The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Growth certainly is essential, but going from Bush tax rates to Clinton tax rates would indeed raise income. Punitive tax rates may decrease revenue, but there's no evidence to believe the Clinton rates are punitive.

The important aspect of the chart above is that the level of government desired by the overwhelming majority of Americans can't be financed on tax rates that are so low. We'll need to deal with spending also, especially as it relates to medical care, but taxes need to go up for there to be any realistic shot at a balanced budget.

[Buccaneer]

We the people give the federal govt the right and consent to govern. Their lawful right to tax does not supercede our right to hold them accountable and to be trustworthy. Tax rebellion has always been our right (starting with Shay's Rebellion), as well as revolution. It's a different mindset in not thinking the federal govt. should lord over us, but one that is sorely lacking.

Besides, I do not differentiate taxes that anyone pays, regardless of income.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Growth certainly is essential, but going from Bush tax rates to Clinton tax rates would indeed raise income. Punitive tax rates may decrease revenue, but there's no evidence to believe the Clinton rates are punitive.

The important aspect of the chart above is that the level of government desired by the overwhelming majority of Americans can't be financed on tax rates that are so low. We'll need to deal with spending also, especially as it relates to medical care, but taxes need to go up for there to be any realistic shot at a balanced budget.

Or hope for another technological revolution and bubble economy.

[JPhillips]

Put the 90s on Bush tax rates and we never get to balanced. I don't think there's much of a percentage of Americans that would be happy with a government as small as it would have to be to balance a budget ob Bush tax rates.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

How about letting them keep tons of cash? Are people still thinking it's their (federal govt) money?

I do wonder about the people who think they earned every cent by themselves with no help from the government. I'd like to see how much money they'd make if they had to pay for infrastructure and police force by themselves. That's not even accounting for all the stuff that was originally created through governmental research (ie, the internet) or how the government has prevented socialist revolution (ie, social safety net - really, social democracy was partially created to keep a capitalist base to the economy while providing somewhat for the poor, otherwise, they would have just rebelled and formed their own non-capitalist system).

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Obama is turning into Jimmy Carter. Carter was paralyzed to do anything. The biggest thing that I remember about Carter's administration was his failure to do anything that would 'rock the boat', except for the attempted Iran hostage rescue and by then, it was too late to save any chance of him winning a second term.

Did Obama really have a choice here? He could have rammed it through before this house breaks for the session, but it seems like the GOP would have fought for it once they take over in January and force Obama and the Dems to compromise anyways.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

but going from Bush tax rates to Clinton tax rates would indeed raise income.

Why is it a guarantee that the tax increases will increase revenue? After all, the wealthy don't make the bulk of their earnings through income that will be taxed as income tax, but rather income that is taxed as capital gains and dividends.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I do wonder about the people who think they earned every cent by themselves with no help from the government. I'd like to see how much money they'd make if they had to pay for infrastructure and police force by themselves. That's not even accounting for all the stuff that was originally created through governmental research (ie, the internet) or how the government has prevented socialist revolution (ie, social safety net - really, social democracy was partially created to keep a capitalist base to the economy while providing somewhat for the poor, otherwise, they would have just rebelled and formed their own non-capitalist system).

I don't think anyone is arguing for no taxes.

[stevew]

The deal on the estate tax was stupid. Let's create a tax break for people who have a net worth in excess of 10m dollars. Isn't that something like .03 percent of the population.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by stevew

The deal on the estate tax was stupid. Let's create a tax break for people who have a net worth in excess of 10m dollars. Isn't that something like .03 percent of the population.

You're forgetting that 0.03 percent of the population have more influence than 99.9% of the population ..... so yes it was stupid (from a trying to help society perspective) .... but no, from a trying to line our pockets and look after our friends/guarentee us very cushy jobs involving no work and lots of pay when we step down from politics perspective it was very sensible.

(me cynical ... never )

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

The deal on the estate tax was stupid.

