T Nation

Next 4 Year Predictions

The republicans now control the house, the senate, and the presidency. According to CNN last night that hasn’t happened since McKinley.

Any next 4 year predictions people?

here are a couple

  1. drilling in alaska
  2. amendment to ban gay marriage

so may more I am sure

[quote]Soco wrote:
The republicans now control the house, the senate, and the presidency. According to CNN last night that hasn’t happened since McKinley.

any next 4 year predictions people?

here are a couple

  1. drilling in alaska
  2. amendment to ban gay marriage

so may more I am sure[/quote]

Here are possibilities, not necessarily prediction:

  1. an end to food supplement use unless approved by the FDA (and also as long as it doesn’t reduce pharmaceutical profits).

  2. Increasing tension with Korea possibly leading into the use of military force.

  3. Harsher drug enforcement focusing on the lower class.

  4. and, regardless of what is stated, a possible draft if any foreign action does take place that requires military force.

Bush will appoint three to five new Supreme Court justices – certainly Rehnquist, Stevens and O’Connor will step down. Probably at least one of Kennedy and Ginsberg as well.

For the ones in the next two years – almost certainly Rehnquist, and maybe Stevens and/or O’Connor as well – Bush will have a 55 member majority in the Senate for confirmations. Not filibuster-proof, but with 3 nominations to make, I highly doubt the Democrats can block qualified judges – particularly qualified minority judges who are either originalist, textualist, or some combination thereof.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Soco wrote:
The republicans now control the house, the senate, and the presidency. According to CNN last night that hasn’t happened since McKinley.

any next 4 year predictions people?

here are a couple

  1. drilling in alaska
  2. amendment to ban gay marriage

so may more I am sure

Here are possibilities, not necessarily prediction:

  1. an end to food supplement use unless approved by the FDA (and also as long as it doesn’t reduce pharmaceutical profits).

  2. Increasing tension with Korea possibly leading into the use of military force.

  3. Harsher drug enforcement focusing on the lower class.

  4. and, regardless of what is stated, a possible draft if any foreign action does take place that requires military force.[/quote]

I won’t argue all of your points, but I don’t agree with them completely. It’s kind of Michael Moore’ish to lay it out like that.

However, as for the draft, you can sleep easy. The only two pieces of legislation introduced were written by democrats. At this point, it’s laughable.

“3) an end to food supplement use unless approved by the FDA (and also as long as it doesn’t reduce pharmaceutical profits).”

Professor–I too dread this. Please remember where this started though–the socialists in Europe. Congresscritters tend to be older though. What percentage take supps themselves? hopefully enough that this will not come to pass.

For the next 4 years? How about some conservative small gov’t and stop the damn spending. Oh and probably won’t happen, but it would be nice if he would adress the borders.

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:

I won’t argue all of your points, but I don’t agree with them completely. It’s kind of Michael Moore’ish to lay it out like that.[/quote]

Do you have some kind of Micheal Moore fetish? I swear, I hear that name come from Republicans more than any Democrat. I have never even seen his movie and am really not interested. That makes me wonder why that is your defense when someone writes something you don’t politically agree with. If troops are needed in larger numbers, where will they come from? We have a president who loves business. I don’t think the supplement angle is off at all. Are you saying that Korea is not a threat? What are you arguing besides the draft?

[quote]Berner wrote:
“3) an end to food supplement use unless approved by the FDA (and also as long as it doesn’t reduce pharmaceutical profits).”

Professor–I too dread this. Please remember where this started though–the socialists in Europe. Congresscritters tend to be older though. What percentage take supps themselves? hopefully enough that this will not come to pass.

For the next 4 years? How about some conservative small gov’t and stop the damn spending. Oh and probably won’t happen, but it would be nice if he would adress the borders.[/quote]

didnt a dem sponsor/draft the bill aboot prohormones? how is that bush? he did sign it, but under pressure from BOTH sides, not just reps.

[quote]DA MAN wrote:
Berner wrote:
“3) an end to food supplement use unless approved by the FDA (and also as long as it doesn’t reduce pharmaceutical profits).”

Professor–I too dread this. Please remember where this started though–the socialists in Europe. Congresscritters tend to be older though. What percentage take supps themselves? hopefully enough that this will not come to pass.

