Republicans no longer a viable party?

[Ivan Seeking]

If Republicans allow the no-compromise tea party extremists to define the R party, and knowingly and willingly drive the US government into default, this may finally be the Republican mass suicide that I have predicted for some time now. Conservative columnist David Brooks commented on this in his July 4th column:

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

...If the debt ceiling talks fail, independent voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1

The tea partiers are apparently willing to destroy the country while conjuring and selling the illusion that they are trying to save it.

 

[Char. Limit]

Oooooooh. This is BOUND to be an interesting thread.

Subscribed. Let the fireworks begin!

NOTE: My opinion on this is that the Republican party IS too extreme. However, I believe/hope that after 2012 the most extreme members will hopefully be weeded out and the 2016 Republicans will be the kind of people I'd like to vote for.

 

[KingNothing]

I think the GOP has some real problems with extremism. There are droves of people who support the idea of smaller government, but get turned off by things like "abstinence-only education" and "teaching creationism in schools".

I don't think it will be an apocalypse, but maybe more of a painful restructuring. Sometimes the "fundamentalist" candidates do more harm than good. This goes for the Democratic party, too.

Some examples of those fundamentalists that are killing their own party should be chiming in soon in this very thread!

 

[Hurkyl]

Why aren't we viewing this as Democrats trying to extort concessions out of the Republican party?

 

[Willowz]

I wish the Independents were as strong a lever as your link describes. I mean the two party system is whhaaayy overpowered if they can go on with this game of chicken.

 

[Pythagorean]

Why aren't we viewing this as Democrats trying to extort concessions out of the Republican party?

We (I thought) were viewing this as extremist tea partiers threatening the image of republicans. Democrats don't extort concessions in general, but an extremist democrat might.

 

[turbo]

Both parties have posers and irresponsible "leaders" that get in the way of real effective reform, IMO. Here's Michael Roth's analysis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-roth/our-desperate-need-for-ho_b_893804.html

 

[WhoWee]

If Republicans allow the no-compromise tea party extremists to define the R party, and knowingly and willingly drive the US government into default, this may finally be the Republican mass suicide that I have predicted for some time now. Conservative columnist David Brooks commented on this in his July 4th column:


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1

The tea partiers are apparently willing to destroy the country while conjuring and selling the illusion that they are trying to save it.

Have we forgotten the election results last November - the electorate has spoken loud and clear to cut spending. The only way the debt ceiling will be raised is with a real agreement to cut spending. If these politicians won't do it - the next batch will - IMO.

 

[talk2glenn]

It is a curious thing.

The intent of a legislated debt ceiling is to restrict the ability of the government to borrow excessively. Republicans have conceded to raising that limit, not because it is too low, but because spending is too high - effectively defeating the purpose of having a limit in the first place.

In exchange, though, they want spending reform such that it won't be necesarry to raise the limit again in six more months. The Democrats in Congress since 2006 and the Obama administration since 2008 are on track to have borrowed more in 5 years than the combined totals of every prior administration since the end of WW2, and the CBO projects the trend will continue ad infinitum until default is the only option, excepting any arbitrary debt ceiling.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

The administration and Democrats do not want any meaningful spending reform as a condition of a hike in the debt ceiling. At best, they will agree to large tax increases and minor spending reform, only. As repeated as infinitum in numerous prior threads, there is no revenue shortage, and there is substantial historical precedent to suggest that dramatic tax hikes beyond current levels (which are more or less a Laffer optimum) will deter and/or shift production rather than raising the desired revenues. The administrations senseless appeal to the depcreciation schedule on corporate purchases of private jets is a great example. Forget for a moment that the subsidized schedule was approved by Obama and the Democratic congress to stimulate the domestic manufacturing industry as part of the stimulus package. If the older schedule is restored, businesses will not continue buying corporate jets at current rates, obviously. They will reduce expenditures thereon, and total revenues will be some fraction of the change in effective rates. They could even be negative. Democrats consistently appeal to some 1:1 relationship between tax policy changes and revenue changes, which is ridiculous on its face. The same thing is true of countless progressive policies. Higher mileage standards are expected to reduce gasoline consumption only if you assume consumers don't change their driving behavior in response to a change in the cost of driving. If it costs less to drive more miles (eg, your car is more fuel efficient) we can reasonable assume people will drive more, and consumption savings will be reduced.

