's a conservative proposal, by the way), but it must be done in conjunction with giving people more control (not less) of the health care that they are paying for.
"As for SS, means testing for starters."
Several Republicans have proposed that, including Pres. Bush and John McCain. Means testing is an anathama to liberals, because they believe it will erode popular support of the system.
The fact of the matter is that both of these systems need reform, and serious people have put serious proposals on the table. You do not further the cause of change by using words like "privatize" SS or especially "eradicate" Medicare. Those are words you have picked up from extremist politicians who's intent is to scare people, for their own political careers.
Garage is right, if we all opt out of the Social Contract, what would happen?Some things trump personal liberty, IMO.
Calling Obama toast is racist. ;)
Can I give a list of things I wish to opt out of paying into as well?
You're certainly at liberty to do so. Then, get off your ass and got get politicians elected that will work on your agenda.
Hmmmm,rethinking my agreement with you Scott on SS.
Make sure you update your facebook page.
At least we still have tits.
Now that Allie has taken up residence, Tight Ass, we can't even be sure of that.
Allow anyone younger to opt out. Set it up as publicly-held private accounts untouchable by the federal government.
Love it! But now where do we get the $1 trillion / year in lost SS income?
Love it! But now where do we get the $1 trillion / year in lost SS income?
Sell guns to the Mexican cartels?
Well Original Mike, maybe I'm less of a liberal I want to think I am.
Why must we allow healthcare providers and big Pharma to get away with runaway costs though? Do they not deserve some legislated constraints? How can we prevent them from creating shortages of necessary drugs and treatments?
Shouting Thomas, no no I won't go there . I'm Occupying Althouse didn't you hear?
Why must we allow healthcare providers and big Pharma to get away with runaway costs though? Do they not deserve some legislated constraints? How can we prevent them from creating shortages of necessary drugs and treatments?
I.e., how do we engage in price fixing?
We already are engaging in Fed price fixing, Allie. That's why the cost of medical care keeps skyrocketing.
Gee, you suppose if the profit margin were actually the reason for pharma to produce that there would be shortages of drugs and treatments?
Allie, you are a vast repository of bad ideas.
You think government price fixing is the answer!
How can we prevent them from creating shortages of necessary drugs and treatments?
It's an old argument that doesn't ever seem to go away, but err on the side of common sense and allow health insurance to be sold like car, home and life across state lines. Competition will drive the prices down.
Further, remove all of the myriad of completely unnecessary regulations that Obamacare are instituting that is putting the kibosh on my HSA. Personally, once we get costs under control by opening up the insurance market, HSA's are the better bet for the vast majority of people in this country. The very poor, the infirm and the elderly will always need a cushion, but the rest of us should be able to handle our own affairs like adults. We should be treated that way by our government.
Yes, I can see that you are Occupying Althouse.
I just watched the South Park episode.
Given that the ratio of reporters and media to protesters is approximately 1000 to 1, I gotta ask:
How many reporters are covering your typing of your comments?
"Why must we allow healthcare providers and big Pharma to get away with runaway costs though? Do they not deserve some legislated constraints? How can we prevent them from creating shortages of necessary drugs and treatments?"
You'll go all liberal on me on this one. The answer to your question is competition. Allow them to make a profit. If there's a profit to be had, more than one provider will appear, and competition will keep the price down. (note: "down" does not mean "free").
My Facebook page Scott, why?
Snark. Your comment struck me as the equivalent of wall postings like, "Making a sandwich", followed five minutes later by, "that was a good sandwich".
HSAs are a great way to keep costs down, Allie. ObamaCare makes them illegal. (Right about now, garage will come in and claim it doesn't, but he's arguing a technicality; HSAs will disappear under ObamaCare).
The sandwich gave me indigestion.
Calypso
Did you hear I'm a Trust Fund Baby? Thought you might get a chuckle at that one.
So, Allie wants the Fed to meet with executives of the pharma industry to fix prices for drugs.
This will, she says, lower prices!
And, Allie claims to be one of the Occupiers.
Yes, she is every bit as dingbat and confused as OWS.
One thing I've got to say for Allie...
Her chipper, perky leftist dingbat thing is 100% better than garbage's bitchy, moody union stooge act.
Her chipper, perky leftist dingbat thing is 100% better than garbage's bitchy, moody union stooge act.
That's not fair at all. GM is not moody.