For the next 4 years? How about some conservative small gov’t and stop the damn spending. Oh and probably won’t happen, but it would be nice if he would adress the borders.

didnt a dem sponsor/draft the bill aboot prohormones? how is that bush? he did sign it, but under pressure from BOTH sides, not just reps. [/quote]

Apparently, you all can’t see past pro-hormones so allow me to open this up a little. Did you see how hard the country came down on ephedrine use? Exactly how much thought will it take for the “more moral and religious-did I mention more ethical and all around better at leading everyone down the righteous road to salvation” right to condemn nearly anything associated with gaining muscle? I swear, the media still calls creatine a “steroid”. I know this may be hard for some of you to admit considering you are so happy who you voted for just won, but are you all seriously unable to see that?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Bush will appoint three to five new Supreme Court justices – certainly Rehnquist, Stevens and O’Connor will step down. Probably at least one of Kennedy and Ginsberg as well.

For the ones in the next two years – almost certainly Rehnquist, and maybe Stevens and/or O’Connor as well – Bush will have a 55 member majority in the Senate for confirmations. Not filibuster-proof, but with 3 nominations to make, I highly doubt the Democrats can block qualified judges – particularly qualified minority judges who are either originalist, textualist, or some combination thereof.[/quote]

BB:

This is what I am most looking forward to! If we can just get rid of Ginsburg with a Bush apointment I will be ecstatic.

a national sales tax

private accounts for social security (opt in)

there will NOT be a draft

there will not a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marraige but there will be numerous state issues bans

There will be a ton of new judgeships

increased partisanship

hillary clinton jumping in front of the camera, every chance she gets.

Giuliani doing similiar.

I thought it was the Libertarians who disliked the FDA?

Seriously, what makes anyone think the Democrats would have a less activist FDA?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I thought it was the Libertarians who disliked the FDA?

Seriously, what makes anyone think the Democrats would have a less activist FDA?[/quote]

The “democrats” didn’t sign a 2004 steroid act (as if that was needed). I think that is just a precursor to things to come. Having the FDA regulate your protein powder means I hope you enjoy paying 3 times as much for amino acids. Now that there is little in the way of differing opinions in our capitol, you had better stock up now.

Mere predictions, not prophecies:

-Social security privatization option.

-No draft for at least 3-4 years.

-Increasing prices of oil.

-Tapping of national oil reserve.

-Alaskan pipeline.

-More relaxation of environmental policy.

-One-year economic boom followed by stagnation.

-Creatine will be banned after someone with advanced heart disease dies while using it.

-Increasing shift from old-school GOP to Bible-toting, compassionate conservatism.

-Increased military action in Iran, Syria, and North Korea. At least one will be a very serious conflict.

-One of the Muslim nations will use biological or nuclear weapons against Israel.

-Appointment of at least two new Supreme Court justices after O’Connor and Rehnquist leave their positions.

-GOP will start to out-muscle Democratic party, catalyzing the formation of several new third-parties. Libertarian and Constitution parties will increase in number and influence. Many environmentally-minded liberals will flock to the Green party.

-Importation of prescription drugs will become our last resort. Conversely, the FDA will either extend patent lifespan or relax testing standards on American-manufactured prescription drugs, thus making them more competitive.

-Increased funding for space program and first commercialized space flights.

Once again, these are just my humble predictions. They are not necessarily partisan issues or Bush issues, but they are events that I see as being probable over the next four years.

~Terumo

[quote]Terumo wrote:
Mere predictions, not prophecies:

-Social security privatization option.

That would be wonderful.

-No draft for at least 3-4 years.

No draft.

-Increasing prices of oil.

Maybe.

-Tapping of national oil reserve.

Nope.

-Alaskan pipeline.

Hopefully.

-More relaxation of environmental policy.

Nope.

-One-year economic boom followed by stagnation.

Wrong.

-Creatine will be banned after someone with advanced heart disease dies while using it.

Nope.

-Increasing shift from old-school GOP to Bible-toting, compassionate conservatism.

Wrong.

-Increased military action in Iran, Syria, and North Korea. At least one will be a very serious conflict.

I fear you may be right. More likely we will respond appropriately with W.

-One of the Muslim nations will use biological or nuclear weapons against Israel.

