[careinke]

I'm thinking the fiscal cliff may be the only thing that will save this country. I especially like the cuts.

[seahorse3]

I wish the 1% would move to anywhere. Maybe Liberia? Please take Rush with them. It is so bad here now, with Turban wearing, scycle carrying, socialists in charge, it's time for them to move out, go form another America, a true America, in greener pastures, from the ground up, with their own hands, their own labor, their own blood.

[Ibon]

I wont bother to look for the post but a couple of years ago I went into detail explaining politics in Brazil and how the US would eventually follow the same politics.....The disparity between rich and poor in Brazil and the large underclass disenfranchised forced the government to create a substantial social net that consumes a large percentage of their GDP. This had nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with preserving some semblance of an organized society. In other words the elite and rich in Brazil learned that to maintain their privilege they have to dedicate a large percentage of their GDP to the underclass otherwise crime and other social ills would overwhelm and keep the rich locked in their barb wire ghettos.

The elite in the USA will learn to do the same, Obama is not a whole lot different than Republicans, he just understands this reality better. The Republicans are stuck in a time warp group think that is racist, arrogant and completely out of sync with the pragmatic reality of maintaining social stability in times of a grand musical chairs that has to at least keep 3 legs on each chair.

The changing demographics is really the story here coupled with the growing number of disenfranchised of all ages, race and religions.

Ignoring this will make you obsolete.........

Karl Rove, Rush and friends look like big pink fat bald piggies and act the same. This last comment would have labeled me a racist a couple of years ago but today resonates with a growing number of Americans.

[Plantagenet]

The disparity between rich and poor in Brazil and the large underclass disenfranchised forced the government to create a substantial social net that consumes a large percentage of their GDP. This had nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with preserving some semblance of an organized society. In other words the elite and rich in Brazil learned that to maintain their privilege they have to dedicate a large percentage of their GDP to the underclass otherwise crime and other social ills would overwhelm and keep the rich locked in their barb wire ghettos.

The elite in the USA will learn to do the same, Obama is not a whole lot different than Republicans, he just understands this reality better.

Good point. I think you are right.

Obamacare, the lengthy extensions in unemployment benefits since 2009, Obama's recent waiver of the work requirement on welfare recipients, and the huge increase in food stamp enrollees since Obama loosened the rules are all steps in the direction of transferring a larger percentage of the total GDP to the poor, whose numbers are rapidly growing as the middle class shrinks in the USA. In 2008 Obama said he "wanted to spread the wealth around". Change that to spread the GDP around, to encompass transfers from both the wealthy and the middle class to the poor, and the direction the USA is now travelling is clear.

[Ibon]

A better way to keep the poor happy (especially in the US) is to create jobs, give them gainful employment so that their children can be educated and they can see something in their future beyond the regular government handouts that you propose. Having a lower and middle class with extreme thoughts of entitlement doesn't seem to jive with the idea of a successful economy (i.e. why should I work hard or aspire to do something better when I'm going to get paid by the government anyway).

It is interesting to me reading the comments here that the vast majority of posters have very strong socialist beliefs.

I do not have socialist beliefs. You are stuck in an old paradigm of binary thinking around capitalism vs socialism. The reality of the times with a permanent and growing disenfranchised sector of society requires a merger of promoting free market and business friendly policies combined with a large social safety net. This is what Brazil did. I choose Brazil a few years ago as the comparison to the US because I watched, as I worked over 20 years in Latin America, as the US economy slowly became more and more similar with the same demographic problems as in Latin America. The US economy is far similar to Latin America than say Canada where you live. I lived in ALberta also for over 5 years. In Canada you have a largely homogenized society where your only sizable ethnic group is Asian and they are arguable harder working than the average Canadian. The fabric of American society, the ethnic diversity, the state of the economy, a permanent underclass, etc. Canada is privileged territory in comparison, better organized, perhaps more boring, but certainly more secure looking forward this century. It is not a valid comparison for America. Brazil is.

Both the Democrats and Republicans will be forced,not so much through ideology as through pragmatic adaptation to the reality on the ground, to embrace a fusion of strong pro market government policies that marry this with a strong social support of the permanently underprivileged. Forget about wishful thinking Ayn Rann Libertarian masturbation. Reality dictates policy, not some old cold world ideology of socialism vs capitalism.

[Pops]

It is interesting to me reading the comments here that the vast majority of posters have very strong socialist beliefs.

Heh, imaging that, a site centered on the idea of depletion and depredation of the "commons" that you'd find people more concerned with protection than it's exploitation.

[seahorse3]

The move to "socialism" in my opinion is directly attributed to expensive oil, the world dynamic shifting bc oil is expensive, thus the economic model is failing. If one believes in PO, then there will be less economic opportunity, more poor, more homeless, thus what to do with them? I don't think we can create more jobs in this new energy dynamic. How would we do it? What would the jobs be? Compound the problem of a global economic/financial model that can't be sustained with PO with the further problem that we simply don't need people to do most jobs anymore. People are being replaced by robots. So, what are people to do? The model will be changed. The current political, economic model will drastically change. In the meantime, Hobbes, the father of conservatism, would argue that you better appease the poor or they become unruly masses that start cutting heads off. Socialism is a far better protector of the rich than starving masses left to "fend for themselves." Those who want smaller government need only turn on tv today and watch the live riot feeds from Greece from lots of people out of work. That is our future until the economic model changes. I happen to agree with the writers of the book "The Fourth Turning" that basically conclude every fourth generation there is significant political change in the economic/political model. The US is a good guide for that. Every 100 years, approximately, from the Revolution on, there was significant political and social change, from 1776 to 1860 (Civil War) to the Great Depression and WWII (1940). Under that generational theory, the US is prime for another change. In the meantime, the US has "socialized" in an attempt to keep the economic model BAU.

[vision-master]

Having a lower and middle class with extreme thoughts of entitlement doesn't seem to jive with the idea of a successful economy (i.e. why should I work hard or aspire to do something better when I'm going to get paid by the government anyway).

For the poor it's called entitlements in a bad sense, for the rich entitlement is a good thing and expected.

Capital Gains Tax:

Social Security Tax:

Income tax deductions:.............

“Entitlements” are what the rich individuals and corporations receive via a tax code that permits them to suck the life blood out of our economy. Our tax code, quite obviously, favors capital over labor. Capital wants to receive all the benefits of U.S. citizenship without making any of the sacrifices that entails.

[Ibon]

RockDoc,

I am really sorry, I think I accidentally deleted one of your posts. I wanted to comment on a part of your post and I accidentally deleted it and don't know how to retrieve this. This is an interesting stream of thought so please re introduce your point of view that might have been lost when I deleted your post.

Ibon

[Ibon]

RockDoc,

The point I wanted to make when I accidentally deleted your post was your examples of Cuba and Venezuela demonstrate your being stuck in an old binary cold war thinking of socialism vs capitalism. Both of those examples are fossils of exactly that old binary thinking. Brazil is a totally different example that pragmatically fuses free markets with dedicating a large portion of its GDP with maintaining social stability through providing social services. With its large ethnic diversity it does have some parallels to the US.

Obama is without doubt more tuned into the shifting demographics in the US. The Republicans will have to play catch up here. On the other hand Obama has to confront the fiscal realities of limited options and work within these limits.

Although I live in Panama and have lived over 3 decades outside of the US, I
happen to have a strong patriotic streak. I marvel at the dynamic of the rich ethnic diversity of the US and I embrace and welcome the demographic shift of the emerging voice of what were previously minorities. The Karl Roves out there are squirming. It's nice to see this segment of our society, often referred to as the Ugly Americans, slowly fossilizing into obsolescence.

Maybe because my own children are cultural and racial hybrids I do have a vested interest and bias

[Ibon]

The move to "socialism" in my opinion is directly attributed to expensive oil, the world dynamic shifting bc oil is expensive, thus the economic model is failing. If one believes in PO, then there will be less economic opportunity, more poor, more homeless, thus what to do with them? I don't think we can create more jobs in this new energy dynamic. How would we do it? What would the jobs be? Compound the problem of a global economic/financial model that can't be sustained with PO with the further problem that we simply don't need people to do most jobs anymore. People are being replaced by robots. So, what are people to do?

I agree. This will become very very obvious and become understood by the mainstream within a very short time. We are witnessing the transition toward adjusting to a new pragmatic reality of the times we live in. It is plainly obvious.

[AgentR11]

Actually, taxes are set to drastically increase.

Oh come on. Drastic evokes an image of 65% tax rates. The increases that will result from the expiration of various temporary tax breaks are not DRASTIC. They are increases, and we should, of course, heckle Obama for increasing middle class taxes; but no reason to exaggerate. That's as bad as people thinking a 60 v 57 game is a blowout. Please.

the fiscal cliff will result

The "fiscal cliff" is responsible policy. It needs to go into force.
And after that, we need even more drastic cuts enacted if anyone even LOOKS at increasing the debt limit again.

Of course, that won't happen though. No one will fade the heat, they'll punt, one way or another.

[PrestonSturges]

Again, not living there so don't have a great understanding but it seems to me based on several comments here from Obama supporters, that side of America is interested in the free handouts without any compensatory suffering (i.e. hard work).

Thank you for all hard work you have put into killing the GOP

[Plantagenet]

Actually, taxes are set to drastically increase.

Oh come on. Drastic evokes an image of 65% tax rates.

The word "drastic" means severe or extreme. IMHO the tax increases coming are drastic. For instance, the tax on dividends (treasuries, bank account interest, savings bonds, etc.) is going from 15% to 43%.

If you do the math, thats a 280% INCREASE in the tax rate.

Other new taxes will hit capital gains on house sales and stock sales, more taxes will hit folks who have health plans. The social security tax will be raised significantly hitting every worker---rich and poor alike.

five major Obamacare taxes starting in January 2013

These taxes dont just hit the rich. Anyone in the US with an IRA or company retirement plan probably has some of their retirement money in a mutual fund with money in money markets funds or bonds and treasury bills----Millions of Americans can kiss some of their retirement money goodbye, thanks to this drastic tax increase on the holdings in their retirement accounts.

Please explain how a 280% tax increase isn't drastic?

[AgentR11]

Thank you for all hard work you have put into killing the GOP

PS... if 57r to 60d is the definition of "killing the GOP", then that leaves only 58r or 59r as possible "not killed" amounts. Any more than that, and we'd have to be talking about how the Democrats have been destroyed.?

So what amount of votes would be an appropriate description for, "we lost this election, lets get ready for the next one?" Or are you suggesting that once a party loses a presidential election it can never again attain office?

This is just really weird math on your part.

The GOP lost, just as they have lost before, and just as the Dems have lost before. Its hardly the end for a political party to lose, after all, we've had dozens of presidential elections with just D's and R's; and they've both lost their fair share of them, but amazingly, they keep nominating candidates and running competitive races. (and if 57 vs 60 isn't competitive, I don't know what is.)

[rockdoc123]

Heh, imaging that, a site centered on the idea of depletion and depredation of the "commons" that you'd find people more concerned with protection than it's exploitation.

I believe the problem is that there is no means by which a more socialist approach can result in the types of changes that need to occur in order to affect a concerted move to alternatives. With the right kind of incentives I think that your average capitalist business man could achieve this if the right rules were also in place. The government in it’s quasi-socialist approach already tried this with solar companies….huge fail. And precisely how does a socialist approach protect hydrocarbon resources any more than a capitalist one? Are you suggesting that a country full of socialists would no longer consume hydrocarbons and be intent on keeping what is in the ground there? Didn’t work in Russia, doesn’t work in Venezuela either nor mainland China as far as I’ve seen.

Ibon, I may live in Canada now but I have also spent time in Latin America..Colombia, Peru, Argentina etc. I have a pretty good handle on the demographics there. As you say Canada is a completely different environment although the cultural diversity in some of the big cities like Toronto is much more than just Asian and has been for a long time. My point is the disparity between the poor and the rich in the US is much smaller than the disparity you see in Brazil or many other parts of Latin America. In Venezuela you have people living in straw huts in the bush with subsistence economy and billionaires living in Caracas. The poor in big cities such as Chicago would appear as royalty to someone from Amazona who has never owned a pair of shoes. The same in Colombia and Peru. Argentina is probably closer in terms of the income/wealth gap but that country is a great example of a failed socialist economy. There comes a point without an underlying strong economy that social programs can’t work. Let’s look at the example of Venezuela. Here Chavez has taken all the proceeds from the extensive oil and gas fields that he nationalized and distributed those monies into his social programs, seemingly to keep his popularity strong. But to do that he has not been investing back into the oil fields or infrastructure in the country. As a consequence the oil fields are failing badly (I hear this directly from Venezuelans who work for PDVSA) and people who live in the cities are left with closed bridges and roads, hence the discontent you saw going into the recent election there. At some point because of lack of investment the oil fields will not be able to provide the kind of free cash flow needed for the social programs. It just seems to be something that is not self-sustaining. If Chavez, on the other hand had foreign participation where he kept the lions share of the returns but had the foreigners spend all of the required capital it would be a different story…but of course that is capitalism and a no no, apparently.

And vision master the whole idea of capital gains tax deductions and other tax deductions is to attract money that can be invested and hence help to improve the economy through direct and indirect job creation. Example Joe Blog is only taxed at a rate of say 25% on his capital gains but at a rate of 35% on his income. As a consequence Msr. Blog will tend to put his money to work in investments that yield capital gains. Those same investments are companies that when flush with capital will look at growth which creates jobs both directly and indirectly through the trickle down effect. The gains to the country from this reinvestment is much, much larger than the gains from additional taxes, taxes which might not be even collectable if that individual decides to do something else with his money rather than invest in the market (eg. may he would buy some nice propety in Belize...that money is now lost to the American public). This isn't an entitlement for the rich but rather a sound means of creating investment in the country.

[Lore]

Thank you for all hard work you have put into killing the GOP

PS... if 57r to 60d is the definition of "killing the GOP", then that leaves only 58r or 59r as possible "not killed" amounts. Any more than that, and we'd have to be talking about how the Democrats have been destroyed.?

So what amount of votes would be an appropriate description for, "we lost this election, lets get ready for the next one?" Or are you suggesting that once a party loses a presidential election it can never again attain office?

This is just really weird math on your part.

The GOP lost, just as they have lost before, and just as the Dems have lost before. Its hardly the end for a political party to lose, after all, we've had dozens of presidential elections with just D's and R's; and they've both lost their fair share of them, but amazingly, they keep nominating candidates and running competitive races. (and if 57 vs 60 isn't competitive, I don't know what is.)

It's more about the changing demographics. The base of old white men is shrinking for the Republican Party and they have not gone out of their way to embrace young people, women, LGBT, environmentalists, latino, black or asian voters. If they continue to concentrate on only their old supporters they will no longer be able to win an election at a national level.

Chuck Todd at MSNBC pointed out that at the present rate of change, Texas and Georgia will be the new swing states with former states that had been in play solidly blue.

[AgentR11]

My hunch on the demographic thing is that Latinos will eventually own the Republican party. If I were one to bet on things, I'd give good odds that the 2016 Republican nominee is a Spanish speaking Latino. This will take some time to work its way through to completion, but that's my hunch. I don't think the US political system is well equipped to have either party dissolve and form up a new one; nor is a shift to a sane parliamentary system realistic. So, the R's stay, and are consumed by the demographic least well served by the opposing party. In addition, I'd suspect more than a few slacker anglo will come to realize they are on the gov't feed for good, and start voting that way, thus a likely even split of anglo vote between R and D.

nb... I might be biased, I like Mexican culture a lot more than I like New England culture, and I just had to watch a moron from New England prance on TV for a year. I don't think I can take any more.

[Lore]

The problem with that is the actual latino vote and membership has been steadily growing during the last three national election cycles for the Dems. If any party gets consumed by the minority interest it is or will be the Democrats. Republicans would have to appease the fit with the Tea Party membership, which would be a real stretch for them.

Just placing a black man or latino in play for the Presidency to gain that demographic is tokenism and pretty easily smelled out.

I see a third party rising at some point too, but nothing we'd currently recognize.

[AgentR11]

I see a third party rising at some point too, but nothing we'd currently recognize.

For me to take any comment of a third party seriously, you are going to have to show me how it is possible that the Republican party (or Democrat party) would get less than 30% of the popular vote. I'm just not seeing any possible route there.