Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Official FFA 2014 Midterms- GOP wins Senate, victories everywhere (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
With respect to President Obama, I think he sees himself here as one of his heroes, Harry Truman. In 1946 the public, weary of the New Deal, voted in a Republican wave who believed it was their duty to dismantle it. Truman vetoed bill after bill and the public didn't vilify him; in fact despite their earlier vote they began to admire this gutsy little guy who kept saying no to the Congress. "Give 'em Hell, Harry!"
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Every piece of legislation still has to get through a House Republican caucus that has shown no signs of wanting any sort of compromise. McConnell may really want to get some things done that the President could sign, but there's no way that type of legislation is making it through the House.
The only thing that really changed this week was the Senate can now pass a House budget and hold up (even more) Obama appointments.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
If I'm an advisor for the President - which unfortunately I am not - I think you can make a good argument for a massive change in domestic policy:
1. For whatever reason you want to use, Obama is a unique individual.
2. The GOP has no central theme in it right now. There is a fight between (1) fight Obama at all costs; (2) tea party something or other; (3) actually running the government; (4) something else. To me this means that you can fracture the party with the right message and policy debate.
3. He's got literally nothing to lose. History will not hit Obama if a GOPer wins the White House. His presidency is historic and for that he will always be a historic figure. He isn't falling into history like Van Buren or Pierce or even Ford.
4. Everyone wants some kind of leadership from Washington so long as it also is leadership that gets them what they want. The overiding theme being we want a better economy and more jobs. That alone would stifle almost any other fight in Washington.
So, I'm throwing my hat in the ring for the President to announce that he will be sending a bill to the Congress for a BIG and with it the repeal of a massive amount of domestic entitlement spending as we have debated on this board before. Put the issue square into the people's minds and debate it and fight for it - it would be easy for him to do - he is a master campaigner. He could campaign for the next 2 years on one policy. He would have the time of his life.
Fight for a BIG. liberals love you. Attach ends to many dmoestic spending programs that wouldn't be necessary anymore - conservatives with any common sense love that. You will get the Fair Tax portion of the GOP (small right now for sure) engaged. You will get the small government people to seriously consider it and you will have the GOP eat itself alive supporting and fighting it. It would be a sight to behold.
And if it passes, well, there is going to be another name floated for a new Mt. Rushmore. If it fails, hey he tried and congress is going to make itself collectively look stupid in the debate, on both sides, because it will actually make them talk about an actual policy. I'd pay money to watch that. And I would probably get shouted out of the Oval Office, but I'd go down swinging.
1. For whatever reason you want to use, Obama is a unique individual.
2. The GOP has no central theme in it right now. There is a fight between (1) fight Obama at all costs; (2) tea party something or other; (3) actually running the government; (4) something else. To me this means that you can fracture the party with the right message and policy debate.
3. He's got literally nothing to lose. History will not hit Obama if a GOPer wins the White House. His presidency is historic and for that he will always be a historic figure. He isn't falling into history like Van Buren or Pierce or even Ford.
4. Everyone wants some kind of leadership from Washington so long as it also is leadership that gets them what they want. The overiding theme being we want a better economy and more jobs. That alone would stifle almost any other fight in Washington.
So, I'm throwing my hat in the ring for the President to announce that he will be sending a bill to the Congress for a BIG and with it the repeal of a massive amount of domestic entitlement spending as we have debated on this board before. Put the issue square into the people's minds and debate it and fight for it - it would be easy for him to do - he is a master campaigner. He could campaign for the next 2 years on one policy. He would have the time of his life.
Fight for a BIG. liberals love you. Attach ends to many dmoestic spending programs that wouldn't be necessary anymore - conservatives with any common sense love that. You will get the Fair Tax portion of the GOP (small right now for sure) engaged. You will get the small government people to seriously consider it and you will have the GOP eat itself alive supporting and fighting it. It would be a sight to behold.
And if it passes, well, there is going to be another name floated for a new Mt. Rushmore. If it fails, hey he tried and congress is going to make itself collectively look stupid in the debate, on both sides, because it will actually make them talk about an actual policy. I'd pay money to watch that. And I would probably get shouted out of the Oval Office, but I'd go down swinging.