God, I hope not. But, I share your fear.

-Appointment of at least two new Supreme Court justices after O’Connor and Rehnquist leave their positions.

I agree. I pray for non-activist judges.

-GOP will start to out-muscle Democratic party, catalyzing the formation of several new third-parties. Libertarian and Constitution parties will increase in number and influence. Many environmentally-minded liberals will flock to the Green party.

The Democrats have brought this upon themselves.

-Importation of prescription drugs will become our last resort.

Wrong.

Conversely, the FDA will either extend patent lifespan or relax testing standards on American-manufactured prescription drugs, thus making them more competitive.

Maybe.

-Increased funding for space program and first commercialized space flights.

That would be grand. I want to go.

Once again, these are just my humble predictions. They are not necessarily partisan issues or Bush issues, but they are events that I see as being probable over the next four years.

I’m hoping for Tort reform to start driving the health care costs down.

Further, we are in dire need of tax reform.

JeffR

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I thought it was the Libertarians who disliked the FDA?

Seriously, what makes anyone think the Democrats would have a less activist FDA?

The “democrats” didn’t sign a 2004 steroid act (as if that was needed). I think that is just a precursor to things to come. Having the FDA regulate your protein powder means I hope you enjoy paying 3 times as much for amino acids. Now that there is little in the way of differing opinions in our capitol, you had better stock up now.[/quote]

Professor X:

Perhaps you weren’t paying attention to the plaintive cries of the biotech community as the FDA regulators kept their drugs off the market for years after they were approved for human use in Europe, or increased the cost and length of trials for drugs during the Clinton Administration?

Or attempted to reach out and bring cigarettes under the regulatory authority of the FDA – also under the Clinton Administration?

As was pointed out, the prohormone ban was passed through Congress with bi-partisan support.

In general, the FDA is an “independent agency”, given its regulatory power via an act of Congress. Bush, by virtue of the appointment power, can choose the head of the FDA, but he does not set its policy. It’s the same basic set up as the SEC, the FCC and the Fed – Congress delegated to the expert agency a certain amount of its legislative power in a certain area, which it exercises by passing rules and regulations.

The FDA isn’t going to be more activist w/r/t supplements under a Republican President than it would be under a Democratic President.

Why do you think the FDA is going to come after protein powder anyway?

Wall Street Journal
What the Bush Victory
Means for Consumers
November 3, 2004

Here’s a look at President Bush’s proposals for health care, taxes and Social Security and college savings, and what they may mean for you.

HEALTH CARE

Insurance: Consumers should prepare to handle more of the decisions – and potentially more of the financial burden – of health costs.

Mr. Bush has been a strong proponent of “health savings accounts,” introduced during his first term as a way for consumers to set aside tax-deductible funds for future medical expenses. To benefit from an HSA, a consumer must have a high-deductible health insurance policy, which means a lower premium but paying some health-care costs upfront. The idea is that those upfront costs will encourage consumers to spend more wisely, and competitive market forces will keep prices down and bring quality up.

Mr. Bush has called for tax breaks to encourage low-income families and individuals to open HSAs, and small-business owners to contribute to them. Mr. Bush’s continued push on HSAs is likely to mean that more employers will offer HSA-eligible health plans. He’s also likely to continue to back the formations of associations that could help small businesses bring down their health-care costs, but such efforts didn’t make much headway in Mr. Bush’s first term.

Seniors: For seniors, Mr. Bush’s victory means that last year’s Medicare changes are more likely to stay intact. Medicare is scheduled in 2006 to roll out a new prescription-drug benefit for seniors. In the past year, the federal government also increased funding for the Medicare Advantage program, which allows seniors to get their insurance through private plans. Prior to that boost, insurers had been backing away from Medicare Advantage, formerly known as Medicare + Choice, arguing the program was underfunded.

Prescription drugs: During Mr. Bush’s first term, his administration didn’t support legalizing the importation of less-expensive prescription drugs from Canada and other countries. During the presidential debates, he made comments suggesting he was warming to the idea.

Medical-malpractice suits: Mr. Bush has pushed for federal legislation capping medical malpractice “pain and suffering” damages to $250,000. But in his first term, with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, such legislation failed to pass.