Given that, Republicans aren't willing to concede. Ergo, Republicans must bedestructive and want to ruin the country - because they want to keep in place a borrowing limit that was installed to protect the country from ruin by excessive borrowing. A curious line of reasoning, indeed.

 

[mege]

NYTimes, Conservative columnist? Does not compute...

Oh you're talking about David Brooks... basically someone whom calls himself a conservative so he can 'go to the meetings'. He was the "Run, Barack, Run" guy, right? From my perspective this guy is only a conservative in so far as he hates to be called a Democrat. So in that sense he has 1/2 a brain :p

But overall - what's your point other than to flame the TEA Party? It's interesting that the TEA Party are considered idealoges for wanting to not spike taxes and (those in Congress) want to bring down spending maybe to the level it was 1-2 years ago (25% less??). But the Democrats in congress have even warned the President and stated that they won't support reducing spending on entitlements even if the Republicans capitulate on taxes. The scariest thing about these congressional Dems is that the only valid reason they can give for not cutting entitlements is that it would look bad in the next election. That's one of my biggest turn offs to any policy arguement: it will effect reelection next year. I know it's a side effect of the system, but doesn't make it right. So, who's really being immovable on their position? At least President Obama has said he's willing to reduce entitlement spending (how much is yet to be seen) as a start to reform while eliminating some of the tax loopholes.

 

[dlgoff]

Both parties have posers and irresponsible "leaders" that get in the way of real effective reform, IMO. Here's Michael Roth's analysis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-roth/our-desperate-need-for-ho_b_893804.html

Turbo!

 

[Proton Soup]

the heck with it. let it default. then we can dissolve the FED and start printing greenbacks.

 

[russ_watters]

Wait, I'm having deja vu - we already had this thread several years ago, didn't we? Probably also started by Ivan? It was sometime before the sweeping victory by the Republicans in the mid-terms last year. So this sounds like a great re-tread to me!

 

[SixNein]

If Republicans allow the no-compromise tea party extremists to define the R party, and knowingly and willingly drive the US government into default, this may finally be the Republican mass suicide that I have predicted for some time now. Conservative columnist David Brooks commented on this in his July 4th column:


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1

The tea partiers are apparently willing to destroy the country while conjuring and selling the illusion that they are trying to save it.

I think the US is in a very vicious cycle where failed policy drives the population towards more extremist ideas. The tea party mindset is becoming more and more common. I notice tea party ideas even on this forum.

 

[WhoWee]

I think the US is in a very vicious cycle where failed policy drives the population towards more extremist ideas. The tea party mindset is becoming more and more common. I notice tea party ideas even on this forum.

Hmmm, you may have a point - this indicates as many as 70 Congressional Democrats might be members of the Democratic Socialists of America?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35733956/DSA-Members-American-Socialist-Voter-Democratic-Socialists-of-America-10-1-09

 

[russ_watters]

What scares me about the process is that our leaders seem certain to lay out a roadmap to financial ruin, yet no doubt will come out congratulating themselves for how much worse it wasn't. Can you imagine if the politicians were forced to state their plans in terms of what they will do to the balance sheet how idiotic they would sound? 'I plan on increasing the national debt by 50% over 4 years... but you should thank me for not doubling it!' [and that's based on overoptimistic growth projections!]

This really could break us.

 

[phinds]

Some examples of those fundamentalists that are killing their own party should be chiming in soon in this very thread!

Well, you called that right ... but it was an easy call wasn't it. They're everywhere.

 

[WhoWee]

Why aren't we viewing this as Democrats trying to extort concessions out of the Republican party?

