At this point I am not a Donald Trump fan. I might even describe myself as a Trump opponent, for one simple reason. Barring a total economic collapse between now and then, I don't think he can win in 2024, and I'm of the opinion that four more years of democratic rule will ruin what's left of what used to be a great democratic republic.

But in the larger view, I'm not sure there's a way for republicans to win in 2024 as they are presently constituted. They have been following Karl Rove's strategy of slicing and dicing the electorate to get 50.1% of the vote, situated in states to give them an electoral college majority, and that's simply no longer working. Republicans have won a majority of the popular vote for president exactly one time (GWB, 2004, 50.7%) in the last 30 years. That is not a sustainable position.

What republicans need to do is find a strategy that can potentially give them up to 53-54% of the popular vote in national elections. In other words they need to set their sights higher than Rove's targets. The highest percentage of nationwide popular vote achieved by republicans in any election since 1988 was 51.5% in the 1994 congressional elections, a result that felt like a landslide, in part because the votes came in those locations mapped by Rove's approach. But the key to that victory was Newt's Contract, which gave republicans an agenda to run on, coupled with Newt's and the party leadership's insistence that every candidate stay on message.

They need a new contract, and they need to stick with it. I think the best approach is to base it on:
- fiscal responsibility, including a balanced budget and paying down the national debt,
- economic growth, including tax and regulatory policies to make USA based companies more competitive in the global economy,
- a welfare safety net, as opposed to massive redistribution of income and wealth, which could include Bismarck universal private health care/insurance and a universal basic income based on Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, which would provide a universal safety net for less than current health and welfare programs by eliminating the top-heavy gate-keeping bureaucracy,
- military excellence (JFK's 2-1/2 war standard would be reasonable), made cheaper by reforming the military and converting, say, 400,000 active slots to 1 million reserves,
- non-interventionist (not isolationist) foreign policy (never fight a war that you don't intend to win),
- moderate (as opposed to the extremist democrats) approach to hot-button issues like abortion (legal for reasonable period and afterwards in cases of rape, incest, or health of mother/child), gay rights, 2nd Amendment rights (strong support but with things that would actually address gun deaths like a return to mental hospitals and stiffer sentences for gun violators, instead of stupid proposals like gun controls that would solve nothing), and the environment (conservation-based policies, and doing what can be done with current technology to address climate change, without edicts to convert to non-existent pie-in-the-sky technologies), and immigration (a rational immigration policy, I would even be willing to start with Canada's points-based system, with a wall along the land borders of California, Arizona, and New Mexico, and Will Hurd's approach of enhanced electronics and increased customs and immigration enforcement along the Rio Grande).

I think the spending cuts, tax/regulatory reforms, and strong military would appeal to the current republican constituency, while the safety net should enable sufficient pickups in poor and minority voters. Make republicans the party of common sense and democrats the party of elite intellectual "experts." Make republicans the party of makers and democrats the party of takers. Fully expose the welfare plantation and exploit the democrats', "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat." If republicans could get 30% of the Black vote and 40% of the Hispanic vote, they would probably be unbeatable.

This is all about trying to craft a winning combination. You can't do anything without winning elections. Above all, take winning elections as seriously as democrats do.

methinks today is "one day"

Somebody, anybody, please answer me this. Republicans can use the debt ceiling for leverage to try to push spending cuts, but why can't they just find the discipline to pass spending reforms during ordinary time? Every time there has been a government shutdown, two things have happened:
1) The leftist MSM have portrayed it as the republicans' fault, and
2) The bureaucrats in charge of managing the shutdown have made sure that they keep getting paid and the burden is shifted to the places where it hurts the average person worst (shutting down parks, threatening SS and military retirement).

Republicans need to do two things:
1) Find the discipline to pass budget that reduces the deficit while preserving benefits and military strength, by focusing on cutting useless administrative overhead, and
2) Pass a law that sets forth priorities in case of future debt ceiling limits, and prioritizes substance (SS, military retirement, national parks) over bureaucrats.

The biggest problem with top-down budget cuts is that those tend to be handed down to top-level bureaucrats to apply, and they tend to keep the fat and cut the muscle.

Red Team supporters cannot be shaken from the delusion that Republicans are "fiscally responsible". This is a prime example of people believing what they want to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Red Team claims they are fiscally responsible and financially conservative, so their voters believe it with blind faith.

(05-26-2023 07:39 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Red Team supporters cannot be shaken from the delusion that Republicans are "fiscally responsible". This is a prime example of people believing what they want to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Red Team claims they are fiscally responsible and financially conservative, so their voters believe it with blind faith.

It's a binary choice, and one team is more fiscally responsible and more financially conservative, and the other is threatening violence in the streets if there are any spending cuts or limitations.

It's not black and white: It's black and gray.

(05-26-2023 06:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Somebody, anybody, please answer me this. Republicans can use the debt ceiling for leverage to try to push spending cuts, but why can't they just find the discipline to pass spending reforms during ordinary time? Every time there has been a government shutdown, two things have happened:
1) The leftist MSM have portrayed it as the republicans' fault, and
2) The bureaucrats in charge of managing the shutdown have made sure that they keep getting paid and the burden is shifted to the places where it hurts the average person worst (shutting down parks, threatening SS and military retirement).

