Republicans no longer a viable party?

[mege]

In all of that you did nothing to address Michelle Bachman's claim that there is no need to increase the debt ceiling. The link in the op was responding to this position and the unrealistic and absurd proposition that the tea partiers can bully the rest of the country into a fanatical policy. They would bring calamity to the economy. THAT is why the Republicans are unfit to govern.

Perhaps one of their Presidential candidates is fit to hold office - Romney. The rest are either fringe [eg Bachman] or could never get nominated [eg Huntsman].

That's just it though - I did answer it. The left has moved as far off center, and not just because of this current situation. Spending has increased by 25% over 2 years (not just the budget, but real federal spending) - why isn't that being considered extreme? If anything the TEA Party is a reaction to the extreme leftists that have gripped the government, not the other way around. Now that someone is calling the tax and spend liberals on their crap, they're taking offense and the only recourse is to point and say 'extremist' before the spotlight shines on them. Are the Republicans being a little non-political about the situation? Yes, but what's happened before last november was a President and Congress that were arm in arm printing money and pushing every little pet project through (but yet they couldn't decide on a budget?). Now there's resistance and it's called extremism? C'mon.

What's happening at this point, anyhow, is all posturing in Washington. The President hasn't put any specific numbers on the table (and in fairness, neither did the house bill except as goals). There's tons of rhetoric being flung, but yet the GOP/TP is getting attacked for it? I think it's absurd to be pointing fingers like that, esspecially when this whole issue is the president and 2008-2010 congress trying to pass the blame onto the GOP - and the GOP is being attacked for resisting the blame. Ultimately, some poorly thought out, noone's happy, pass it to the next congress plan will get passed so even the basic of criticisms of the harms of the TEA Party won't be realized and the cycle starts again.

 

[mege]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124906766
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/041609_extremism.pdf

Both the report and the article have zero or limited bearing on this conversation. For every group like the KKK there's an equivalently violent anti-capitalist leftist/socialist organization. Just because they (the racist/radical groups) associate with a plank or two of a political party doesn't mean they're aligned with them. These articles, if anything, only reinforce my point about the character assassination that is attempting to being done by the left. You're trying to associate some report on radical racist groups to the GOP and taking some biased NPR article out of context. Either way - even if these associations are true (they're not...) there's still zero bearing to the viability of the policy decisions that the GOP makes.

How can the GOP be 'blindly supporting Israel' but at the same time have a 'racist core' that is anti-semetic? Answer: they can't - the racist fringe groups are just that, fringe groups with no pull in the party. Whatever overlap or correlation you're trying to make is coincidental at best. This isn't the 50s and 60s when some state's Democratic conventions were held at KKK rallys. This is yet another example of what I was talking about - there's an attempt to prove that these GOP ideals are somehow aligned with the fringe groups in an effort to discredit the GOP.

Also, where were the crys of political correctness when President Bush was being called every 'retard' name in the book? If it's President Obama vs Palin or Bachmann in 2012... and Obama wins the election, does that mean that the GOP can call every leftist a sexist now? (just like the GOP is being called racist now)

 

[SixNein]

Or maybe the average collectivist is so far removed that they see even the slightest shift towards liberty and it scares them?

Why not just look at your own wording. A shift towards liberty? Your framing the discussion as if the only people who believe in liberty agree with you.

I find it quite odd that the left is trying to paint the GOP as extremists, as if the left's policies are so centrist. There are some seemingly crazy conservative ideas out there right now, but they're predictable and principled. Are taxes realistically going to be eliminated? No. Then why is it reasonable, in that same vein, that we make our taxes even more progressive? Now, I agree with one of your other posts - the tax code sucks. It needs to be revamped to eliminate the loopholes. But taxes aren't enough to get us out of this hole. Even if revenues went up a few percentage points that won't come close to putting a dent into the extra 25% that federal spending has ballooned over the past 2 years. In a related note - there's an interesting article about federal employees and how http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/debt-talks-continue-feds-are-hiring-and-never-firing . Are the government's hiring practices so secure that they only let go of 1/6th of the employees compared to private sector jobs?

I think many people have taken the tax issue to the point of religion. The economist recently had a good article on the topic:

http://www.economist.com/node/18897489

Part of why I identify with the GOP, and TEA Party, in basic principle, is that when the government expands, it's almost impossible to shrink. What's an example of a major federal program which has just stopped existing? There have been a few name changes and revisions, but whenever a federal job/entity gets created it's generally around for good. That's a definite problem as time goes on - what's the leftist solution? Tax the rich! Even that will only work so long - what happens when there's no more rich to tax and your poor are still poor? Basically everyone is poor then, is that the leftist utopia? I hope not, and I will vote and campaign against it. I still stand by my opinion that if gay marriage and abortions were non-issues the GOP would win in landslides, over and over. Basically, in my mind the collectivists attempt to monopolize feminist ideals and present contradictory economic policys to attempt to rally their base whole heartedly against the GOP.