"...maybe I'm less of a liberal I want to think I am."
You want to be a liberal because liberals are compassionate and caring and conservatives are greedy and mean spirited. Thing is, you've been misinformed.
ObamaCare will make HSA's illegal. Okay, so not illegal. But you know what I mean!
"Did you hear I'm a Trust Fund Baby? Thought you might get a chuckle at that one."
You think that there is, you know, actual money in the SS Trust Fund. That is worth a chuckle.
Garage, you can't even tell us what an HSA is.
What about adopting a Singapore style healthcare system?
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/01/singapores_heal.html
Garage,
Didn't know you were on a trust fund. Sweet! I hear they get favorable treatment in south Dakota. You should totally talk to Democratic Governor Mark Dayton about how to take advantage of SD's favorable tax laws, without any political fallout.
So Allie, what exactly would trump personal liberty? Curious.
Don't pick on my Garage.
Remember Carter's price controls on oil?
What about adopting a Singapore style healthcare system?
How about a free market style healthcare system, with the government involved only to the extent necessary?
That, Allie, would probably reduce costs.
Patrick , the well being of our society and all of the individuals that are a part of it.
Did you hear I'm a Trust Fund Baby?
Yeah, pretty funny. On the Interwebs, man, you just never can know...
Allie's the Occupier though, and since most of the arrested OWS have home values north of $350k, I'd say she's more likely to be the trust funder!
"What about adopting a Singapore style healthcare system?"
I don't know (I think the link is bad), and I'm actually supposed to be reading a thesis right now.
I do know that we MUST get rid of ObamaCare. It is doubling down on a failed model.
Patrick , the well being of our society and all of the individuals that are a part of it.
Allie is a fan of the tyranny of niceness.
Shouting, don't kill me , but I was a Union Stewart, back in my nursing days.
Calypso, my lake house cost less than that back when my late husband and I bought it, but then with the real estate bubble it has gone up in value, and luckily hasn't come down thatmmuch, simply because it's lake property.
I'm too busy fighting The War Against Women to worry about that, Allie.
You read a lot of really stupid, hysterical shit.
That's what get you hyped up and full of bullshit.
I'll bet you read The Nation, too.
Absolutely Shouting.
I love that War Against Women shit, Allie. That's good for an article a week by some leftist reporter.
Haven't seen the Backlash Against Feminism! article recently.
Has that one gone out of style?
After several thousand backlashes, does the backlash become a frontlash?
Absolutely Shouting.
Had no doubt.
That old Stalinist rag never wears out its welcome with the loony left.
Now Shouting, I know you don't really hate women, just Feminazis like me.
You think that there is, you know, actual money in the SS Trust Fund. That is worth a chuckle.
The Trustees Report is all faked? Honestly you think their faking the data that shows 2.3T in the OASI? Or do you feel it's there, but "not really there"? It just sounds whacked. Like Truther whacked.
Allie's Apple said...
Garage is right, if we all opt out of the Social Contract, what would happen?Some things trump personal liberty, IMO.
What exactly do you mean by "opt out of the Social Contract"? Run around naked? Drive on the wrong side of the street? Shoplift? Take eleven items into the express lane? Opting out of the Social Contract could cover a lot of ground.
Allie, how much liberty should we give up for "wellbeing," and how exactly would you define that?
I actually have an LPN, Allie.
Just when I thought I was going to work as an LPN, I got hired at three times the salary as a programmer.
The nursing instructors were all leftist goofballs. They couldn't stop with the propaganda even during class.
The low point (or high point depending on how you look at it) was when my instructor showed And the Band Played On.
You know, the tear jerker movie that "proves" that President Reagan actually caused the AIDS epidemic?
He hated gays and wouldn't devote the entire Fed budget to fighting AIDS. So, it was all his fault.
Guys having anal sex with a dozen guys a night in the bathhouses of SF and NYC wasn't really the cause.
Leftist political indoctrination, and "niceness" indoctrination is part of the nursing biz.
I going to say this ONCE garage (mainly for Allie's benefit) because we've been over this countless times. The SS Trust Fund contains BONDS. In order to cash them in in order to send money to SS receipants, they have to sell the bonds to the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury needs money to buy them. They get that money either from, i) new, general fund tax dollars, or ii) by selling a new bond (i.e. borrowing).