Republicans need to do two things:
1) Find the discipline to pass budget that reduces the deficit while preserving benefits and military strength, by focusing on cutting useless administrative overhead, and
2) Pass a law that sets forth priorities in case of future debt ceiling limits, and prioritizes substance (SS, military retirement, national parks) over bureaucrats.

The biggest problem with top-down budget cuts is that those tend to be handed down to top-level bureaucrats to apply, and they tend to keep the fat and cut the muscle.

There is a purpose in shifting the pain to those areas that hurt the most... because it causes constituents to react. The power is in the conflict, not the solutions.

What is needed is a complete overhaul of every single project and department in government... every single one... that's what a company would do... but shareholders at THIS company (voters) don't want (or understand) fiscal responsibility... but they DO understand it when their trash doesn't get picked up, the line at the DMV gets longer or their park doesn't get mowed. The numbers are so large that people can't even fathom it. Seriously, what is a few hundred billion dollars?? 6.2 trillion vs 6.4??

Seriously... I'd look at every single department and require that they cut spending without cutting services... and then reward the people who can do that (personally) with a portion of the savings. A guy who cuts spending but keeps services by $1mm gets 50k and his staff all get 15k. A guy who cuts spending by 100mm gets $2mm, and his staff all get 100k.

I don't care if we don't ultimately save any money that year... we at least establish a new baseline from which the following year's spending starts. I'd rather pay people to save money than to pay them NOT to... and that is what our current system does. Budgets are determined by whether or not you spent all your money last year... if you did, you keep it... if you don't, you lose it and it goes elsewhere... but NEVER away.

(05-26-2023 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 07:39 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Red Team supporters cannot be shaken from the delusion that Republicans are "fiscally responsible". This is a prime example of people believing what they want to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Red Team claims they are fiscally responsible and financially conservative, so their voters believe it with blind faith.

It's a binary choice, and one team is more fiscally responsible and more financially conservative, and the other is threatening violence in the streets if there are any spending cuts or limitations.

It's not black and white: It's black and gray.

This.

There is only one remotely fiscally conservative democrat I can think of... there are a number of fiscally conservative republicans. Not enough to keep spending down, but they are there.

The problem is the electorate. Cutting spending and being fiscally conservative doesn't sell well with voters. Everyone has their areas where they'd be ok with cuts, but almost nobody supports cuts to 'their' issues...

(05-26-2023 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  but shareholders at THIS company (voters) don't want (or understand) fiscal responsibility...

The problem is the electorate.

Yes. This is one reason I think voting age should be raised to 25 or higher. The ignorant bloc breaks 85-15 for the Left. Idealistic youngsters with no real world experience are a large part of the ignorant bloc.

Not everybody wants an informed electorate deciding.

It’s really simple. Nobody wants to cut benefits because that costs votes. But most social programs are less than 50% benefits and more than 50% administrative overhead. The problem is the extensive gate-keeping required by our focused and means-tested (that’s actually a problem caused by republicans) approach to social welfare.

How about this as an approach? Let benefits increase with growth and inflation (so you don’t look stingy), and every dollar that benefits grow, hack a dollar out of admin/overhead.

Now what I am proposing makes benefits universal while reducing overhead drastically, to provide substantially more benefits for less total program cost. More money goes into the hands of those who need it, and less to suburban northern Virginia and southern Maryland.

(05-26-2023 09:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It’s really simple. Nobody wants to cut benefits because that costs votes. But most social programs are less than 50% benefits and more than 50% administrative overhead. The problem is the extensive gate-keeping required by our focused and means-tested (that’s actually a problem caused by republicans) approach to social welfare.

How about this as an approach? Let benefits increase with growth and inflation (so you don’t look stingy), and every dollar that benefits grow, hack a dollar out of admin/overhead.

I'm OK with that, but how will the Not-so-good team and the really bad team handle that proposal? I think the current debt ceiling negotiations tell us. Here's a hint of how the really bad team would react:

Representative Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) on Tuesday warned that leftist protesters will take to the streets if President Biden agrees to spending cuts as part of negotiations with Republicans to ward off a looming debt default.

“I think there would be a huge backlash from our entire House Democratic caucus, certainly the progressives, but also in the streets,” she said. “It’s important that we don’t take steps back from the very strong agenda that the president himself shepherded and led over the last years.”

If you’re not cutting benefits, how will you get the rabble roused because some bureaucrat is getting his six figure salary for sitting on his ass whacked?

I know the problem. Dating back to the spoils era, each party uses these admin bureaucrat positions to stash party loyalists who are not competent enough to hold a real job. If republicans go whacking bureaucrats with a democrat administration in charge, it’s all the republican bureaucrats who are going to get cut. Maybe you could put in wording to make the cuts even-handed, but some difficulties in writing and enforcing such provisions would exist.

By the way, most career bureaucrats have a nominal party affiliation, but most are not hard-core loyalists (although there is a definite lean toward democrats who are more aligned with growing the bureaucracy and creating more bureaucrat jobs). What happened is that their first big promotion opportunity came when there was a republican administration in power, so they aligned with the republicans in order to get the promotion (or vice versa for democrats). My career first, my agency second, my country third.