Any justification for an estate tax as anything other than class envy, is infinitely stupider.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Any justification for an estate tax as anything other than class envy, is infinitely stupider.

Actually, the estate tax isn't about class envy. As an economy, we like having capital/resources freed up to be invested and used in the most profitable and efficient manner. It's just not efficient to keep hundreds of millions of dollars tied up in legacy estates that are almost certainly not putting the money to its most efficient use.

If you tax these estates and force liquidation of some of the assets, you are putting some of that capital/resources back into the market where, this being America, young, hungry entrepreneurial-minded individuals will take it and put it to more efficient uses that will grow the overall economy.

Now, if you want to argue that the estate tax is, on some level, unfair, I can see that. But it is good economic policy. And that really gets to some axiomatic beliefs about the role of government. Should the government do what is "fair," or should it do what will help its citizens?

The economic debate is over whether the government should be in the business of trying to grow the economy or the business of protecting past economic gains at the expense of future growth. And that's a tricky debate. You need to protect the wealth to some extent in order to provide the proper incentives for people to want to grow it in the first place. But you also don't want to be in the business of protecting the last generation's wealth at the expense of the next generation. It's a small world, after all, and if we aren't incentivising growth, you know damn well that China, Germany, etc. will be right on our tails.

To me, the estate tax strikes a good balance between giving people enough incentive to grow wealth, but not sacrificing the future for the sake of the past.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

Along those lines, I wonder about the wisdom of allowing unlimited 501(c)(3) deductions for donations to universities. I am sure that some pretty cool businesses could be started with the eleventy-billion dollars on which Harvard is sitting.

Not saying that the government should be in the business of taking the money away. But is it really great policy to be giving a tax break to someone pouring a little more money into that pile? I'd love someone to study the possible effects of limiting the tax deductibility of assets to universities with endowments over a certain amount.

In general, whether its Harvard or Bill Gates' house, I think that we should consider the efficiencies of getting more capital into markets and less tied up in inefficient estates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

To me, the estate tax strikes a good balance between giving people enough incentive to grow wealth, but not sacrificing the future for the sake of the past.

And to me, it's nothing more than wholly unjustifiable theft at gunpoint, quite possibly the most unconscionable tax-related action in U.S. government history.

I felt that way when I thought I might actually have a little something to leave my child, I feel that way now when I've abandoned any delusions about that.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola:

Along those lines, I wonder about the wisdom of allowing unlimited 501(c)(3) deductions for donations to universities. I am sure that some pretty cool businesses could be started with the eleventy-billion dollars on which Harvard is sitting.

Not saying that the government should be in the business of taking the money away. But is it really great policy to be giving a tax break to someone pouring a little more money into that pile? I'd love someone to study the possible effects of limiting the tax deductibility of assets to universities with endowments over a certain amount.

In general, whether its Harvard or Bill Gates' house, I think that we should consider the efficiencies of getting more capital into markets and less tied up in inefficient estates.

Well, its not necessarily in the business of simply taking money away. As you put it, it is to shift money to more efficient uses. Even providing a social safety net is a more efficient use of money because those on a lower income scale have a higher marginal propensity to consume (they can't really save the money because they need every dollar to survive). Are savings needed for investment? Of course, but I believe the middle class is more willing to use their savings in things like the stock market rather than in more personal and less liquid investments (like land, etc) that don't really advance the investment possibilities for the economy as a whole (ie, don't really have a multiplier effect).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And to me, it's nothing more than wholly unjustifiable theft at gunpoint, quite possibly the most unconscionable tax-related action in U.S. government history.

Most European countries use certain tax as a way of stimulating growth by ensuring if you hoard it (within a corporation, estate or whatever) then you're penalised - this in theory encourages both corporations and people to invest and accumulate rather than sit back on a mattress.

I don't see this as 'theft' any more than I see countries taxing unhealthy choices as 'evil' (for instance nearly every country has additional taxes on cigarettes) - its encouraging choices which are good for society, the idea of a government is to try and help a society prosper ...

