Not too long ago it would have been easy to predict that the 2014 elections would be a referendum on the rollout of Obamacare. Today, a better guess would be that the health care law will prove to be one of those partisan issues in which supporters and critics cancel each other out. There will be the inevitable clash of testimonial ads: Democrats will favor weepy spots featuring Americans getting health insurance for the first time, while Republicans will go with small-business owners wailing about how Obamacare forced them to cut jobs. And most voters will wisely hit the mute button.
What this suggests is that the after-effects from the government shutdown and the debt ceiling dance of doom are apt to become the dominant voting issues of 2014. That is why, despite the down-with-all-incumbents mood among the voters, Republicans are disproportionately at risk. Voters are accurately blaming the Republicans for the government shutdown — and that stigma will be hard to escape.
It is telling, in the NBC/WSJ poll, that 65 percent of voters think the government shutdown is hurting the economy and 63 percent describe a failure to approve a debt ceiling bill as “a serious problem.” These are memories that are not going to be erased with a handshake deal at the White House and the reopening of the national parks.
What has been happening, in effect, is that the Republicans have been re-enacting the centennial of World War I a year early.
In 1914, cheering throngs all over Europe sent their boys off to war confident that victory could be achieved in a few months with limited casualties. Instead, for the next four years, armies on both sides endured horrible death tolls in the trenches of France. And, increasingly, soldiers found it impossible to recall what they were fighting for.
So it was when the House Republicans shut down the government confident that they could win major concessions from the White House in a few days. Now they are hunkered down in the trenches, with public opinion turning against them, desperate for any rationale to abandon the battlefield. But they cannot simply surrender because … well … that would mean that they have been bleeding in the polls for nothing.
Rarely has a political party lost so much so rapidly from a series of strategic blunders. So, for a change, I believe the hype. Republicans will need a long time to recover from their biggest Capitol Hill debacle in memory.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if the officials who were supposed to have been elected actually represented the people but that is not what happening. As we are shifting to a dictatorship we are loosing everything that made this county great. Our elections are heavily rigged, politicians dance only for their handlers, and our youth turn to drugs, alcohol, and other dysfunctional activates for entertainment. So what will come in 2014 - more of the same probably but what will be the costs?
ReplyDeleteOur republic is gone and our county is on the road of no return socially and economically. Whom is the winner - the winner is the same entity that Alinsky dedicated "Rules for Radicals" to.
To all those who take delight in this you will be rewarded by being with your leader throughout eternity ... and you have certainly earned it....
I think that the ‘all incumbent’ chant will exclude a segment of the Republican Party which are those who are as seriously concerned about the freefall in our adherence to the constitution and the importance of our need to get a grip on the debt as a large and growing segment of the population is. I believe that they will do well and will grow in the next election. The other ‘all incumbents’ who will, unfortunately, be spared the axe are those who have the blind faithful as a constituency (it’s not our representatives’ fault).... I do hope that the Bonners and Pelosis and Reids and McConnells will disappear.... one can but hope.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that the left have no fear of the mounting debt.... perhaps they see a wonderful cleansing effect of default , like bankruptcy, as a way to keep the house and get rid of all of those pesky charge card debts or perhaps they have bought into the notion that money at the federal is unlimited and the only reason to tax people is not for revenue but for that all important control; Control of inflation, control of business, control of the economy and most importantly, control of the people.
Modern monetary theorist contends that government surplus is a drag on the economy as it stores wealth that should be circulating in the economy. I can agree with that but then they say that people ‘misunderstand’ the importance of how the government interacts with the economy and that debt, regardless the amount is good. Some slim-shady stuff that! Besides, wasn’t the point learned by the colonist that overarching, over taxing, over intrusive government was not at all a good thing. Somehow the subject of the constitution is a topic to be avoided at all costs, to the point of labelling proponents of the document terrorists. Why is that? Is it because a small group of petulant want what they know the constitution does not allow them? Is it because they know they have no ability to amend the constitution using the mechanism available?
Of course I have singled out the left exclusively but that is not at all correct. There are a bunch of people to the ‘right’ who have no desire to objectively look at our nation’s expenditure for defence. Of course the constitution calls for it to be the overriding function of the federal government... but what is defence? A good offence? When does a good offence become nothing more than antagonistic bullying of other countries that don’t see things just the way we want them to? When I was growing up as a GI Brat in the Air Force and indeed during the 10 years of my own military service, we lectured Russia about not infringing on the national sovereignty of other countries and that the people of a country had the right to self determination even if it meant civil war to decide their direction. It is now Russia who is lecturing us..... fancy that!
We also have some folks on the right who believe in freedom and liberty for all.... unless it contradicts their personal beliefs of right and wrong. While the US was formed with Judao-Christian principle, it has always been a secular nation.. a nation of law. So why do we even need federal policy with regard to women and minorities when the constitution is quite clear that ‘ALL’ men (the vernacular to describe all people). I guess, at least some of that is directed at the left.
There is a new momentum in telling the extremes the “STFU!”, The same extremes that see fiscal responsibility and social liberty as a threat to this great country. 17trillion is just too much debt... unrealized debt is just too unmanageable... and the people who continually allow it to happen are just too irresponsible for a growing number of people in this country....
Perhaps it is the Dems and Pubs who have it right.... When the ‘defence hawks’ take over the world and the liberals destroy national sovereignty, government debt will no longer matter.... and neither will the constitution.
But I just read the other day (I will try to recall the article and where I read it) that when too much money gets tied up in too few of the constituencies hands THAT is a drag on the economy. Who's telling the truth? The economists (they do it for a living) that I was reading, or the Scott? A real head scratcher here eh?