Why not name a few major federal programs you would think should disappear?

I'm liberal at least compared to you, and I could offer solutions on a number of issues. For example, Gay marriage is a result of where government has crossed the separation of church and state. Government should get out of the business of marriage entirely; instead, the government should have civil unions for any kind of partnership. Poverty in America could be partially combated with a focus on family. Many failed relationships with children produce single mothers raising children; as a result, poverty levels increase. There are many other areas that can be improved, but they require serious discussions instead of narratives. Unfortunately, serious discussions are hard to come by because of so many rigid ideologies.

I'm simply for practical governance where problems are identified, understood, and finally solved. My dream government is a boring one that functions scientifically instead of ideologically.

Finally there's the point of hate and how I feel many of the left have lost their perspective. Now my opinion may be a little slanted, but I cannot find any attempts by conservatives to silence liberals. How many petitions have circulated the internet, however, to 'ban conservative talk radio'. Where is the hate coming from? I don't feel any animosity towards political opposites, but turbo-1 in your ranting post about a slow driver - you made sure to point out that they had TEA Party bumper stickers (and I'm guessing you were seeing red because of it). Now, maybe this opinion is a bit hypocritical and I admit that - but it still doesn't mean I hate those of the opposite political affiliation. There are some that are posting in this thread which have some 'GOP ran over my dog' type hate in them, which is hardly productive - but to me it reinforces that many of the lefts policies are made with the heart instead of the head. This type of reaction is why I feel the argument that the 'GOP has become extreme' is flawed - it's purely emotional and no real basis outside of 'a feeling'.

I think many Americans on both sides have lost perspective. Sometimes it is well to remember the person you argue with is a decent person and can be right.

Unfortunately, the media takes hold of feelings more than it does facts - 'real life has a left slant' when you ignore reason and fact. Now there is a resurgance of intellectualism in an attempt to 'prove' the GOP wrong. It seems I see, from my collectivist friends on facebook, a new 'fact' weekly about how the GOP is biggoted and hateful. (my favorite was a survey of a bunch of folks from mississippi - one of the questions was regarding interracial marriage, 50% self-identified republicans thought it should not be allowed - the democrat data was mysteriously missing for that sub-question (but was present for other portions of the survey results). Of course the leftists immediately draw the conclusion that 'GOP = racist' rather than a more general 'southern more likely to be racist' which is probably the truth).

I see this behaviour out of both sides. My greatest concern regarding media is unfiltered information. I'm not convinced that the average person has the ability to filter information.

 

[SixNein]

Both the report and the article have zero or limited bearing on this conversation. For every group like the KKK there's an equivalently violent anti-capitalist leftist/socialist organization. Just because they (the racist/radical groups) associate with a plank or two of a political party doesn't mean they're aligned with them. These articles, if anything, only reinforce my point about the character assassination that is attempting to being done by the left. You're trying to associate some report on radical racist groups to the GOP and taking some biased NPR article out of context. Either way - even if these associations are true (they're not...) there's still zero bearing to the viability of the policy decisions that the GOP makes.

How can the GOP be 'blindly supporting Israel' but at the same time have a 'racist core' that is anti-semetic? Answer: they can't - the racist fringe groups are just that, fringe groups with no pull in the party. Whatever overlap or correlation you're trying to make is coincidental at best. This isn't the 50s and 60s when some state's Democratic conventions were held at KKK rallys. This is yet another example of what I was talking about - there's an attempt to prove that these GOP ideals are somehow aligned with the fringe groups in an effort to discredit the GOP.

Also, where were the crys of political correctness when President Bush was being called every 'retard' name in the book? If it's President Obama vs Palin or Bachmann in 2012... and Obama wins the election, does that mean that the GOP can call every leftist a sexist now? (just like the GOP is being called racist now)

No, I'm basing my sources off of discussions I have seen at heavy tea party traffic sites like the following:
http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/

The website is like extremism in a bottle.

 

[mege]

Why not just look at your own wording. A shift towards liberty? Your framing the discussion as if the only people who believe in liberty agree with you.

What's the implication? My premise is that this case for extremism is caused by a further shift on the left than on the right. My comment was meant to be taken a bit lightly as a transition. Your reaction to it might hint, as well, that you're less worried about it than I anyhow.