Do bear in mind that I grew up in England and so am wholly indoctrinated in the idea of paying higher taxes to help the less well off, I see it as part of the responsibility of people to look after those less fortunate than themselves. This doesn't meant that I'm against capitalism - just that I believe in a balance where people are put first.

I felt that way when I thought I might actually have a little something to leave my child, I feel that way now when I've abandoned any delusions about that.

Is it not the case that most estate tax setups around the world have a minimum level which is fairly reasonable in size - as such if it is a 'little something' then you wouldn't be paying any tax at all (this is normally put in place because the tax is meant to encourage investments by the seriously well off not dissuade normal people from budgetting sensibly and giving themselves security).

In the UK for example 97% of all cases pay no inheritance tax for this reason (see wikipedia article - (United Kingdom / Inheritance Tax).

[miked]

I'm confused on this deal. What exactly did the democrats get that makes it a compromise? The rates are lower for everyone and there are stupid estate tax provisions back in there. How can the republicans claim to have renewed care about fiscal responsibility when they won't cut defense, medicare, or social security, but bring in less revenue? Both of these parties make me sick.

And can anyone who keeps claiming that raising the highest tax bracket by 3% slows spending and growth actually point to real data? What about the people who say this 3% will magically end up back in the economy? What we've seen is that rich people get rich and stay rich by keeping their money, not by spending it. So that 3% won't be going to the middle class workers making them rich, but probably to buy houses in FLA and TEX, and other places to claim residency to lower taxes more.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, its not necessarily in the business of simply taking money away. As you put it, it is to shift money to more efficient uses. Even providing a social safety net is a more efficient use of money because those on a lower income scale have a higher marginal propensity to consume (they can't really save the money because they need every dollar to survive).

So it's a wealth redistribution scheme, hell that's what I said in the first place.

Of course, but I believe the middle class is more willing to use their savings in things like the stock market

Worked really well for a lot of them recently, eh? They'll all certainly be flush for their own retirement. Huh? What? Oh, wait a minute, never mind.

I'm going to borrow a phrase from albion's post right here, because it cuts me to the chase quicker

back into the market where, this being America, young, hungry entrepreneurial-minded individuals will take it and put it to more efficient uses that will grow the overall economy

Actually, at an alarming rate they increasingly tend to put it into boondoggles, scams, and flat out bad ideas with no chance of success beyond briefly suckering bigger idiots into throwing good money after bad. The problem isn't a shortage of cash for investment, it's a shortage of viable business models to invest in.

[molson]

I find the income tax far more problematic than an estate tax.

An estate tax penalizes hoarding and encourages spending.

An income tax penalizes working and encourages, nothing really.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, at an alarming rate they increasingly tend to put it into boondoggles, scams, and flat out bad ideas with no chance of success beyond briefly suckering bigger idiots into throwing good money after bad. The problem isn't a shortage of cash for investment, it's a shortage of viable business models to invest in.

Out of interest - why do you say this?; I know that most analysis on the economy in recent years has surrounded 'bubbles' and the over-stretching of banks but in the main I think most companies are based on reasonably sound ideas.

The more 'risky' a proposition the more likely it is to have exceptional growth if it succeeds in the main - this has always been the case since the start of capitalism when rich individuals funded expeditions to trade abroad using large boats and suchlike; today the riskier setups tend to be technology related thats the only real difference.

(back then if your boat sank you lost the lot, these days the money is flushed away in a slightly different manner but for a similar risk and return)

PS - Don't get me wrong I think the economic setup of the world is entirely unviable in the main, but thats because I'm a horrible socialist who thinks that allowing unbridled capitalism and letting corporations act without decent restraints is asking for an inherantly unstable system where huge risks are taken without any real provision for the consequences (for examples see: BP Oil Spill, Bank Collapses etc.) ... these however are very different to what you mentioned.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So it's a wealth redistribution scheme, hell that's what I said in the first place.

Which is more efficient for the economy, which is the part you don't get.