That is what's happening - isn't it? If you step back and analyze the situation - if the Republicans do nothing - a cut in spending will be mandated by the spending cap that is in place - won't it?

 

[turbo]

That is what's happening - isn't it? If you step back and analyze the situation - if the Republicans do nothing - a cut in spending will be mandated by the spending cap that is in place - won't it?

Let's be adults. If my wife and I spent ourselves into a hole, we would have to evaluate our budget. We could cut spending, or we could try to bring in more revenue, or we could do a combination of both.

If we had spent ourselves into a hole to the point that we'd have to pay a lot of interest to service our debt and couldn't default on that debt without losing assets, we would have to cut a LOT of spending, and bring in more revenue in order to keep up.

Right now, we have a shortage of adults in DC (on both sides), but IMO the most irresponsible children are in the GOP. They insist that there is no way that revenue (income) can be enhanced because that would entail tax-increases ( in their parlance). Forget moderating decades of tax give-aways to the rich and tax-cuts to the wealthy that led to the current US deficit. The US tax code is over 9000 pages long because of the give-aways and special incentives that have been inserted to favor wealthy donors. We need to start over.

Today, the only way the GOP would agree to balance the budget is through benefit-cuts in SS, Medicaire and other previously paid-for payroll taxes that common people might need to sustain themselves when they are elderly and at risk. Where is the GOP that used to claim to be fiscal conservatives? Why cannot businesses and the wealthy shoulder part of the load?

 

[WhoWee]

Let's be adults. If my wife and I spent ourselves into a hole, we would have to evaluate our budget. We could cut spending, or we could try to bring in more revenue, or we could do a combination of both.

If we had spent ourselves into a hole to the point that we'd have to pay a lot of interest to service our debt and couldn't default on that debt without losing assets, we would have to cut a LOT of spending, and bring in more revenue in order to keep up.

Right now, we have a shortage of adults in DC (on both sides), but IMO the most irresponsible children are in the GOP. They insist that there is no way that revenue (income) can be enhanced because that would entail tax-increases ( in their parlance). Forget moderating decades of tax give-aways to the rich and tax-cuts to the wealthy that led to the current US deficit. The US tax code is over 9000 pages long because of the give-aways and special incentives that have been inserted to favor wealthy donors. We need to start over.

Today, the only way the GOP would agree to balance the budget is through benefit-cuts in SS, Medicaire and other previously paid-for payroll taxes that common people might need to sustain themselves when they are elderly and at risk. Where is the GOP that used to claim to be fiscal conservatives? Why cannot businesses and the wealthy shoulder part of the load?

Aren't they currently spending the Social Security funds in other areas - that is a spending problem - isn't it?

 

[turbo]

Aren't they currently spending the Social Security funds in other areas - that is a spending problem - isn't it?

Let's be real. The GOP says that military spending is out of bounds. That is really huge and out of control, IMO. They also say that increasing revenue through rescinding or rolling back targeted tax cuts to industries, the wealthy are off-bounds because those are "tax increases". Is it unreasonable to cut off the ethanol subsidies? Ethanol decreases the performance of your car, and will degrade the physical condition of your older gasoline-powered machines. Plus, it forces you to buy expensive additives like Sta-Bil in order to keep the gas usable for more than a few months. Ethanol is really enriching some people, but nobody that I know.

BTW, spending of the SS funds is done through the purchase of those funds by the Treasury, which pays the fund back with bond-level interest. The people who claim that SS recipients only pay ~30% of the money that they eventually collect from SS are evidently a bit shy of a course in compound interest.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's be real. The GOP says that spending is out of bounds. That is really huge and out of control, IMO. They also say that increasing revenue through rescinding or rolling back targeted tax cuts to industries, the wealthy are off-bounds because those are "tax increases". Is it unreasonable to cut off the ethanol subsidies? Ethanol decreases the performance of your car, and will degrade the physical condition of your older gasoline-powered machines. Plus, it forces you to buy expensive additives like Sta-Bil in order to keep the gas usable for more than a few months. Ethanol is really enriching some people, but nobody that I know.