The original SS surplus dollars were not saved; they were spent by politicians (of both parties). The cupboard is bare.
Shouting Thomas said...
So, Allie wants the Fed to meet with executives of the pharma industry to fix prices for drugs.
This will, she says, lower prices!
==============
1. It has worked for all other advanced nations that have the same drugs cost 40-60% less than America, and still profitable enough to sell in quantity, with no shortages at 90% less than USA cost in 3rd world countries like India, China, the Dominican Republic, etc. - where, BTW, a lot of the drugs on market are actually manufactured.
2. Drugs have monopolistic elements to the industry. Where competition cannot exist, countries can and have negotiated profit margin limits. The US has an even bigger right to demand this because much of the basic research that is part of the drug development process is done in America, funded at government centers and universities by taxpayer and NGO grant funding.
(Similarly, in competing foreign nations, where salaries of doctors and other healthcare professionals are 30-70% less than in America, there is NO SHORTAGE of qualified people..The US, even with vastly higher pay, has a problem with generating an adequate internal supply of such workers and is constantly going overseas to find the people to plug the gaps in workforce. Too many American lawyers and financial people - not enough doctors and nurses..)
Nate Silver - Presidential prognosticator?
President Obama will beat anybody the Party of No puts up.
Why?
Two reasons:
1. The GOP offers no real solutions or suggestions to solve any problems, only obstruction and support for lowering taxes on the wealthy and cutting social programs that effect a massive percentage of the American population.
2.Because Americans are smarter than the GOP thinks.
Original Mike - You constantly act as if you, and you only, know how the Social Security program works, and as usual, you're wrong.
It is not "bare," broke or under water.
It, along with Medicare/Medicaid represents the most successful social programs in our nation's history.
It is solvent for decades, and with an improved economy it will be put back on firm footing forever.
Your comments are nothing more than the usual right wing trip we can all hear on a regular basis via the talking heads on Fox or spewed forth from the likes of Limbaugh, Beck and others who have absolutely no economic background whatsoever.
Love-ly....pass the kool-aid.
A quick review of demographics, and life span can only lead to one conclusion.
I ain't gonna get a nickel of what I paid into SS.
@Love, even the Washington Post admits that Social Security has gone negative, meaning that six years ahead of schedule it is paying out more than it is taking in.
That's a cold hard fact.
There is no hidden vault, no lock box brimming full of money that represents the surpluses that the Social Security payroll tax once rolled up. There are only IOUs from the U.S. Treasury that state that the Treasury will pay back what it "borrowed."
But the U.S. Treasury is itself in the hole, and borrowing heavily, so the Social Security shortfall will have to be made up by even more borrowing.
That's also a fact.
So far the only real response from the Obama administration has been to bar Avestin for women with breast cancer and try to convince men not to have their prostate checked. In other words, once we're old enough to collect from Social Security rather than pay in, we should all just go die.
That's the third fact.
We're so screwed until that man, Obama, is out of the White House.
That's the conclusive fact of the matter.
As regard's Silver's article, once you dig beneath the pseudo-mathematical mumbo jumbo, it amounts to a desperate plea that the Republicans nominate Obama-Lite, I mean Mitt Romney, instead of somebody who will try to bring spending under control.
The notion that the recession that began under Bush and worsened under Obama will not go away until spending is brought under control is simply something that Silver cannot bring himself to contemplate.
It's called not enough brains to see the obvious.
Never underestimate the GOP's ability to screw up a sure thing.
If the GOP can't beat Obama- the biggest screwup of all time- in 2012, then the Party should just disband.
The WH is ripe for the taking. I expect the GOP to still manage to eff this up.
Blogger just ate a long post I typed. Not doing that again, but here is a good primer on SS Trust Funds.
Understanding the Social Security Trust Funds
Big Mike said...
It's called not enough brains to see the obvious
There is no 'desperate plea' on the part of Silver for the GOP to nominate Romney. Silver is, for the most part, a Democrat. Any Democrat knows that Romney will be much tougher for Obama to beat than any one else in the GOP field. That is obvious to anyone paying attention.
If Silver wanted to desperately push any candidate he would choose any of the other clowns running.
@Matt, read it again. Notwithstanding anything he writes about Obama beating this person or that person under various assumptions about the end of the Great Recession in 2012, deep in his heart of hearts Silver knows that Obama is toast. His only hope is that enough Republicans vote for Romney so that the glorious welfare state can go on forever.