Actually, at an alarming rate they increasingly tend to put it into boondoggles, scams, and flat out bad ideas with no chance of success beyond briefly suckering bigger idiots into throwing good money after bad. The problem isn't a shortage of cash for investment, it's a shortage of viable business models to invest in.

Most actually don't. They throw it in mutual funds and the stock market, which are far more stable (even with the boom and bust cycle).

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Did Obama really have a choice here? He could have rammed it through before this house breaks for the session, but it seems like the GOP would have fought for it once they take over in January and force Obama and the Dems to compromise anyways.

He had his chance before the mid term elections, about two years total, if my calculations are correct. Instead, he chose to ram rod the rickety health care reform through. Don't get me wrong, he's pulled the trigger on a lot of non news worthy things. Unfortunately, he hasn't done anything that makes people stop and say, "Hey, he's really doing a good job here". From all outwards appearances, he is strikingly similar to Carter. Baring some magical come back, he is a one term president.

[Marc Vaughan]

Baring some magical come back, he is a one term president.

Entirely down to the economy if growth looks good (and unemployment is visibly falling at a decent rate) near the election he's in with a shot.

It amazes me more how many people are blaming the recession on him here tbh, errr it was in full-swing long before he was elected* ... exactly how did that become his fault?

*And to be quite frank the building blocks for it occuring have been going on for years - its not the type of thing which happens in five minutes while you're off getting a cup of coffee

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Entirely down to the economy if growth looks good (and unemployment is visibly falling at a decent rate) near the election he's in with a shot.

I agree to a point. If he keeps doing things that the voting public doesn't notice, I'm not sure an economy on the rebound will be enough to save him. He has to do more things that are in the spotlight that give the appearance that he is indeed 'changing' things for the better. It's about perception in all honesty.

It amazes me more how many people are blaming the recession on him here tbh, errr it was in full-swing long before he was elected* ... exactly how did that become his fault?

This is just down home partisan politics. We ALL know the recession did not start on Obama's watch. It's an easy game to play as long as you don't let the facts get in the way of polarizing your constituents.

*And to be quite frank the building blocks for it occuring have been going on for years - its not the type of thing which happens in five minutes while you're off getting a cup of coffee

Yup, exactly. And it's not something that is fixed in another 5 minutes either and given the limited attention span of the average american and being all too easily led by talk show pundits, Obama has to do a better a job at reassuring the public that things are getting better. He seems to be cowering away from anything that may rock the boat or rub both parties the wrong way. He seems way too timid, much like Carter was. I don't know if it's the advisors that Obama has or it's just him, but, there seems to be a noticeable lack of intestinal fortitude/backbone coming from the white house.

That's just what I'm seeing, without the rose colored party glasses that a lot of people wear.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Entirely down to the economy if growth looks good (and unemployment is visibly falling at a decent rate) near the election he's in with a shot.

It amazes me more how many people are blaming the recession on him here tbh, errr it was in full-swing long before he was elected* ... exactly how did that become his fault?

*And to be quite frank the building blocks for it occuring have been going on for years - its not the type of thing which happens in five minutes while you're off getting a cup of coffee

Bernake said on 60 minutes it could be another 4 or 5 years before the unemployment rate gets back to somewhat normal rate.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Actually, the estate tax isn't about class envy. As an economy, we like having capital/resources freed up to be invested and used in the most profitable and efficient manner. It's just not efficient to keep hundreds of millions of dollars tied up in legacy estates that are almost certainly not putting the money to its most efficient use.

If you tax these estates and force liquidation of some of the assets, you are putting some of that capital/resources back into the market where, this being America, young, hungry entrepreneurial-minded individuals will take it and put it to more efficient uses that will grow the overall economy.

Now, if you want to argue that the estate tax is, on some level, unfair, I can see that. But it is good economic policy. And that really gets to some axiomatic beliefs about the role of government. Should the government do what is "fair," or should it do what will help its citizens?