ReplyDelete
DeleteYou think TheScott just pulled it out of the air?..... Krugman and friends aren't the only economist you know... I would say that it has be Keynesian economics that have ruled for the last one hundred years and I don’t see that their policies have done America very good. As far as too much money being concentrated in too few hands, if you look really objectively at the laws of our government you will see the seeds of favouritism and crony capitalism. Take healthcare costs.... do you for one minute believe that our policies on drugs done dramatically raise the cost of drugs for Americans and that the unfunded mandate of EMTALA didn’t force hospitals to make up cost elsewhere? How about the crony capitalism that protects companies like Monsanto from the market? How about the government giving ‘loans’ to companies whose future as rated by any other lending institution would be nill to none? People, primarily liberals talk about how bad capitalism yet they can’t find one business that operates without government interference giving preference to one group over another... This is not just the preview of the left.... it is the preview of a misguided at best and corrupt at worst federal government.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry for the two deletes... I screwed up the post twice :(
DeleteJust another thought. This is a comment by a Krugman pom-pom waver in their justification for Krugmans viewpoint. He indicates that Krugman would not come to the conclusions that he does were it not for the 'state of reality', but in his own diatribe his shows his ignorance of the problem. Yes, the bleeding heart liberal will always look at the problem from the point of view of the downtrodden but they never understand that many times their solutions cause even greater problems elsewhere.
In his comment, he talks about the 'perfect models of capitalism'.... no one has ever seen that because their are people who have worked to oppose capitalism for centuries.... we will never see anything close to capitalism because of people who wear blinders to what it might be and not what they see it as. The second thing and the most telling of the posters ignorance is: "Got news for you, DEBT IS the economy. Without debt, we are not capitalist."
It is glaringly apparent that they know nothing of 'good' debt (capital improvement) and bad debt (paying for food with a credit card)..... or guaranteeing student loans for liberal arts degrees when the world needs scientists( a double negative and serious drag on the economy)....
>>>>"I will agree that this system as a whole is not a long term solution but what do you do with all those that are suffering? Tell them to tighten their belts a bit more?
Krugman is not wrong because this is the world we live in, not the prefect models of capitalism we have been told about for a century. So he is working in the real world where this broken system will be with us for a while longer.
Got news for you, DEBT IS the economy. Without debt, we are not capitalist."
Agreed on the debt. Debt is a huge portion of the economy.
DeleteBut you speak of the last 100 years. During the last hundred years we created a vibrant middle class in our country one of the few times in history that has happened and never on the scale that America did it. But The Scott today's world more resembles the America of the late 1800's-early 1900's also known as the gilded age. Few Americans controlled a vast chunk of the wealth. Everyone else just subsisted, working for little pay and working long hours. America suffered through consistent downturns and recessions lasting years. It's a big reason this one is so slow to go away, too few hoarding money instead of investing it back into society, people who have more money then they or generations of their family can ever spend. Money that remains taxed at a meager 12-14% effective tax rate. 1% of Americans control about 55% of the country's wealth. That's near the numbers leading into the great depression. The first major destruction of the American economy.
Now the Scott I am not for giving anything to those who are just lazy, except the incentive and opportunity to make something of themselves. The lazy reside on both sides of the aisle my friend, there are poor lazy conservatives also. I cannot understand their thinking when they vote except that they are issues voters the biggies being gun rights, abortion and homophilia. Anyway through trust busting and unionization America moved forward towards equality for all workers. Now those who risk their money to start a business by all means deserve to make a fortune because hey they took the risk. But to earn that fortune at the expense of those who produce for them is where our disagreement lies. Why are small business owners so much against a program like Obamacare? It's not Obamacare per se but the portion of the law that they will have to find a way to provide health benefits for their employees. Employees that in the past they didn't cover, never ever intended to cover, didn't compensate well, didn't give a shit about except how much money they could put in the coffers by how much they produced. You know we have repairmen come into the store all the time and I know what they charge per hour and I know what they get paid. It is absolutely ridiculous the difference. All un-benefitted employees of small business men who are making a killing. You know I work for a private company not a large one at all about 9000 total employees from corporate down to front line employees, in a very labor intensive industry. We have always offered reasonable company provided insurance to all full time employees and we have always offered a basic plan to part timers although there was no shared expense, but they got something for a reasonable price through group rates worked out by the company. It can be done if the want to is there. Yes my friend the gilded age is back and it will take government to break it up again.
By the way I understand about the deleted posts it would be nice to have an edit key
If you go to the dashboard you can revise and edit any of your posts.
DeleteRick please enlighten me... either you have a function that I don't or I am missing something. All I have is the ability to delete a post. At the top of the page I have a button for 'new post' which takes you to an author menu to create a new topic thread.... I see no other options. Not found any direction on google either...
DeleteThat's Mick, the Scott and I would like to know about that edit function also
DeleteSorry Rick... I mean Mick....
DeleteMick the poll in question had a limited number of participants, around 800, an out of proportion number of democrats to republicans, and the sampling had double the amount of government workers than normal.
ReplyDeleteIt was so obvious an effort to erase the presidents 37% approval rating in a poll the previous day.
You're better than this Mick...
Thank you. I am aware that most polls are just that, statistically manipulated counting of selected groups, on both sides of any question. Given that, the value of polls was demonstrated in the last presidential election when it was projected that Obama would win the electoral college by a large margin. The Republicans, faced these projections chose to close their eyes and deny the obvious. So, the moral of the story is: den;y but verify.
DeleteThe story of the last presidential election was that the New York money RINO could not gin up enough conservative support to beat the Chicago money socialist incumbent.
DeleteThe next presidential election will be about the New York money backed Hillary Rodham facing off against someone yet to be named.
Polls are used to define candidates and besmirch movements. They are a tool very similar to the rating agencies that backed the sales of worthless mortgage baskets to wall street dupes during the last decade.
Consider the source.