Alonzo Mosely
Footballguy
Tim leases out space to a black barber shop.jon_mx said:Now if only there was one liberal poster who had any redeeming qualities.Good example. I'm reminded that you're by far my favorite conservative on this board, and one of the only ones with any sense.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
You know the GOP better than me, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that the party would have internal fighting about BIG. The "small govt" people, the Tea Party, will absolutely hate it. And when this becomes "the most socialist giveaway in the history of socialism", which it inevitably will on Fox News (and thus the right masses) 5 minutes after it's announced, all the moderate Republicans will come out against it, as will moderate Dems who are vulnerable.
While I would personally support a BIG, I think it would be absolutely disastrous from a political standpoint in this climate.
Last edited by a moderator:
CBusAlex
Footballguy
I doubt a BIG is met with anything short of 100% opposition from the GOP, and probably from a whole lot of moderate Democrats too. Sure, ending welfare is something a lot of conservatives want, but replacing it with the government sending every single person in the country a check every month - the most massive entitlement/wealth redistribution program in history - is not a good tradeoff for them.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
If it stands alone, sure. But if you can clearly deliniate what programs are getting eliminated as part of it? I'm not so sure.
But i'm not just saying this because it could win out. It could lose out. But I think what it does is get the national conversation moving in a way that benefits the democratic party something fierce. It engages younger voters on an actual real policy that isn't doing drugs and could be used to get them out to vote more..... I'm thinking of more as a flanking move with real benefits if he pulls it off.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
It is if you actually look at the numbers - which is something no one on "my side" of the isle has done because they fall back to the rhetoric you use.
I'm about as much a small government guy as we have here. And I have been swayed to the BIG side. Because it isn't big government. It actually reduces government entanglement into our daily lives. If done right. Devil in the details for sure.
Fennis
Footballguy
For decades, we have all seen what both parties have done on their own and what they have done as divided government. It is very clear that divided government legislation is far and away better than what either party does when they run the show.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Obama is a pretty politically cautious guy. No way would he ever do something like that. Too risky.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
It's not clear at all. We should be demanding a government that functions, no matter if it's divided or partisan-controlled.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
But soooo entertaining. I'm looking for much watch TV politics at this point in my life. There isn't much to go around except watching other people watch politics.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I hear you on the engagement of younger voters part; this would seem to be a policy that gets 22 year olds off the couch.
That said, I think you're being far too generous to trust that the masses on the right could be convinced of such a complex change, especially one that's authored/pushed by the man in America they hate the most. The hatred of Obamacare in states like LA, MS, AL, etc. is exhibit A of folks ignorantly hating a policy that benefits them far more than folks like me who actually support it.
snogger
Footballguy
Just a quick FYI.. #3 is NOT just a republican idea..just from Minnesota both Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar have been pushing this for quite some time.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
To be honest, I'm not so sure if the amount of money paid out in government benefits is as important to the average GOP voter as the number of people receiving those benefits is. Putting everyone in the country on the government dole is pretty scary to a lot of people, not just because of the immediate dollar cost, but because of what it might lead to down the road.
timschochet
Footballguy
I have noticed that most thinking people in this forum who discuss politics love BIG. In fact, I've yet to read anyone in this forum argue against it. I like it too; it seems like a great idea, so long as it is created as an substitute to the current welfare system rather than an addition to it.
But tommygunz is right- the public isn't ready for it. I'll go further and state that the public will never be ready for it. Even beyond the inevitable attacks by whoever is not in charge, there will always IMO be a feeling out there, amongst most people, that it is un-American to provide for people any minimum amount of income. It's one thing to give welfare or unemployment or other benefits to the needy, with the notion that this is a temporary helping hand and eventually they won't need it: that's the idea, even if it doesn't typically reflect reality. But guaranteeing income- they'll never buy it, because it goes against the image which most Americans have of ourselves as rugged individualists who, if we work hard enough, can get rich.