I think many people have taken the tax issue to the point of religion. The economist recently had a good article on the topic:

http://www.economist.com/node/18897489

Ann Coulter wrote a book about the Church of Liberalism, and their blind adherence to ideals several years ago. It's quite good, actually.

Why not name a few major federal programs you would think should disappear?

Department of Education, Department of Commerce, Department of Consumer Protection (or whatever they're calling it now), and Department of Labor to start. IMO these are all reactionary cabinet-level departments which had zero use outside of being political. "Hey look what I did for education, I created a department for it!" There's little that's done except be a clearing house for money, and between these 4 department the government employs over 100,000 people. They're self-serving with little practical purpose other than to have the government's obstructive hand in their respective areas.

I'm liberal at least compared to you, and I could offer solutions on a number of issues. For example, Gay marriage is a result of where government has crossed the separation of church and state. Government should get out of the business of marriage entirely; instead, the government should have civil unions for any kind of partnership. Poverty in America could be partially combated with a focus on family. Many failed relationships with children produce single mothers raising children; as a result, poverty levels increase. There are many other areas that can be improved, but they require serious discussions instead of narratives. Unfortunately, serious discussions are hard to come by because of so many rigid ideologies.

I agree on same-sex marriage, in a similar fashion. Marriage is a religious context that the government has decided to sanction for various legal simplifications. I feel that if same-sex couples feel so slighted under the law, then why not go to the source of the issue? If the discrimination was founded, why haven't gay couples sued, for instance, hospitals or insurance companies that denied coverage? This is a whole other debate - the relevency to this discussion, in my mind, comes down to the handling of DOMA. The President has little standing to 'declare the law void' like he tried to do. At least there's hearings in congress going on now about it.

Regarding family structure - I 100% agree. The welfare state, however, further allows for the degrading of the family unit. Single mothers no longer need to find a working husband, instead they can 'marry' the state in a sense. I'm OK with true-to-god safety nets being in place, but what needs to stop is the sustinance programs that exist in which people live their life tethered to government assistance. There needs to be exit strategies in place to move people off of government assistance. Unfortunately a 'get a job' ammendment to welfare isn't politically prudent.

I'm simply for practical governance where problems are identified, understood, and finally solved. My dream government is a boring one that functions scientifically instead of ideologically.

Here is some place I disagree - the government shouldn't need to be solving the issues of its citizens.

I think many Americans on both sides have lost perspective. Sometimes it is well to remember the person you argue with is a decent person and can be right.



I see this behaviour out of both sides. My greatest concern regarding media is unfiltered information. I'm not convinced that the average person has the ability to filter information.

No argument here.

 

[daveb]

Department of Education, Department of Commerce, Department of Consumer Protection (or whatever they're calling it now), and Department of Labor to start.

I would have to disagree with you on these points (with caveats).

Dept. of Education:
As part of my M.Ed. program, I had to read (it seems) about a billion scholarly articles about a myriad of topics. I don't have them on my work computer (they're at home), but the crux of many of the articles is that K-12 STEM education in the US is mediocre at best when compared to educational systems worldwide (see the Nation's Report Card). Nordic countries such as Finland and Denmark, and S Korea have especially good educational systems. One of the main reasons for this was attributed to the the standardization of the curriculum in these countries (there were other reasons as well). The problem in the US is the Department of Education doesn't have standardization - it leaves the specific standards up to each state. So, if some state's students do poorly on their tests, the state just lowers the standard. The Department of Education needs to have national standards. So, in part, you are right. As it stands now, it isn't doing a very good job. If improved, there is a great need for it.

Dept. of Commerce
This department oversees the census, NIST, NOAA, and the patent office, among others. I don't see how eleimination of these programs would better the country.

Department of Consumer Protection
OK, since it's new, we'll have to wait and see. But (assuming their name reflects what they oversee), I would want Consumer Protection. Just like the ACLU's stated purpose is to protect civil liberties and defend the Bill of Rights (how can anyone disagree with wanting to protect those, despite disagreement about what constitutes civil liberties), I would want some type of government agency to ensure consumers are protected from dangerous products (I have to wonder why the FDA isn't under them, though).

Dept. of Labor
While I don't think it's as prevalent today as previous years, there is still discrimination in employment practices. In addition, OSHA is a necessary organization that protects workers from unsafe conditions.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with all their requirements, each of these serves a necessary function. Now, could some of the programs be eliminated - certainly (I can't say which since I don't have deep knowledge of all their programs). But elimination of the Departments is a tad extreme (IMO) unless you're simply advocating consolidating the necessary funstions of each into a single Department.