...speaking of cutting, start with cutting every 3-letter Federal Agency. Just get rid of them. Bye. It's a start. So, for instance, the near-worthless Federal EPA. Get rid of it completely, along with all its regulations. return that to the State EPAs. Let them regulate their own States. If there's a dispute, the Supreme Court and Federal Courts can handle it. That mindset applied to all Federal 3-letter agencies, would perhaps save Trillions. (Oh, and don't let them re-name themselves to 2 or four letter just to get out of it. Most three-letter agencies operate like four words anyway....

(05-26-2023 09:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It’s really simple. Nobody wants to cut benefits because that costs votes. But most social programs are less than 50% benefits and more than 50% administrative overhead. The problem is the extensive gate-keeping required by our focused and means-tested (that’s actually a problem caused by republicans) approach to social welfare.

How about this as an approach? Let benefits increase with growth and inflation (so you don’t look stingy), and every dollar that benefits grow, hack a dollar out of admin/overhead.

Now what I am proposing makes benefits universal while reducing overhead drastically, to provide substantially more benefits for less total program cost. More money goes into the hands of those who need it, and less to suburban northern Virginia and southern Maryland.

Precisely the sort of solutions I was alluding to.... and I'd pay the people who DO this, very well to do it.... once... as opposed to paying them perpetually through mismanagement and excessive beauracracy.

I mean seriously... how many people can it take to administer social security? Computers these days do 99.9% of the work.

(05-30-2023 09:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It’s really simple. Nobody wants to cut benefits because that costs votes. But most social programs are less than 50% benefits and more than 50% administrative overhead. The problem is the extensive gate-keeping required by our focused and means-tested (that’s actually a problem caused by republicans) approach to social welfare.

How about this as an approach? Let benefits increase with growth and inflation (so you don’t look stingy), and every dollar that benefits grow, hack a dollar out of admin/overhead.

Now what I am proposing makes benefits universal while reducing overhead drastically, to provide substantially more benefits for less total program cost. More money goes into the hands of those who need it, and less to suburban northern Virginia and southern Maryland.

Precisely the sort of solutions I was alluding to.... and I'd pay the people who DO this, very well to do it.... once... as opposed to paying them perpetually through mismanagement and excessive beauracracy.

I mean seriously... how many people can it take to administer social security? Computers these days do 99.9% of the work.

Try making an appt. It can take a long, long time to find somebody to push the buttons on that computer.

(05-30-2023 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-30-2023 09:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I mean seriously... how many people can it take to administer social security? Computers these days do 99.9% of the work.

Try making an appt. It can take a long, long time to find somebody to push the buttons on that computer.

You increase personnel in the field in order to respond to citizens, and you cut the fat at the top. Adding 100 people making $60K and cutting 100 people making $150K saves a buttload of money.

(05-30-2023 09:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It’s really simple. Nobody wants to cut benefits because that costs votes. But most social programs are less than 50% benefits and more than 50% administrative overhead. The problem is the extensive gate-keeping required by our focused and means-tested (that’s actually a problem caused by republicans) approach to social welfare.

How about this as an approach? Let benefits increase with growth and inflation (so you don’t look stingy), and every dollar that benefits grow, hack a dollar out of admin/overhead.

Now what I am proposing makes benefits universal while reducing overhead drastically, to provide substantially more benefits for less total program cost. More money goes into the hands of those who need it, and less to suburban northern Virginia and southern Maryland.

Precisely the sort of solutions I was alluding to.... and I'd pay the people who DO this, very well to do it.... once... as opposed to paying them perpetually through mismanagement and excessive beauracracy.

I mean seriously... how many people can it take to administer social security? Computers these days do 99.9% of the work.

BTW, Buffett apparently made a fairly similar argument saying he could fix the deficit in 3 minutes. Pass a bill that says that any deficit in excess of 3% of GDP and nobody is eligible for re-election.

Give them a REASON to cut spending as opposed to a reason to spend more and they will probably do it.

(08-02-2023 03:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-30-2023 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-30-2023 09:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I mean seriously... how many people can it take to administer social security? Computers these days do 99.9% of the work.

Try making an appt. It can take a long, long time to find somebody to push the buttons on that computer.

You increase personnel in the field in order to respond to citizens, and you cut the fat at the top. Adding 100 people making $60K and cutting 100 people making $150K saves a buttload of money.

Yep... or make it mostly online.

The Passport office is a perfect example. You go in there and it is quite clear that you are being slow-walked. They do this because they get paid the same to see 10 people as 50... and 10 people with lots of down-time and paper shuffling is much less stressful. One woman I saw, her strategy was to constantly straighten the stack of papers. The guy we saw the next time's strategy was a 10 minute explanation of the mundane that would start over if he was in any way taken off task, as in a question or clarification.... and of course they ALL do the 'your signature is John Doe but your birth certificate says John Michael Doe and your Drivers License you signed John M Doe.'... you need to start over and have them all match (which of course takes weeks)