The economic debate is over whether the government should be in the business of trying to grow the economy or the business of protecting past economic gains at the expense of future growth. And that's a tricky debate. You need to protect the wealth to some extent in order to provide the proper incentives for people to want to grow it in the first place. But you also don't want to be in the business of protecting the last generation's wealth at the expense of the next generation. It's a small world, after all, and if we aren't incentivising growth, you know damn well that China, Germany, etc. will be right on our tails.

To me, the estate tax strikes a good balance between giving people enough incentive to grow wealth, but not sacrificing the future for the sake of the past.

Not sure what you mean. Usually those effected by the estate taxes are passing down businesses and assets (real estate, holdings); how are they not being used ineffectively? Wouldn't the forced sale of these assets and breaking them throw into the possibility potential problems and stun their growth (which would create jobs, innovation depending on the business, and taxable revenue)?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Bernake said on 60 minutes it could be another 4 or 5 years before the unemployment rate gets back to somewhat normal rate.

Yes, but if it is obviously improving (like at 7% or something), Obama can claim credit. And seeing who the Republicans are lining up, it seems likely Obama will keep his job for another 4 years.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes, but if it is obviously improving (like at 7% or something), Obama can claim credit. And seeing who the Republicans are lining up, it seems likely Obama will keep his job for another 4 years.

If you're thinking 'Mrs Palin' then imho you're incorrect - they won't select her as the runner as she polarises opinion too harshly to compete imho (ie. some people will vote for her regardless ... many others wouldn't let her babysit their dog, even if they didn't particularly like dogs).

As such I expect they'll get the benefit out of her followers by selecting a candidate who has a vice president she is able to come out and back (ie. concurs with some of her main tenets without being quite so forthright). Her campaigning on their behalf to her followers will help the chances of them gaining votes - while keeping her away from the main spectacle will ensure they don't lose too many votes from her association.

(or thats how I'd set things up anyway )

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

From all outwards appearances, he is strikingly similar to Carter. Baring some magical come back, he is a one term president.

What makes him similar to Carter? Outside of the good campaigner and being Democrat part. His policies are much different than Carter and if you compared him policy wise to any President over the last few decades, Reagan would be closest (wanting to raise taxes, expand government health care, big government spending, etc).

Whether he is one term or not will be up to who the Republicans run and how well the economy is doing. I still feel like it's all about the economy. If we're sitting at high unemployment still and the Republicans can put out a good candidate who can reach independents, he'll lose. But I still feel it's tough to knock out an incumbent President. Remember that Bush went into his election with some horrible things on his resume and really low approval ratings. So if the Republicans throw out their version of John Kerry, Obama is going to win.

I haven't been following politics much lately, but who are the top names that will likely be running in 2012 on the Republican side?

[RainMaker]

Huckabee would be an interesting choice. Don't think he could win the primary but I think he'd have some pull with independents and moderates. Just a likeable guy.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What makes him similar to Carter? Outside of the good campaigner and being Democrat part. His policies are much different than Carter and if you compared him policy wise to any President over the last few decades, Reagan would be closest (wanting to raise taxes, expand government health care, big government spending, etc).

Whether he is one term or not will be up to who the Republicans run and how well the economy is doing. I still feel like it's all about the economy. If we're sitting at high unemployment still and the Republicans can put out a good candidate who can reach independents, he'll lose. But I still feel it's tough to knock out an incumbent President. Remember that Bush went into his election with some horrible things on his resume and really low approval ratings. So if the Republicans throw out their version of John Kerry, Obama is going to win.

I haven't been following politics much lately, but who are the top names that will likely be running in 2012 on the Republican side?

It's his timidness and what appears to be the lack of making firm decisions as a leader. He so far has not struck me as a president "that gets things done". His continuation of the Patriot Act, shows he lacks the spine to make changes that would cause too much of an uproar within DC, is one example. Maybe I was expecting a lion and so far all I'm seeing is a kitten. He may be cuddly & cute, but, like most kittens, keeps missing the litter box. Like you said though, if the economy/jobs are showing marked improvements, he may just win again. It's all about perception when it comes to elections.