 

[daveb]

Here is some place I disagree - the government shouldn't need to be solving the issues of its citizens.

While I respect his opinion, I disagree. The issues of a government are the issues of its citizens, and vice versa. Sometimes citizens are unable to solve their own issues due to physical inability, or more powerful interests preventing them from solving it. As I am fond of saying, while it's true I don't trust the government, I trust big business even less. Of course, that's the difference between those on the liberal side vs the conservative side - the role of government in its citizens' lives.

However, I do agree that the hate-mongering, vitriol and propaganda ia rampant on both sides. The constant "he said/she said" (i.e., they started it first) serves no purpose.

 

[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.

Re-starting with the OP is always a good idea - thank you Ivan.

David Brooks made a comment in your link that warrants discussion - his basic premise might be incorrect?
"The Republicans have changed American politics since they took control of the House of Representatives. They have put spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda. They have sparked a discussion on entitlement reform. They have turned a bill to raise the debt limit into an opportunity to put the U.S. on a stable fiscal course."

Did the Republicans change American politics - or did the voters send the Republicans back to Washington last Fall with a mandate to cut spending and lower the debt?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/02/poll-closing-key-east-coast-races-balance-power-line/
"Riding a wave of voter frustration over the economy and the federal government itself, the Republican Party sailed into the majority in the House of Representatives Tuesday with victories projected to be on a scale not seen since the end of the New Deal. "

Next, from SixNein's link
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=124906766
"A new poll from Harris interactive finds that 40 percent of American adults think that Obama is a socialist; 25 percent believe that Obama was not born in the United States and is therefore not eligible to be president; 20 percent say Obama is doing many of the things that Hitler did; 14 percent say Obama "may be the Antichrist.""

If SixNein's information is correct - President Obama is the extremist with 40% of Americans thinking he's a Socialist- assuming socialism is still an extremist idea in the US?

As for your last post Ivan
"In all of that you did nothing to address Michelle Bachman's claim that there is no need to increase the debt ceiling. The link in the op was responding to this position and the unrealistic and absurd proposition that the tea partiers can bully the rest of the country into a fanatical policy. They would bring calamity to the economy. THAT is why the Republicans are unfit to govern.

Perhaps one of their Presidential candidates is fit to hold office - Romney. The rest are either fringe [eg Bachman] or could never get nominated [eg Huntsman]."

Again, MB is speaking for a large block of voters - the ones that put the Republicans back in the House. Her voice rally's the Tea Party base - and her NO vote on the debt ceiling isn't needed - is it?

We all know the debt ceiling will be raised - probably for another few months rather than until after the 2012 election as President Obama would prefer - but cuts in spending and a deficit reduction (debt repayment) plan will be necessary.

As for taxes - President Obama has made it very clear that taxes will need to increase to pay for his spending. Although he claims raising taxes on people who own corporate jets is the answer - we all know it's not enough. The only fair solution is to raise everyone's taxes - given only 40%+ of Americans actually pay FEDERAL income taxes presently.

President Obama made the tax increases required quite clear.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html
"Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
February 26, 2009 12:00 PM

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals."

This budget was voted down by a large majority. However and again, if President Obama and Democrat leaders are unsuccessful in putting all of these tax increases onto the backs of people earning $250k and up - if cuts in spending are unacceptable then everyone will face the reality of tax increases as the bill must be paid.

 

[WhoWee]

While I respect his opinion, I disagree. The issues of a government are the issues of its citizens, and vice versa. Sometimes citizens are unable to solve their own issues due to physical inability, or more powerful interests preventing them from solving it. As I am fond of saying, while it's true I don't trust the government, I trust big business even less. Of course, that's the difference between those on the liberal side vs the conservative side - the role of government in its citizens' lives.

However, I do agree that the hate-mongering, vitriol and propaganda ia rampant on both sides. The constant "he said/she said" (i.e., they started it first) serves no purpose.

That is why we should take President Obama at his word?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256288/senator-barack-obama-explaining-his-2006-vote-against-raising-debt-limit-andrew-c-mcca
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

President Obama was also clear about the timing of tax increases to pay for his spending:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/obama-i-want-raise-taxes-after-im-reelected

He specifies taxes need to be raised in 2013 "and the out years" - after the election and after he is out of office - the Republicans want to deal with the problem of spending and taxes NOW not later - is that wrong?