TAXES

Income taxes: Taxpayers can expect Mr. Bush to push to make income-tax cuts enacted during recent years permanent. That would leave the top marginal tax rate at 35%.

Capital gains and dividend taxes: Mr. Bush would also like to make permanent the capital-gains and dividend-tax breaks he signed into law last year. At present, the top rate on most types of dividends is 15%, down from as high as 39.6%. As for capital gains, the top rate on gains from selling stocks and other securities held longer than one year typically is 15%, down from 20% previously.

Estate taxes: Mr. Bush has vowed to eliminate the so-called death tax in part to help simplify the tax code and provide relief to farmers and small-business owners.
SOCIAL SECURITY/RETIREMENT

Social Security: Mr. Bush has ruled out “changes in benefits for current retirees and near-retirees.” But for younger workers, his plans call for permitting them to direct a portion of their Social Security payroll deduction into private accounts and control how that money is invested.

Savings in these private accounts could be passed on to workers’ families. Bush’s plan would allow workers to divert somewhere between 2% to 4% into private accounts.

Left unanswered, according to Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel, is how Mr. Bush would finance the transition costs to a new system of private accounts. If $100 billion a year were moved into private accounts today, the government would need to find another $100 billion to pay current retirees.

Another possibility, Mr. Wessel says, is that Mr. Bush would push to lower the inflation rate used to calculate Social Security benefits.

President Bush has said he would make Social Security one of his main second-term objectives. A change to this entitlement program would be no small feat, but now that the Republicans have retained control of Congress, look for momentum to gain behind these ideas.

Savings Accounts: Mr. Bush has proposed expanding the existing tax-advantaged retirement accounts program with “Retirement Savings Accounts” and “Lifetime Savings Accounts.” Each account would have a maximum annual contribution limit of $5,000. Savers wouldn’t be able to deduct contributions on their income-tax return, but earnings would accumulate tax-free.

With lifetime savings accounts, or LSAs, there wouldn’t be age limits or income restrictions on contributions. You could use the money for anything at any time, from a new home to education bills. With retirement savings accounts, or RSAs, there also wouldn’t be age limits for contributions. But you couldn’t contribute more than your “compensation,” the Treasury says. There wouldn’t be any tax on distributions you take after you turn 58 years old, or in case of death or disability.

Mr. Bush also has advocated “employer retirement savings accounts” or ERSAs. These would combine the existing array of retirement plans, such as 401(k) accounts, into one plan.

These proposals ended up sidelined in Mr. Bush’s first term. But they may fare better in his second term with Republicans maintaining control of Congress.
COLLEGE SAVINGS

529 Plans: Mr. Bush says he wants to make permanent the 2001 federal tax cuts that gave a significant boost to college-savings accounts known as 529 plans. The changes made withdrawals on earnings in the plans free from federal taxes, as long as the money is used for educational purposes. The changes also made earnings on investments in prepaid-tuition plans offered by private colleges tax exempt. Mr. Bush would like to extend these tax benefits, which are due to expire in 2010.

Pell Grants: Mr. Bush says that an additional million students have had access to Pell Grants – the government’s primary source of aid for students from low-income families – since he took office in 2000. The maximum Pell Grant has hovered at $4,050 per year for the last two years, as appropriations have not kept up with a surge in demand for the awards. The College Board, a not-for-profit association of 4,500 educational organizations, says that from 2003 to 2004, Pell Grants funded 5.1 million students averaging $2,466 a student. Because the number of Pell recipients increased by 7%, the average grant fell 1% using 2003 dollars.

Mr. Bush has not proposed raising the maximum grant above $4,050, but under his proposed “State Scholar” program he would give Pell recipients an additional $1,000 in the first year of college to low-income students who take specific college-preparatory courses in high school. Separately, Mr. Bush has proposed that, starting in 2006,a new fund would provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who agree to study math or science. The administration says that under this plan, approximately 20,000 low-income undergraduate students would receive up to $5,000 each.

– Sarah Rubenstein, Dexter Webb, Alexandra Kaptik and Elizabeth Weinstein

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Apparently, you all can’t see past pro-hormones so allow me to open this up a little. Did you see how hard the country came down on ephedrine use? Exactly how much thought will it take for the “more moral and religious-did I mention more ethical and all around better at leading everyone down the righteous road to salvation” right to condemn nearly anything associated with gaining muscle? I swear, the media still calls creatine a “steroid”. I know this may be hard for some of you to admit considering you are so happy who you voted for just won, but are you all seriously unable to see that?[/quote]

Ignorance knows no religion, or party line, ProfX. I think you are making a huge leap pinning the ban of supplements on the religous right.

I happen to fall under that label you like to throw around like some sort of racial epithet - but I’m against the ban of any substance that will make us bigger and stronger.

I think it is a matter of ignorance of the subject matter. I was watching “Between the Lines” on ESPN the other night - they were interviewing the two candidates, and the subject of ‘steroids’ came up. Thier combined ignorance on the subject would have been laughable if not for the sad truth that most americans are just as ignorant, if not more.

I’ll say it once again - Ignorance knows know religion, or party line.

Jeff, I appreciate the response, but there I would like a little bit more than “wrong” as a response to some of those statements.

You don’t think we’ll tap the oil reserve and use Alaskan oil to cover it? If we are going to have to tap the damn thing (with which I don’t necessarily agree), I don’t think that using the reserve for a few months would be such a bad idea.

You don’t think we will open up the gates to prescription drug importation? I see how you think that we would not, but I think it is the most probable of four options. 1)Tort reform (as you mentioned), 2)Importation, 3)Change of FDA approval and patent process, or 4)Keeping things the same. I think 1 or 2 are the only viable options, but I just don’t see #1 happening. Yeah, I’d prefer it, too.

You don’t think environmental standards will become more relaxed? I will be the first to admit the things that Bush has done well, but this is one issue that is almost irrefutable.

You don’t think creatine will be gone within four years? I certainly do, but not necessarily because of Bush.

You don’t think the compassionate conservative approach will increase? Come on! Bush is the godfather of this! It isn’t a bad thing; it is just a reflection of what certain subgroups of the Republican party have began leaning toward.

I think you are taking a lot of my statements as a crack on Bush. That is not so. Certain things are just inevitable, and I don’t expect W to clean up every problem that America has or will face during his term. A lot of that responsibility falls on the individuals, corporations, and the courts. However, he will have to act authoritatively and hastefully when some of these problems arise; at that point, I will measure his effectiveness.

~Terumo

Hmm, let’s see…after a discussion with an American friend of mine we concluded the following:

a) Separation of church and state will be further undermined;
b) Iran will not be handled right and will become another war;
c) Now that Arafat’s nearly dying and the Arab world is about to be without a unifying factor, extremist factions will be freer to be extreme (bad for America and the world), and America going to war with Iran will certainly fuel some really bad relations with other extreme Arab entities…not that much more is needed. A level head may have and may yet be able to avert that; not Dub;
d) The checks and measures of America can protect it from a lot, but the appointment of Supreme Court Justices tend to have an affect that is felt for decades;
e) Gas could top 3.5 bucks a gallon.
f) The European Community is unifying more and more as Dub shows them his
cold shoulder more and more…any final severing of the great western
alliance is highly unlikely, but not impossible with a lunatic like this in
the White House…and if it were to occur, it would be a serious imbalancing of the globe.
g) This undermining of civil rights by the patriot act…it won’t be reversed;
h) America will lose any remaining credibility with the international
community through the act of re-electing a madman;
i) The gulf between the financial classes in this country will become so
wide, social unrest will take once again to the streets;
j) The lack of health and education to the poor will have a debilitating
effect that will last for generations to come (oops; already happened), and
k) Oil interests will be 4 more years more entrenched, making alternative
fuels more unobtainable.

Did someone mention commercial space flights here? Sign me up for the first colony leaving to planet Mars. At least I’ll have front row tickets to see this planet explode.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Ignorance knows no religion, or party line, ProfX. I think you are making a huge leap pinning the ban of supplements on the religous right.
[/quote]

Oh, don’t get me wrong. I am under the impression that the average person in America borders on idiocy as a baseline. I am not saying that ONLY the “religious right” will make this charge, but that it is more likely they will fight for it harder. I don’t see how you can claim this can’t possibly be the case when we are witnessing such vile contempt over whether some guy who no one even knows can marry some other guy who we don’t know or care about.