As for who would run against him in 2012 if he does indeed get the Democrat nomination (which he will, because I don't think the Democrat party has the balls to replace him with a stronger candidate, if needed, against the Republicans), it'll probably be pretty similar to the lineup we saw last time around minus McCain, with a couple of new comers throwing their hats in. Who exactly I have no idea though. However, I don't think the Republicans will handicap themselves again like McCain did when he selected Palin as his VP.

[RainMaker]

I don't think you are just describing Obama, I think you're describing politicians in office. Democrats definitely cower more than Republicans in power, but they both do the same thing. Play both sides of the fence as much as they can and never really push through anything controversial.

For all the grief Bush got for his decisions, many of those were popular at the time. The Iraq war was accepted by the people. Same for tax cuts and a bunch of other things he pushed through. For being fully in control, Republicans never touched issues that people are divided on like immigration.

The issues Obama tried to tackle were ones that had divide and it likely is his undoing. He probably would have been better off cherry picking a few things and going after those instead of targeting things like health care that he'll never win on.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes, but if it is obviously improving (like at 7% or something), Obama can claim credit. And seeing who the Republicans are lining up, it seems likely Obama will keep his job for another 4 years.

It'll be interesting to see how the GOP runs with it if the economy does improve from this point now.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

It'll be interesting to see how the GOP runs with it if the economy does improve from this point now.

That one's easy: the GOP will argue that the extension of the Bush tax cuts--which they supported enthusasistically and which the president accepted only grudgingly--were reponsible for the improvement of the economy. I think that Obama has maneuvered himself into a position where, if the economy improves, he (rightly or wrongly) won't get any credit at all. In fact, if the economy improves following the extension of the Bush tax cuts, his own stimulus plan will look (rightly or wrongly) worse than ever, since unemployment remained stuck at 9+ percent after the stimulus.

I'm still not convinced that congressional democrats are going to fall in line here and go along with the plan, though.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by King of New York

That one's easy: the GOP will argue that the extension of the Bush tax cuts--which they supported enthusasistically and which the president accepted only grudgingly--were reponsible for the improvement of the economy. I think that Obama has maneuvered himself into a position where, if the economy improves, he (rightly or wrongly) won't get any credit at all. In fact, if the economy improves following the extension of the Bush tax cuts, his own stimulus plan will look (rightly or wrongly) worse than ever, since unemployment remained stuck at 9+ percent after the stimulus.

I'm still not convinced that congressional democrats are going to fall in line here and go along with the plan, though.

I agree. It put the Dems in a corner with this. Obama said he'll fight for the tax hikes in 2012, but if the economy does improve, he has put himself in the corner as well with that statement.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Huckabee would be an interesting choice. Don't think he could win the primary but I think he'd have some pull with independents and moderates. Just a likeable guy.

I feared Huckabee in 2008, but I don't think he can make it through a primary with the pardon/murder mess.

[sterlingice]

About now I would kill for the congressional democrats to get in the way but there's no end game. They'd basically be stuck with their own president running out the clock until January and a more favorable congress. Ick

SI

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Andy Borowitz: In Latest Compromise With GOP, Obama Agrees He Is a Muslim

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

If you're thinking 'Mrs Palin'

I'm thinking Mr. Romney or Mr. Huckabee or someone similar. The GOP has a chance if they take Mr. Daniels or Mr. Ryan, perhaps, but that's not going to happen.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by King of New York

That one's easy: the GOP will argue that the extension of the Bush tax cuts--which they supported enthusasistically and which the president accepted only grudgingly--were reponsible for the improvement of the economy. I think that Obama has maneuvered himself into a position where, if the economy improves, he (rightly or wrongly) won't get any credit at all. In fact, if the economy improves following the extension of the Bush tax cuts, his own stimulus plan will look (rightly or wrongly) worse than ever, since unemployment remained stuck at 9+ percent after the stimulus.

