Iowa's over, New Hampshire's on

[Ajidica]

Huntsman is also dropping out tomorrow.

Downtown must be part of the Mormon Mafia, he knows the future!

 

[downtown]

Downtown must be part of the Mormon Mafia, he knows the future!

Ha, close. I do have some sources in the Romney campaign that spill the beans every once in a while though. Huntsman was believed to have been prepping his staffers and biggest supporters that if he failed to get at least 20% in NH, he'd have to call it quits. He doesn't have the staff to hang with Mitt anymore.

 

[Archbob]

You think Huntsmen draws from the same demographic as Paul?

 

[Leoreth]

I really doubt any other candidate draws from the same demographic as Paul, which is basically Paul's problem in a nutshell.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is only right in a very small way...
People are not so black and white that they can only have 1 set of beliefs... another way of putting it... why would you expect people to be fully consistent? Do you find conservatism to be fully consistent anyhow?

It is very easy to pick apart social and fiscal conservatives.

Mike Huckabee was a social conservative, fiscal liberal (compared to the rest of the party anyhow), as was Bush...

Conservatives from the NE are often socially liberal (again, compared to the rest of the party), and fiscally conservative.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that political orientation is necessarily one-dimensional- in fact, I have no faith in any dimensional model to begin with- but that any given orientation must necessarily form a cohesive (if not necessarily consistent) whole, at least if we're to take it seriously, and not just a jumbled of half-digested ideas and poorly-understood slogans, which I think is probably a fair assumption on the parts of such senior Republican figures as these. They stem from the same basic conception of society, of the state, of ethical behaviour, and so on. So treating them as some sort of ideological Lego, where each individual possess an assortment of standard ideological components, simply arranged in a different manner, doesn't actually describe the real world.

It is a perfectly fine dichotomy.

Then why doesn't it actually describe the real world? Conservatives are not do not generally have "fiscally conservative" politics, and "fiscal conservatives" aren't actually conservative in their fiscal policy. You're allow your abstractions to precede your empirical analysis.

 

[downtown]

You think Huntsmen draws from the same demographic as Paul?

I really doubt any other candidate draws from the same demographic as Paul, which is basically Paul's problem in a nutshell.

Exactly. A lot of the Paul people aren't actually Republicans, and would not support most Republican nominees. I'd be interested in knowing how many Paul voters would vote for Mitt. I'd be a little surprised if it was more than 60%.

 

[kochman]

The point is that just about all the people claiming to be fiscal conservatives spend money like drunken sailors when they get the chance and run up deficits. So someone like Jon Boehner claims to be a fiscal conservative, but he worked to put $6trillion of debt on the books. And is still working to put debt on the books.

There is no circumstances under which a fiscal conservative would support continuing the Bush tax cuts. Much less even deeper tax cuts. So they prove that they are not really fiscally conservative.

Hold on... you've now attributed $6T in debt to Bush and Boehner, in separate posts.
Please show me the math. Please include the years under Bush with budget surpluses as well... Bush did not have $6T in debt.

Debt under Pelosi (w/ Bush & Obama)... $5T

Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/deb...-speaker-pelosi-vowed-no-new-deficit-spending

Debt under Bush...

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

Debt under Obama (w/ Pelosi & Boehner)... as of 22 August 2011

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

Please, Cutlass, stop using fake numbers... the real ones are bad enough that you don't have to mislead people.

Conservatives are not do not generally have "fiscally conservative" politics, and "fiscal conservatives" aren't actually conservative in their fiscal policy. You're allow your abstractions to precede your empirical analysis.

Sorry, but I think I have a much firmer grasp on what American Conservatism is than you do...

 

[Traitorfish]

Sorry, but I think I have a much firmer grasp on what American Conservatism is than you do...

Well, could you possibly find yourself able to offer some more precise criticism of my interpretation of "American Conservatism" (and don't think I haven't noticed that provincialising qualification ), so that we might reach some more satisfying conclusion than "You're wrong" "No, you"?

 

[kochman]

Well, since I'm not only a former Republican but also still an American... I think my credentials speak for themselves.
That and I don't respond with one liners on a regular basis, or links to broad subjects without further explanation.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, it's possible that I inadvertently ninja'd you there, so my post as I left is less "well fine then"-y than the one you might have read. So perhaps you'd be able to elaborate, and we might actually get something out of this exchange?

Although I will say that I'm not sure how being a former Republican and an American constitutes any real "credentials". I'm a former Labour supporter and a Brit, but that doesn't make me any sort of expert on European social democracy.

 

[kochman]

Well, it's possible that I inadvertently ninja'd you there, so my post as I left is less "well fine then"-y than the one you might have read. So perhaps you'd be able to elaborate, and we might actually get something out of this exchange?

Although I will say that I'm not sure how being a former Republican and an American constitutes any real "credentials". I'm a former Labour supporter and a Brit, but that doesn't make me any sort of expert on European social democracy.

Well, you surely know more about the Labour Party in the UK than I do...

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, you surely know more about the Labour Party in the UK than I do...

Perhaps in this specific instance, but I couldn't declare this simply because I'm a Brit and a leftie, nor would it mean that I am automatically assumed to be correct on any given point. The first is entirely baseless, and, even if it it happened to be the case that I really did know more, the second is an appeal to authority; neither constitute an actual argument. So, again, I'll ask you to make some specific criticism of my interpretation of American conservatism, rather than simply dismissing me out of hand on such a spurious basis as you have done.