But the glorious welfare state is itself doomed. Contrary to anything you may have read, Matt, the US was not under-regulated in 2008 and certainly is over-regulated now (unless you think, perhaps, that regulations about spilled milk on Wisconsin dairy farms do not far enough). We need someone who gets it that regulations need to be cut by the pound, not merely tweaked and certainly not added to.
Mitt Romney is not that man. Or to be more precise about it, he has not made the case that he is that man.
Matt, the US was not under-regulated in 2008 and certainly is over-regulated now
Not according to Bloomberg via the OMB:
Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg. [...] Link
Allie's Apple said...
Shouting, don't kill me , but I was a Union Stewart, back in my nursing days.
11/3/11 4:42 PM
Allie, is that anything like a Union Windsor? BTW--you are a good replacement for "J"
Big Mike
You're reading into Silver's article with a pretty thick partisan lens.
What is most interesting is you are assuming that Silver has some kind of sway with GOP voters, which is odd because not that many Republicans like or trust the NY Times.
Silver is simply reading the polling numbers and making conclusions a year out. But you don't have to be too smart to realize Romney is going to be the nominee. And, as I said, most Democrats are far more scared of Romney than any other GOP candidate [who is running] because all the other ones don't have a chance.
But if for some odd reason Cain or Newt won it all they would never be able to get Congress to go along with radical changes.
"But if for some odd reason Cain or Newt won it all they would never be able to get Congress to go along with radical changes."
Because it would be impossible to get anything done with a Republican Senate and a Republican House?
Obama is toast. People vote their pocketbooks, and their pocketbooks are empty. George Bush senior enjoyed 90%+ approvals after Desert Storm-- barely a year and a half later, he lost to a nobody governor from Arkansas (Arkansas?) because of a teeny-tiny recession.
Love, Matt, Allie, et al. have bought lock, stock, and barrel the fable that the recession will be over a year from now and everyone will love Obama again. This will not happen. Obama's policies, whether massive bailouts or incredibly expensive new entitlements, are perfectly designed to retard ecomomic growth in this country, in precisely the same way FDR's policies lengthened and deepened the Depression. Obama cannot help himself in piling costs on the producers and multiplying market uncertainties. In short, the economy will not recover. The economy cannot recover. The Republicans could nominate Peewee Herman and he would win going away.
@garage
Just a heads up
Tyrone
What if both Holder and Walker [gag] both serve out their terms? I think our bet was who would last longer.
No. Obama is the opposite of "toast."
And, the only reason Jimmy Carter got toasted instead of re-elected, is that IN SPITE of the elite GOP, Reagan reached out to PEOPLE.
Reagan won because he was way more popular than Jimmy Carter!
Perry's not in this league! Romney is nowhere near this league!
And, Herman Cain is now embroiled in sex scandals. These scandals are taking everyone's eyeballs off the ball!
What does Herman Cain have? He exchanged money for "confidentiality agreements."
He's hoping the "confidentiality agreements" work.
Go ahead. BET ON IT!
But betting doesn't provide guarantees. Even if you think you've chosen a "favorite."
Scott Walker, barring reelection, steps down in January 2015. Eric Holder, barring his earlier resignation, will step down in January 2013, when a Republican president is inaugurated.
Frank said;
Allie, is that anything like a Union Windsor? BTW--you are a good replacement for "J"
11/3/11 7:10 PM
Union steward. Ok, better?
Frank dear, if I were a replacement for J , I would say you were me and we are Byro, the Mormon satanist Wicca scum, puta .Comprende?
To J, I have a secret for you, Frank is really Byro.
Tyrone Slothrup said;
Love, Matt, Allie, et al. have bought lock, stock, and barrel the fable that the recession will be over a year from now and everyone will love Obama again.
11/3/11 8:33 PM
Wrong, that is not what I think, it will take YEARS to end this recession if ever. Obama didn't cause it, Even Bush was not entirely at fault. Deregulation that allowed Wall Street to go hog wild caused it. Greed caused it.Even Bill Clinton is complicit when he signed Us China Relations Act of 2000.
This is my last note as I am official on the Committee to Re-Elect the POTUS starting Friday. We have ethics. OK?