I'm still not convinced that congressional democrats are going to fall in line here and go along with the plan, though.

But the GOP argued that the 90s recovery was due to them taking the House and Senate in 1994, and voters overwhelming gave it to President Clinton. The President is usually the one who gets the credit or blame for the economy, regardless of what Congress does.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm thinking Mr. Romney or Mr. Huckabee or someone similar. The GOP has a chance if they take Mr. Daniels or Mr. Ryan, perhaps, but that's not going to happen.

It isn't fair, but I don't think Daniels at 5'6" is going to win a presidential election.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Likely
Mitt Romney
Tim Pawlenty, outgoing Gov. of Minnesota
Haley Barbour, former Gov of Mississippi and RNC Chair
John Thune, Senator from SD
Sarah Palin, America's Favorite Quitter
Newt Gingrich
Mike Huckabee

Isn't Pawlenty a hot prospect? I agree with Daniels being a potential candidate as well.

The Republicans will be in a stronger position to pick up the required number electoral votes due to the re-redistricting.

[ISiddiqui]

Pawlenty has been spoken of, ever since he was in the running for McCain's VP, but he's not all that exciting (to say the least) in speachmaking or policy.

[JPhillips]

wtf?

Christine O'Donnell: "Tragedy comes in threes. Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards' passing and Barack Obama's announcement of extending the tax cuts, which is good, but also extending the unemployment benefits."

[Swaggs]

I can't see Romney (Morman and with his universal health care in Mass.) surviving the primaries. I suspect it will be whichever of Huckabee or Barbour can gain traction (if Obama looks vulnerable). I think someone like Pawlenty only makes it through as a sacrificial lamb (if the ecomony looks better and it looks like an Obama landslide).

I think Chris Christie could be a sleeper.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

wtf?

Oh Christie. I'm sure comparing the death of someone and Pearl Harbor with extending unemployment benefits, you meant how many people it will affect, right?

[DaddyTorgo]

Didn't Huckabee have some verbal gaffes that came up during the primary season (wasn't there one about religion or something) that would make him massively unpalateable to independents?

Or are we just talking about who would survive a primary?

[Logan]

Obama's federal pay freeze passed through the House last night, leaving only the Senate to go. Which means I'm one step closer to having my raise eliminated which will reduce the deficit by exactly $0.

[JPhillips]

But think of all the money your heirs will save on your multi-million dollar estate.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Didn't Huckabee have some verbal gaffes that came up during the primary season (wasn't there one about religion or something) that would make him massively unpalateable to independents?

Or are we just talking about who would survive a primary?

I think he is one of the idiots who raised their hand at the Republican primary saying they don't believe in evolution. (It might have been worded different with the code word of "intelligent" design or something)

[albionmoonlight]

Democratic Congressperson #1: "Did you hear? The President managed to negotiate a compromise with the GOP that will extend unemployment insurance and, perhaps more importantly, bolster his reputation as a President who can work across the aisle to get things done."

Democratic Congressperson #2: "Awesome! Hey, let's scuttle it!"

Democratic Congressperson #1: "OK. I was tired of that weird couple of years where we acted like we had our head out of our ass. This feels much more natural to me."

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Democratic Congressperson #1: "Did you hear? The President managed to negotiate a compromise with the GOP that will extend unemployment insurance and, perhaps more importantly, bolster his reputation as a President who can work across the aisle to get things done."

Democratic Congressperson #2: "Awesome! Hey, let's scuttle it!"

Democratic Congressperson #1: "OK. I was tired of that weird couple of years where we acted like we had our head out of our ass. This feels much more natural to me."

This is pretty much why I have grown so apathetic over the years. To me, the Republicans have shitty ideas but are effective at governing. The Democrats have better ideas but are shitty at governing.

Unless there is a new, world changing invention (on the scale of the automobile or computer) out of the U.S. relatively soon, I don't see how our country's economy is ever going to improve, since the people that manipulate it cannot seem to get out of their own way.