But tommygunz is right- the public isn't ready for it. I'll go further and state that the public will never be ready for it. Even beyond the inevitable attacks by whoever is not in charge, there will always IMO be a feeling out there, amongst most people, that it is un-American to provide for people any minimum amount of income. It's one thing to give welfare or unemployment or other benefits to the needy, with the notion that this is a temporary helping hand and eventually they won't need it: that's the idea, even if it doesn't typically reflect reality. But guaranteeing income- they'll never buy it, because it goes against the image which most Americans have of ourselves as rugged individualists who, if we work hard enough, can get rich.
timschochet
Footballguy
There are 101 bodies of legislature in the United States: the House, the Senate, and 2 for each state except Nebraska, which has one.
Beginning January 1, 2015, 70% of these will be in Republican hands. That is the largest percentage for Republicans since 1932. It is a complete reverse of the 1970s, when these legislatures were dominated 70% by Democrats. In addition, Republicans now have more governors than they've ever had.
These changes are, IMO, the biggest story of Tuesday night. They don't get the media attention that the House and Senate does, but in terms of impacting this country long term, it's not even close.
Beginning January 1, 2015, 70% of these will be in Republican hands. That is the largest percentage for Republicans since 1932. It is a complete reverse of the 1970s, when these legislatures were dominated 70% by Democrats. In addition, Republicans now have more governors than they've ever had.
These changes are, IMO, the biggest story of Tuesday night. They don't get the media attention that the House and Senate does, but in terms of impacting this country long term, it's not even close.
Fennis
Footballguy
the problem for the administration is two fold.Just a quick FYI.. #3 is NOT just a republican idea..just from Minnesota both Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar have been pushing this for quite some time.
1) That $29 billion has to be replaced otherwise it is just a tool being used to defund ACA.
2) since we have a selective tax policy the next industry (insurance companies? health care providers) will now want their tax reduction.
timschochet
Footballguy
I predict that if the medical device tax removal is presented separately to President Obama, he'll sign it.
tommyboy
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
tommyboy
Footballguy
well the message from voters is pretty clear, they didn't like what the Dems had on offer so they kicked them out. That means if you're a republican majority you need to stop whatever the Dems were/are doing and go in a different direction. If you just so happened to run on repealing Obamacare, well guess what the electorate voted you in so now you need to at least go through the motions of trying to fulfill some of your major election promises.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I should've said "functions well" and to define that is really complicated. My short point is that a system that is designed to prevent legislation by elected representatives is pretty much a waste of time. And that's what we're getting.
BTW, put me down for the BIG, too. If we don't start talking about these kind of things at sites like this, it never will enter the national discussion and have a chance for acceptance. The public that's always a decade behind can't get there unless they start bumping into smart people (or even FBGs) who have already figured out, and accepted the benefits of, something new.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Well, it's pretty clear from something over half of the one-third of voters who showed up, anyway.
tommyboy
Footballguy
that and all the other governor races, local races and pretty much everything in America going republican.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Except the elections where lots of different people vote, you mean. Those tend not to go Republican.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Such a cute theory based on two data points.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'll say this....if one looks purely at the demographics of who won and where, you'd never guess that those winners were primarily "republicans". It wasn't a bunch of white old dudes for the GOP, so they've got that going for them.
Fennis
Footballguy
why would the GOP want a Constitutional Convention? I guess to ban abortion maybe.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Calling for a Constitutional Convention might just be the dumbest idea possible for the GOP. If they do that they lose any chance of ever having me vote for them again.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Oh, is there where we take a small sample size and create a scary chart b/c all of the other facts go against our narrative?
And even that news is encouraging, the labor force participation rate went up .2 of a point last month. As everyone knows, employment is a lagging indicator (as opposed to forward indicators like the market), so it's not a surprise that the labor force rate is limping along. And of course you're ignoring the fact that demographics and globalization are the biggest factors in play here, trends which caused this decline to start 15 years ago.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. They've picked up House seats in 4 of those 6. And more ballots were cast for Democratic House candidates than GOP House candidates in four of the six, including 2012 despite the disparity in seats won. But sure, two data points.