Now, here is the going away present:
1. There is NO WAY GOP can win the White House, Senate, and House in 2012. They will lose it all.
2. First, WH: GOP will not allow Romney to be the nominee. So, thanks much. GOP will now not allow Cain or Palin or Bachmann to be the nominee. This leaves Perry, the many GOP wants. YES! We want him too for dinner next november. We win by your help in making sure Romney does not get the nod. And, we are grateful that Romney makes two decisions depending on the wind. We are just lucky.
3. Second, House: GOP is over-reaching. Pelosi will be back as Speaker. You have no idea how wrong GOP is doing in House administration. Staffers are not hired in most offices. You guys suck.
4. Third, Senate: GOP will lose more and we will have strength. Leader Reid is our fearless hero till 2016.
GOP: What does this mean?
AP: You are a loser, as you have no vision, no deliverables, no diversity, etc.
GOP: What then? What do we do now?
AP: Nothing. But, you could consider moving to Saudi Arabia or London or Paris.
GOP: How nice? May be, we will.
@Matt, sorry to be slow getting back to you, but on Thursday nights I don't miss Bones or Mentalist, either one.
I think that Silver really is trying to influence Republican voters, but he's doing so the same way you are -- by sowing FUD all over anyone who is to Romney's right. You do it with statements of certitude that you probably don't feel. Silver did it by trying to present a mathematical case based on meaningless polls and cooked statistics. You're both trying to do the same thing; he's just smarter than you are.
Romney may be the nominee, and if it's a choice between Romney and Obama this time next year then it's hold your nose and vote for Romney in the fond hopes he doesn't screw things up as badly as a 2nd term Obama would.
But I have higher hopes than that, and so should every other Republican. Tiny, incremental changes won't cut it at all. We need big changes in the current financial trajectory or the US is screwed.
"If it's the latter then I would point out that within the past 3 years I've been told by Democrats numerous times that Jesus would want us to pass major social programs. Why do they get a break, but the Reps. don't?"
That's an easy question to answer.
Every informed observer, Democrat and Republican alike, knows that any Democrats mouthing religious platitudes are insincere, opportunistic mountebanks pandering to voters whom they privately view as stump-toothed Bible clingers. Nobody but a fool takes them seriously. There hasn't been a real religious Left, outside of your local Jesuit seminary, since the days of William Jennings Bryan.
When a Republican says the same things, there's approximately a 60% chance they really mean it. Sarah Palin means it. Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich? Doubtful.
President Obama will beat anybody the Party of No puts up.
Why?
Two reasons:
1. The GOP offers no real solutions or suggestions to solve any problems, only obstruction and support for lowering taxes on the wealthy and cutting social programs that effect a massive percentage of the American population.
2.Because Americans are smarter than the GOP thinks.
*Oh, and Social Security is not "broke."
Anybody who reads, opposed to listening to Fox and the radio wingers knows that.
And as for "who will buy those bonds"...the same people who have forever.
Interesting discussion--seems to me year in politics is an eternity--too much can happen for a prognosticator like Mr Silver to make definitive judgments. If he is this good at prognostication would love to have a look at his financial portfolio.
Too many wild cards out there both in the realm of foreign affairs (less important IMO) and in the national economy--no to mention a possible third party run by some one on the right or left.
As always interesting times ahead.
My personal preference would be, as noted early in the discussion above, a veto proof republican congress and Mr Obama as a lame duck
I have read through this thread. It is amusing.
How can anyone possibly say that a country borrowing trillions of dollars each year is solvent in any way? How do you do that with a straight face?
Some things trump personal liberty, IMO.
Go fuck yourself. Die.
What I find interesting, is that Nate Silver was a member of Journolist.
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/01/21/how-the-citizens-united-case-affects-money-politics-and-transparency-as-we-know-it/
This is a good overview of how it affects Campaign contributions. Worth reading.
Oh, please. Let me know when you read the actual opinion (hint: it wasn't about campaign donations). Or at least maybe the First Amendment.
Of course the willfully blind "law prof" still talks as if the Usurper could be lawfully elected. But how does a "law prof" vote for a clearly ineligible candidate? I guess that's the state of the "law". Doesn't she know about Minor v. Happersett ?
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Of course she is also willfully blind to Tim Stanley, owner of Justia.com, and Obama for America supporter scrubbing M v. H from at least 25 cases that cited it's citizenship holdings. For shame!