 

[Quackers]

Kochman I have no reason to defend Obama due to his Anti-Britishness but a large part of Obama's term has been during a recession and very modest growth by American standards. Obviously this leads to lower tax revenue for the federal government as firms go bust, individuals get fired and people stop consuming. AKA: Things which are far out of Obama's ability to control.

Now under Bush, despite there being a small recession at the start of his term I understand you had quite good economic growth 3% yearly? Stable inflation, decent growth, low unemployement sounds like the perfect time to balance the fed's books.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Exactly.

During prosperous times you save for when times are bad.

 

[luiz]

Team Obama apparently already considers Romney the nominee, judging by the amount of crap they're writing about sillyness such as Romney saying that he likes being able to fire his healthcare provider. According to Paul Krugman or David Atkins, that makes him an insensible plutocrat who laughs with delight at the thought of firing workers

American liberals like to complain that Fox and co. crucify Obama for whatever sillyness he says, but they're not much better.

 

[kochman]

Kochman I have no reason to defend Obama due to his Anti-Britishness but a large part of Obama's term has been during a recession and very modest growth by American standards. Obviously this leads to lower tax revenue for the federal government as firms go bust, individuals get fired and people stop consuming. AKA: Things which are far out of Obama's ability to control.

Now under Bush, despite there being a small recession at the start of his term I understand you had quite good economic growth 3% yearly? Stable inflation, decent growth, low unemployement sounds like the perfect time to balance the fed's books.

His policies have contributed to the continuation of the poor economy, is the obvious reply.

The recession at the beginning of Bush's term was actually quite bad (yet balanced budgets were being somewhat managed... I saw somewhat because they were still raiding Social Security to do it)... we pulled out of the recession, in part at least, due to Bush's 1st term policies...
Then he decided to start spending millions and millions in fighting all over the Middle East... war is expensive.

I agree that if not saddled with war, Obama may have performed better... but yet, he's the one who had the power to stop them. Still in Afghanistan...

 

[Cutlass]

Hold on... you've now attributed $6T in debt to Bush and Boehner, in separate posts.
Please show me the math. Please include the years under Bush with budget surpluses as well... Bush did not have $6T in debt.

Debt under Pelosi (w/ Bush & Obama)... $5T

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/deb...-speaker-pelosi-vowed-no-new-deficit-spending

Debt under Bush...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

Debt under Obama (w/ Pelosi & Boehner)... as of 22 August 2011

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

Please, Cutlass, stop using fake numbers... the real ones are bad enough that you don't have to mislead people.

FY2002, the first full year that Bush had control of the budget, debt was at $6.4 trillion. FY2009, the last year we were running under Bush's budget the debt had risen to $12.3trillion.

Presidents do not set the budget for their first year in office, since the budget process for any year takes place in the previous year. The incoming president has only modest power to make changes in the budget that had already been approved. So, to be fair, you could credit the Stimulus to Obama, but for most of the rest he was working on Bush's budget.

But the main difference is that Bush had a decent economy most of the time he was in office, until he helped ruin it at the end. And in the years that the economy was fine before 2008, there was no reason for deficits at all. They were purely optional. Bush and the Republican leaders in Congress, the same people who are ranting and raving about fiscal conservatism now, went out of their way to cause those deficits. They worked very very hard to cause those deficits.

Obama, on the other hand, has the worst economy since the 1930s. He can't reduce the deficit without slowing the economy substantially.

And you just cannot compare the situations without taking the economy into account. Most of the Obama debt is because of the economy. Most of the Bush debt was because of irresponsibility.

 

[kochman]

FY2002, the first full year that Bush had control of the budget, debt was at $6.4 trillion. FY2009, the last year we were running under Bush's budget the debt had risen to $12.3trillion.

Presidents do not set the budget for their first year in office, since the budget process for any year takes place in the previous year. The incoming president has only modest power to make changes in the budget that had already been approved. So, to be fair, you could credit the Stimulus to Obama, but for most of the rest he was working on Bush's budget.

But the main difference is that Bush had a decent economy most of the time he was in office, until he helped ruin it at the end. And in the years that the economy was fine before 2008, there was no reason for deficits at all. They were purely optional. Bush and the Republican leaders in Congress, the same people who are ranting and raving about fiscal conservatism now, went out of their way to cause those deficits. They worked very very hard to cause those deficits.

Obama, on the other hand, has the worst economy since the 1930s. He can't reduce the deficit without slowing the economy substantially.

And you just cannot compare the situations without taking the economy into account. Most of the Obama debt is because of the economy. Most of the Bush debt was because of irresponsibility.

Your assignment of the debt is just not accurate... I'll take CBS's numbers (they are pretty biased there too!).
I don't excuse Bush's deficits at all! It is an outrage, because he put us on this slope... however, they were not as high as Obama's, and Obama has done his work in less than 1/2 the time...

 

[Cutlass]

Your assignment of the debt is just not accurate... I'll take CBS's numbers (they are pretty biased there too!).
I don't excuse Bush's deficits at all! It is an outrage, because he put us on this slope... however, they were not as high as Obama's, and Obama has done his work in less than 1/2 the time...

No matter which numbers you use, you cannot ethically disregard the effect of the economy on the budget. When the economy crashes, tax revenue crashes. And welfare demand goes up. These are not decisions made by Obama. These are circumstances forced on Obama.

 

[RebelYeller]

And forced on th states!