Republicans no longer a viable party?

  1. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,539
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2011
  2. jcsd
  3. Char. Limit

    Char. Limit 1,986
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  4. 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!
     
  5. Hurkyl

    Hurkyl 16,089
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why aren't we viewing this as Democrats trying to extort concessions out of the Republican party?
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. Pythagorean

    Pythagorean 4,632
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  8. turbo

    turbo 7,366
    Gold Member

  9. 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.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. dlgoff

    dlgoff 3,149
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

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

    Staff: Mentor

    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!
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2011
  15. SixNein

    SixNein 224
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  16. 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/...oter-Democratic-Socialists-of-America-10-1-09
     
  17. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2011
  18. phinds

    phinds 9,359
    Gold Member

    Well, you called that right ... but it was an easy call wasn't it. They're everywhere. :frown:
     
  19. 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?
     
  20. turbo

    turbo 7,366
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  21. Aren't they currently spending the Social Security funds in other areas - that is a spending problem - isn't it?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?