Widbil83
Footballguy
I hope not. Her having the title "key policy advisor to Eric Holder" should be an immediate disqualification.
timschochet
Footballguy
No, tommyboy is right about this. Unless those job figures go up in the next 2 years, Obama will be viewed as a bad President. You can argue it all you want, and I might agree with you on specifics, but jobs are what counts in this country. That's just the way it is; and that's the way it's always been. Obama knew this was his #1 priority: short of national security during wartime, it's every President's #1 priority.Oh, is there where we take a small sample size and create a scary chart b/c all of the other facts go against our narrative?
And even that news is encouraging, the labor force participation rate went up .2 of a point last month. As everyone knows, employment is a lagging indicator (as opposed to forward indicators like the market), so it's not a surprise that the labor force rate is limping along. And of course you're ignoring the fact that demographics and globalization are the biggest factors in play here, trends which caused this decline to start 15 years ago.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Employment numbers, sure. The Employment/Population ratio, no way. That's a silly number that ignores all kinds of other variables that affect the number of people in the population that are seeking work.No, tommyboy is right about this. Unless those job figures go up in the next 2 years, Obama will be viewed as a bad President. You can argue it all you want, and I might agree with you on specifics, but jobs are what counts in this country. That's just the way it is; and that's the way it's always been. Obama knew this was his #1 priority: short of national security during wartime, it's every President's #1 priority.Oh, is there where we take a small sample size and create a scary chart b/c all of the other facts go against our narrative?
And even that news is encouraging, the labor force participation rate went up .2 of a point last month. As everyone knows, employment is a lagging indicator (as opposed to forward indicators like the market), so it's not a surprise that the labor force rate is limping along. And of course you're ignoring the fact that demographics and globalization are the biggest factors in play here, trends which caused this decline to start 15 years ago.
Surely you've noticed that since Obama took office the GOP has tried to shift analysis of employment figures from the usual unemployment rates to numbers that take into account people who aren't looking to work. Why? They didn't defer to those numbers before, and for good reason. If you want to see why they're using that stat now but didn't use it before, change the output options on that BLS page to 2000 to 2008 and let me know how that graph looks.
It's pretty simple. The % of the adult population seeking employment has been steadily declining for a long time now for lots of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with the economy- more people going to college/grad school, early retirement baby boomers, etc. This stuff is just a silly effort at shifting the message when the old default statistics don't tell the story the Right wants to tell.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
That doesn't matter either. I'm not interesting in arguing over whether or not tommyboy's statistics are truly accurate, nor whether or not Obama is truly responsible for the employment numbers, good or bad. None of that is important to my point, which is that the public is suffering, there's not enough jobs out there, and they blame Obama because he is in charge, and they will continue to blame Obama until this is resolved or he is no longer in charge, at which point they will blame the next President if nothing changes.
The public isn't going around looking up Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers. They're watching their friends, neighbors, family, and sometimes themselves, lose jobs and can't find replacements. Their children are graduating from college and being forced to move back home because there's no jobs waiting for them. And they're pissed off about it, and scared as well. You can quote all the figures you want, but THIS is what drove the vote Tuesday night, and it will continue to drive the vote unless things get better.
The public isn't going around looking up Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers. They're watching their friends, neighbors, family, and sometimes themselves, lose jobs and can't find replacements. Their children are graduating from college and being forced to move back home because there's no jobs waiting for them. And they're pissed off about it, and scared as well. You can quote all the figures you want, but THIS is what drove the vote Tuesday night, and it will continue to drive the vote unless things get better.
so you redefine results and definitions to match your theory and cherry-pick your end point to exclude the three elections in a row won by Republicans. That is a brilliant use of stats to present results in a completely dishonest way. Typical of the left. The reality is Republican Presidents have won 5 of the last 9 elections where lots of people vote.Rich Conway
Footballguy
Correct. Places like FBG figured out long ago that the War on Drugs was a massive failure (and government intrusion), and we'd be better off simply legalizing things. The general population is just now starting to come around.
It isn't a silly number, but it isn't the number to crucify Obama for. It does point out that the economic model of the last decade and a half is deeply flawed. Obama is responsible for allowing to continue. People are foolish to think that the GOP is going do anything to improve it.