BTW, spending of the SS funds is done through the purchase of those funds by the Treasury, which pays the fund back with bond-level interest. The people who claim that SS recipients only pay ~30% of the money that they eventually collect from SS are evidently a bit shy of a course in compound interest.

I'll let President Obama sum it up - his stimulus spending must be kept up or Government job losses will continue? His claim is the stimulus "worked"?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/11/obama_public_sector_job_losses_are_evidence_that_stimulus_worked.html

In response to getting real - the Dems spent a lot of money and it didn't fix the problem - now it's time to cut those programs and tighten the belt - IMO.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... The tea partiers are apparently willing to destroy the country while conjuring and selling the illusion that they are trying to save it.

Ivan, how can you say this! :grumpy:

There are many very brilliant ladies in the Tea Party, who have deep skills in analyzing those numbers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fRxO_Yx99I&hd=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fRxO_Yx99I​

You’ve got to believe Michele Bachmann when she says:

"The Tea Party is a dynamic force for good!"​

Michele Bachmann is the only one capable of delivering a dynamic and balanced solution for the public debt:

"All of America, coming together, to beat back a totalitarian aggressor."

​

A miracle and it can happen again!

 

[WhoWee]

Ivan, how can you say this! :grumpy:

There are many very brilliant ladies in the Tea Party, who have deep skills in analyzing those numbers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fRxO_Yx99I&hd=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fRxO_Yx99I​

You’ve got to believe Michele Bachmann when she says:

"The Tea Party is a dynamic force for good!"​

Michele Bachmann is the only one capable of delivering a dynamic and balanced solution for the public debt:

"All of America, coming together, to beat back a totalitarian aggressor."
​

What part do you object to - her claim that President Obama spent over $3 Trillion and now has to find a way to pay the bill - or that his spending was a failure?​

 

[DevilsAvocado]

What part do you object to - her claim that President Obama spent over $3 Trillion and now has to find a way to pay the bill - or that his spending was a failure?

Who says I’m objecting? We all know that President Obama is guilty of everything that is wrong in the universe, and some say he even did wrong before he was even born (in the U.S.??)...

Heck, some old Germans blame Obama for losing the war (both)!

 

[WhoWee]

Who says I’m objecting? We all know that President Obama is guilty of everything that is wrong in the universe, and some say he even did wrong before he was even born (in the U.S.??)...

Heck, some old Germans blame Obama for losing the war (both)!

From your graph - it looks like he's trying to keep pace with FDR's spending - if GDP falls - do you think he might exceed FDR's record spending?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

From your graph - it looks like he's trying to keep pace with FDR's spending - if GDP falls - do you think he might exceed FDR's record spending?

You’ve got to think much bigger. Look what the man did in just a few months!

World map showing real GDP growth rates for 2009.
(Countries in brown are in recession)

 

[Proton Soup]

i'm still trying to figure out all the angst over hitting the debt ceiling. what exactly do people think will happen? there's a lot of talk about "default", but that seems unlikely. the bankers are not going to go without their cut, they'll be paid first. from there, it'll be a quick lesson in what is, and what is not essential government services. I'm going to suggest to you that this will be a more efficient and intelligent way to go about it than 500+ people in congress fighting over their pet pork.

all this talk about tea partiers seems a bit suspect, too. it's not that the republican party is not viable, but the tea partiers are not viable. tea party is more of a talking point and scarecrow, a convenient straw man for democrats to knock down on squawk shows. but tea party has no legs and will not make it past the primaries. dems would like it very much if Bachman could be nominated, but she will only end up looking foolish when the heat is turned up.

 

[SixNein]

i'm still trying to figure out all the angst over hitting the debt ceiling. what exactly do people think will happen? there's a lot of talk about "default", but that seems unlikely. the bankers are not going to go without their cut, they'll be paid first. from there, it'll be a quick lesson in what is, and what is not essential government services. I'm going to suggest to you that this will be a more efficient and intelligent way to go about it than 500+ people in congress fighting over their pet pork.

all this talk about tea partiers seems a bit suspect, too. it's not that the republican party is not viable, but the tea partiers are not viable. tea party is more of a talking point and scarecrow, a convenient straw man for democrats to knock down on squawk shows. but tea party has no legs and will not make it past the primaries. dems would like it very much if Bachman could be nominated, but she will only end up looking foolish when the heat is turned up.

I don't understand the logic used here. Default a good option?

Do you know anything at all about bond markets?

The type of government we have favours a two party system. If the tea party is successful, it will become the republican party.

 

[Proton Soup]

I don't understand the logic used here. Default a good option?

Do you know anything at all about bond markets?

The type of government we have favours a two party system. If the tea party is successful, it will become the republican party.

i don't think you're reading what i wrote.

"tea party" at best just represents a populist element that shows up almost every election cycle. and their candidates never do more than make a bunch of noise, then disappear in smoke. Nader, Buchannan, Perot... their people can never stay organized long enough to make a lasting dent in the political scene. seen it time and time again. "tea party" is nothing but a fart in the wind.

 

[SixNein]

i don't think you're reading what i wrote.

"tea party" at best just represents a populist element that shows up almost every election cycle. and their candidates never do more than make a bunch of noise, then disappear in smoke. Nader, Buchannan, Perot... their people can never stay organized long enough to make a lasting dent in the political scene. seen it time and time again. "tea party" is nothing but a fart in the wind.

They are quite influential in the house right now.

 

[Vanadium 50]

DevilsAvocado, I think you're missing a data point. Debt is $14.3T, GDP is $15.2T, so the rightmost point should be 94%.

 

[mege]

Let's be adults. If my wife and I spent ourselves into a hole, we would have to evaluate our budget. We could cut spending, or we could try to bring in more revenue, or we could do a combination of both.

If we had spent ourselves into a hole to the point that we'd have to pay a lot of interest to service our debt and couldn't default on that debt without losing assets, we would have to cut a LOT of spending, and bring in more revenue in order to keep up.

Right now, we have a shortage of adults in DC (on both sides), but IMO the most irresponsible children are in the GOP. They insist that there is no way that revenue (income) can be enhanced because that would entail tax-increases ( in their parlance). Forget moderating decades of tax give-aways to the rich and tax-cuts to the wealthy that led to the current US deficit. The US tax code is over 9000 pages long because of the give-aways and special incentives that have been inserted to favor wealthy donors. We need to start over.

Today, the only way the GOP would agree to balance the budget is through benefit-cuts in SS, Medicaire and other previously paid-for payroll taxes that common people might need to sustain themselves when they are elderly and at risk. Where is the GOP that used to claim to be fiscal conservatives? Why cannot businesses and the wealthy shoulder part of the load?

Thr trick to this is: spending has increased from ~20% of GDP to almost 25% of GDP in the course of two years (25% increase). How much revenue would actually be gained by the tax increases proposed? Enough to make a dent in that? To make up that gap individual income taxes would need to increase by more than double. The policys that have been forced through in the previous two years are exactly WHY checks and balances are present (much to the dismay of Rep. Pelosi). No Republican is under the illusion that President Bush was a fiscal hawk, and President Obama (& friendly congress at the time) blew him away in overspending and mismanagement. I, for one, hope there isn't a WW3 to pull us from this depression which saved FDR and his attempt to spend his way out.