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/
Every informed observer, Democrat and Republican alike, knows that any Democrats mouthing religious platitudes are insincere, opportunistic mountebanks pandering to voters whom they privately view as stump-toothed Bible clingers. Nobody but a fool takes them seriously. There hasn't been a real religious Left, outside of your local Jesuit seminary, since the days of William Jennings Bryan.
When a Republican says the same things, there's approximately a 60% chance they really mean it. Sarah Palin means it. Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich? Doubtful
The one nit here, is that I think that you malign Romney, when it is not called for. And, I suspect that part of that may be because of his Mormon religion. Everything that I have read has indicated the opposite, that he is devout, and has contributed significant time (and money - by actually tithing) to his local church.
Let me suggest however that a candidate who is really devout in his Judeo-Christian (-Mormon) religion is not going to tell the voting public what God (Jesus, etc.) would want the public, or other politicians, etc., to do. That sort of arrogance is just contrary to anyone who is truly devout.
So, you have a President Obama, telling us that God would want the Republicans to pass his further giveaways to his union supporters and the 1%, while appearing more likely to golf than to go to church on Sundays. And, you have Pelosi doing the same, a cafeteria Catholic, who has more than once been threatened with loss of Sacraments due to her public stand on abortion.
For them, religion is a means to an end, and that end is the power that comes from elected office. If they actually believed, and made that belief a center of their lives, as do many Americans, they would recognize their arrogance for daring to try to speak for their Creator.
"America's Politico said...
This is my last note as I am official on the Committee to Re-Elect the POTUS starting Friday. We have ethics. OK?
Now, here is the going away present:
1. There is NO WAY GOP can win the White House, Senate, and House in 2012. They will lose it all.
2. First, WH: GOP will not allow...
3. Second, House: GOP is over-reaching...
4. Third, Senate: GOP will lose..."
Goddamn I love America's Politico. Love the schtick. Love the idiocy. I love the fact that his "first, second, third" is numbered 2,3,4!
AP don't ever change man.
sorepaw - Why another candidate can or cannot win or lose has nothing to do with President Obama beating any of the twits the GOP is offering up.
As for the bonds; they will sell, just as they always have.
The Social Security sky is falling argument is nothing more than a diversion from the facts.
"And as for "who will buy those bonds"...the same people who have forever."
So, apparently you understand that we have to borrow to pay those SS checks. But if the trust fund represents a real asset, why are we borrowing money?
Original Mike - Why not leave the fear mongering to Glenn and Rush?
At least they get paid for it.
SS is sound until at least 2035 and it will improve as the economy improves.
Before posting more garbage, read up on the "facts."
http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp
Answer my question, Love. It's simple, and it gets to the heart of the matter:
If, in order to redeem the bonds in the SS trust fund we have to borrow more money (and we do), how are those bonds an asset?
Social Security was a good deal when the average life expectancy in this country was 65--life expectancy is now in the high 70s for men and low 80s for women.
Demographics will spell the end to social security.
That, and a horrendous national debt as original mike points out.
Thats OK--I'm 70 and I got mine--my kids? they already realize they are fucked.
Your kids aren't completely fucked, Unknown. The payroll tax brings in new money every month. That's available. But the Trust Fund is an accounting fiction.
You can't answer my question in a way that comports with your conception about how SS works, can you Love?
Original Mike--oops--the "unknown" tag was because I was logged in on another gmail account--Should read RogerJ--Apologies
as for the SS accounting? as good as its assumptions and as you rightly point out--its the national debt, coupled with fewer young people entering the work place.
Hi Roger. Yes, SS has some assets, specifically the new money coming in. However, it's no longer enough to cover 100%, and the demographics insure it's going to get worse. Not a complete bust, but insufficient funds.
Mick -- What about your secret plan? Is it starting yet? Time is short, my loony friend.
I guess Love is still thinking.
Maybe this will help, Love.
The SS Trust Fund owns BOND A, which is pledged to the payment of SS benefits. In order to get their money, the SS Trust Fund sells Bond A to the Treasury. In order to get the money to buy BOND A, the Treasury sells BOND B.
Question: How does the existance of BOND A help in the payment of the SS benefits?
Seven Machos said...
"Mick -- What about your secret plan? Is it starting yet? Time is short, my loony friend."
Already in the works. Can you refute Minor v. Happersett?
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Until you, or anyone can, Obama is a Usurper.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा