Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that this statement is a bit simplistic, considering that the GOP can still win the White House with its certain platform in certain cases/situations. However, you are correct that without significant changes to their platform, it might very well gradually get harder and harder for the Republicans to win the White House.
It's actually going to get easier and easier. Let me explain...
Quote:
If current laws generally remained in place—an assumption underlying CBO’s baseline projections—federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next several years. After that, however, growing deficits would ultimately push debt back above its current high level, in CBO’s estimation. In 2038, CBO projects, federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP—more than in any year except 1945 and 1946—even without accounting for the harmful effects that growing debt would have on the economy; taking those effects into account boosts projected debt to 108 percent of GDP.
Twenty-four years seems like a long ways away but it's not really. During that 24 years you will see a number of other factors that will be very harmful to the American people and its economy.
Around 2033 or so the OASDI Trust Fund will be exhausted causing a 27% reduction in payments to those receiving benefits.
The DNI is estimating that around 2030 there will be 8.4 billion people on the planet and that for the first time in the history of the planet close to half will be at, or approaching, middle-class status. The new found ability of these people to buy products that they were never able to afford before will drive up the cost of goods, water and energy by 30 - 50%.
At the same time that is happening revenues to the Federal Government will have increased to above its 40 year historic average to 18+% of GDP. While the revenues are increasing they will be going mostly to the Federal Government healthcare programs and to interest on the debt which will cause the percentage that goes to everything else including defense and all other non-defense related spending will decrease from about 10% to about 7%.
This creates the perfect storm.
Decreased buying power
Decreased fixed income
Decreased government services
Increased taxes
Increased public debt
So what can you do about it?
Raise federal taxes even more which will pull money from state and local governments (which will want to increase taxes to make up for it) and it will decrease discretionary spending (which will already be getting hammered by increased prices due to large increases in the world wide middle-class).
Decrease spending which will already be lower than (in 2038) its 64 year historic average.
Or a combination of both.
And for the coup de grace...
Quote:
CBO projects. Alternatively, for example, with gradually increasing amounts of deficit reduction totaling $2 trillion over the next 10 years (excluding effects on interest payments and with the reduction as a percentage of GDP in 2023 maintained in later years), federal debt held by the public would drop to 61 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2023 before rising again to 67 percent in 2038. Or, as another example, with gradually increasing amounts of deficit reduction totaling $4 trillion over the next decade, debt would drop to 51 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2023 and decline even further, to 31 percent, by 2038.
Do I need to remind anyone how the democrats went all ballastic and claimed the rapture was coming over a decrease in $85 billion in the budget over 1.5 years?
Anyways, the point is democrats won't be able to tax and spend anymore because the American people will be getting tax to death and will be receiving even less in government services to boot. Also, the federal government will be ringing the alarm about how it's backed into a corner and it won't have very many options if an economic downturn occurs and if an economic downturn occurs before 2038 you can rest assured these numbers will be considered conservative.
In other words by supporting democrats you're forcing an even more severe austerity than if we would just take baby steps now because they're blowing their load and the U.S. capital as fast as they can trying to win a permanent majority they're never going to get.
So, who is more selfish? Democrats who are willing to destroy the country so they can claim victory, or republicans, who are at least trying to follow sound economic policies and advice from our own government so that we don't get backed into a corner and have nowhere else to go but to become severely austere in our economic policy?
If half of what you said was true I wouldn't have to vote 3rd party in protest anymore.
Sadly, you're drunk on propaganda including all the "green energy" initiatives that were nothing but corporate pork for big donors and that actually HURT green companies like Tesla by propping up their competitors. Every heard of Fisker? Of course you haven't.
Your lack of knowledge of democratic involvement in the miltiary industrial complex and with corporate welfare is equally appalling....they are no different than the republicans on that front....but hey, you probably don't know whom repealed the bank regs nor whom all signed NAFTA either.
Well look on the bright side, at least gas prices are lower now that Bush is out of office and the dems are in control!
Im' well aware, however the differnece is that there are those within the Democratic Party that champion for lower miitary spending etc.
OH.. and I own stock in Tesla. INdeed, they are on the cutting edge of automobile technology.
However, we need more cleaner greener energy. Rather than all the money pouring into Keystone pipeline, why not put it into R&D for other cleaner sources of energy? Yeah.. I know, the government is in efficient right? Bull.. our government investment got us to the moon AND many things came out of it, like the internet. Imagine if we had today what we had back then in the way of initiatives.. well I think that we would be on fire.
Accept I see the Republican Party constantly thwarting and publicly chasting all of it.
I see the Dems trying to get more spending for education and social programs.. I don't see that coming from the REpublicans.
In reality, the real crux of our problem is the election process.. one in which both parties have to walk a line between doing whats best for the population vs. what is best for their election coffers. INdeed, the Dems have a harder time walking that because of what their platform is.
A third party vote, at this point, is a thrown vote and one that could end up getting the worse of two evils elected ie: REpubicans. Dems, in my opinion, are the lesser of two evils.
The demographic argument, the data based on the last 6 presidential elections, data on the continued ideological extremism of the conservative party all points to the Republicans being in trouble during Presidential elections.
In 2004 a relatively popular GWBush with unemployment at 5.5% barely beat charisma challenged John Kerry. That election came down to one state Ohio. If Kerry wins Ohio he is president.
In 2012 a relatively popular BHObama with unemployment at over 7% easily beat charisma challenged Mitt Rmoney. President Obama could have lost Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and he still would have won the Presidency.
In fact the conservative nominee has to win all three, Florida, and Ohio and Virginia, just to have a shot at winning the election, and even if the conservative nominee wins all three of those states, that nominee still might lose.
The Democratic candidate no longer needs those states to win the Presidency and merely has to focus his/her attention on a few states.
It is a huge electoral college advantage.
In terms of the conservatives holding the house, let's be very, very clear in two of the last three elections the Democratic party has received more total votes in the House than the conservative party.
Normally the party that gets the MOST total votes gets control of the House and the Senate and the Presidency.
That's why so many people are complaining about the gerrymandering because the conservative party actually got fewer total votes in the House and was still able to retain control of the House.
It means that in the last election, most voters wanted a Democrat for the Presidency, in the Senate and in the House. That is a mismatch with the will of the majority of voters and the composition of the government. That can't last.
The only thing that saves conservatives is voter apathy.
So 2010 had a huge voter drop from 2008 and 2012, that's why the conservative party did so well in 2010. A lot of people stayed home.
Im' well aware, however the differnece is that there are those within the Democratic Party that champion for lower miitary spending etc.
OH.. and I own stock in Tesla. INdeed, they are on the cutting edge of automobile technology.
However, we need more cleaner greener energy. Rather than all the money pouring into Keystone pipeline, why not put it into R&D for other cleaner sources of energy? Yeah.. I know, the government is in efficient right? Bull.. our government investment got us to the moon AND many things came out of it, like the internet. Imagine if we had today what we had back then in the way of initiatives.. well I think that we would be on fire.
Accept I see the Republican Party constantly thwarting and publicly chasting all of it.
I see the Dems trying to get more spending for education and social programs.. I don't see that coming from the REpublicans.
In reality, the real crux of our problem is the election process.. one in which both parties have to walk a line between doing whats best for the population vs. what is best for their election coffers. INdeed, the Dems have a harder time walking that because of what their platform is.
A third party vote, at this point, is a thrown vote and one that could end up getting the worse of two evils elected ie: REpubicans. Dems, in my opinion, are the lesser of two evils.
Much of that government R&D that you are citing came from MILITARY spending.
Um, yes...our govt. can be incredibly inefficient at times. However, there are certain roles where they are quite effective. That's an enormous topic with no single right answer.
One persons "wasted vote" is another persons message sent. I for one don't like being used and abused because I will vote for a party no matter what they do.
I cannot possibly imagine you own stock in Tesla and are unaware of the federal tax guarantees to Fisker.
Let me recap what your dem "pro green" buddies did and fking called it "pro green". They gave guaranteed loans to Tesla's competitor to make cars NOT on US soil. Tesla if you paid attention, has been struggling with sales volume to be viable.
Basically, you are blindly supporting the very people that were BRIBED via campaign contributions to undercut Tesla in favor of a company making cars for the 1%.
Sometimes you have to actually defend your morals instead of blindly supporting those that SAY they are on your side and then knife you in the back. Stop being a patsy, vote for the person based on their record, not the D or the R. YOu might be shocked how an R in one state is to the left of some D's and vice versa on certain topics.
So 2010 had a huge voter drop from 2008 and 2012, that's why the conservative party did so well in 2010. A lot of people stayed home.
2012 was just pathetic. People just don't give a crap about left wing ideologues like you seem to think they do and there isn't enough left-wingers in the country to really gaur tee them much of anything. That's why democrats are freaking out and asking he president to delay his signature achievement. They don't want to lose the Senate also.
Uh oh....someone is missing out on the whole Gerrymandering meme.
You are confused. No one was talking about gerrymandering being the reason that conservatives won big in 2010. conservatives got more votes in 2010, but the reality is that 2010 saw 35million fewer voters casting ballots for House races than in 2008 so conservatives did well because far fewer people voted.
In both 2008 and 2012 when 123million and 124.7 million people cast ballots for House races the Democratic party received more total votes in the House in both elections.
The gerrymandering thing became an issue because in 2012, most American voters voted for a Democrat for the Presidency, the Senate and the House. conservatives were able to maintain control of the House despite getting fewer total votes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