Looking at the situation in a vacuum is where the problem is; in my mind the TEA Party is more about reversing much of the last decades regarding spending more than just the last 2 years. Looking at charts like this always are humbling wrt the Bush Tax cuts. By 2006 the individual + corporate tax incomes were higher than they were in 2002. That was the real point of the Bush cuts, right? Instead of taxes being 5:1 personal to corporate, they're more like 4:1 or 3:1 with businesses being levied a little more, relatively, over time. Expect the wealthy to invest in businesses, and according to the revenues - that plan seemed to work. Unfortunately, the crys to stop the reckless lending and trading practices regarding the subprime housing market fell on deaf politically correct "gotta do everything we can for the poor" ears and we're where we're at now. Sound like some of the arguements to continue entitlements even still? Give a government-subsidized health insurance industry 10-15 years and it could be the same thing all over again.

While I don't think the Bush tax cuts should be extended ad infinum, I think in this case the tax increase would be largely symbolic because of the idealogs in the Democratic Party which feel the need to redistribute wealth at every turn. What really needs to happen IMO is total tax reform so people and companies at all levels can't game the system and pay little, no, or the absolute minimum taxes - however you want to slice it. GE as the corporate-posterchild for running with subsidies and the 50% of individuals that only paid their SS and Medicare taxes need to be contributing more. This type of tax reform isn't what's on the table. The President is trying to bump taxes up on the wealthy only rather than a comprehensive reform which has been thrown around from time to time.

I wish there was a way to remove the political straight jacket that drives these policy changes. While the Republicans may be considered idealogs, at least they're pretty consistent. Our current President is only consistent in his inconsistency and attempt to play the high political card at every turn. If 51% of American's thought he should jump from a bridge, he probably would to maintain popularity. Isn't that one of the lessons we learned in grade school? Just because your friends think it's cool, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. He needs to make hard decisions, not easy ones. Easy decisions are too political in nature and only solidify power rather than actual resolve the situation.

 

[mege]

i'm still trying to figure out all the angst over hitting the debt ceiling. what exactly do people think will happen? there's a lot of talk about "default", but that seems unlikely. the bankers are not going to go without their cut, they'll be paid first. from there, it'll be a quick lesson in what is, and what is not essential government services. I'm going to suggest to you that this will be a more efficient and intelligent way to go about it than 500+ people in congress fighting over their pet pork.

all this talk about tea partiers seems a bit suspect, too. it's not that the republican party is not viable, but the tea partiers are not viable. tea party is more of a talking point and scarecrow, a convenient straw man for democrats to knock down on squawk shows. but tea party has no legs and will not make it past the primaries. dems would like it very much if Bachman could be nominated, but she will only end up looking foolish when the heat is turned up.

IMO what's happened is the ideas from the TEA Party core have been combined with the Christian Conservatives and these candidates are some sort of neo-con part deux. While the TEA Party ideals generally align with classic liberalism, some of the TEA Party aligned candidates (esspecially with the current Presidental batch) also have the core set of Christian Conservative beliefs which turn people off (which I find ironic, because what legislation regarding these type of beliefs has ever come close to passing?). There's a core of TEA Party voters that don't really care about the moral legislation, but will support these candidates anyhow because they see gay marriage/abortion as non-issues at the federal level anyhow.

While I don't think it's totally prudent to have Rep. Bachmann or Palin run as a Presidental candidate, I would love to have them headline the ticket just so I can call all my Democratic friends sexist for not voting for them.

 

[russ_watters]

DevilsAvocado, I think you're missing a data point. Debt is $14.3T, GDP is $15.2T, so the rightmost point should be 94%.

The last point looks like 94% to me. There's three flaws in the graph:

1. 2009 is attributed to Bush since the budget was passed under Bush. Problem: Stimulus spending started in 2009 and that was passed by Obama. That's hundreds of billions on the wrong balance sheet.
2. TARP paid out in 2008 and has paid back since then. Obama had nothing to do with getting it passed, but it basically has shown up as spending for Bush and income for Obama.
3. Bush also had limited control over tax revenue for 2009 due to his limited control over the recovery. Obama promised he'd keep unemployment below 8% and give it a downward trajectory pretty quickly - Bush gets blamed for Obama's failure.

The revision history shows revisions in the shadings and shows that this graph may be unreliable.