 

[daveb]

That is why we should take President Obama at his word?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256288/senator-barack-obama-explaining-his-2006-vote-against-raising-debt-limit-andrew-c-mcca
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

President Obama was also clear about the timing of tax increases to pay for his spending:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/obama-i-want-raise-taxes-after-im-reelected

He specifies taxes need to be raised in 2013 "and the out years" - after the election and after he is out of office - the Republicans want to deal with the problem of spending and taxes NOW not later - is that wrong?

Umm...WHAT? What in blazes are you disagreeing with in my post? I didn't say a single thing about Obama! And you ask others if they're trolls, or use strawmen?

 

[WhoWee]

Umm...WHAT? What in blazes are you disagreeing with in my post? I didn't say a single thing about Obama! And you ask others if they're trolls, or use strawmen?

You posted "The constant "he said/she said" (i.e., they started it first) serves no purpose."
My point is we must listen to what are leaders really say - regardless of how the pose the argument - the truth is in there somewhere. In my example, Senator Obama was against raising the debt limit and gave his reasons. Once elected, he oversaw huge spending increases. Now, he's clear the debt ceiling must be raised and taxes will need to be raised to pay for the spending. In lieu of cuts, I tend to agree with his words - as many others have - I just don't agree with his philosophy. This is not a strawman - I'm basically in agreement about your he said/she said argument - it goes nowhere.

Instead, you have to step back and look at the collection of a politicians speeches, votes, arguments, compromises, and strategies.

 

[daveb]

You posted "The constant "he said/she said" (i.e., they started it first) serves no purpose."
My point is we must listen to what are leaders really say - regardless of how the pose the argument - the truth is in there somewhere. In my example, Senator Obama was against raising the debt limit and gave his reasons. Once elected, he oversaw huge spending increases. Now, he's clear the debt ceiling must be raised and taxes will need to be raised to pay for the spending. In lieu of cuts, I tend to agree with his words - as many others have - I just don't agree with his philosophy. This is not a strawman - I'm basically in agreement about your he said/she said argument - it goes nowhere.

Instead, you have to step back and look at the collection of a politicians speeches, votes, arguments, compromises, and strategies.

Ah! As Emily Litella would say..."Nevermind!"

 

[mheslep]

... WE ARE WORRIED!

P.S. What happened to this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLdA1ikkoEc

The sentiment expressed in that inauguration speech, that the US will continue indefinitely to protect allies now utterly uninterested in protecting themselves is gone."[URL politics
Charlemagne's notebook
Libya, Europe and the future of NATO
Always waiting for the US cavalry[/URL]

... However, while every alliance member voted for Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission. Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t. The military capabilities simply aren’t there.
...
Furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country – yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the US, once more, to make up the difference.

 

[BobG]

Regarding family structure - I 100% agree. The welfare state, however, further allows for the degrading of the family unit. Single mothers no longer need to find a working husband, instead they can 'marry' the state in a sense. I'm OK with true-to-god safety nets being in place, but what needs to stop is the sustinance programs that exist in which people live their life tethered to government assistance. There needs to be exit strategies in place to move people off of government assistance. Unfortunately a 'get a job' ammendment to welfare isn't politically prudent.

Maybe I'm missing something here, since states control their own welfare programs, supplemented by grants from the federal govt and a few limitations imposed by the federal govt if the states want to remain eligible for the grants.

Don't welfare recipients already have to find a job within 2 years?
http://www.welfareinfo.org/

The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits.

I know there's some loopholes in some states, such as if the recipient is enrolled in some sort of job training program or college, but I thought the "get a job" amendment to welfare was implemented around 1996. In fact, welfare reform was one of the successes of a Republican Congress.

 

[WhoWee]

I RARELY agree with Senator Lindsey Graham - but he said something very interesting in an interview tonight. In response to John McClain, he recalled the Balanced Budget Amendment missed by only 1 vote a decade ago - now we have at least $5 to $6Trillion more debt (he also cited George Stephanopoulis' book regarding how close the vote was). He called for a narrow Bill Up/Down for balanced budget - not a packaged deal - and I think he MIGHT be correct.

 

[CAC1001]

And this proves you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I guess you never heard of the Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station?

My computer's motherboard petered out on me so I was unable to connect to the Internet or the last week and a half (have to catch up on this thread!), but to answer your point, of course I have heard of them. I think you are mis-interpreting my point though (or maybe I wasn't writing my point in a clear way), I'm not saying NASA itself is some complete waste of money, but that, as an agency, it can blow money on things above and beyond what it should.

Space shuttle applications have included:

• Science
• Astronomy
• Crystal growth
• Space physics
• Crew rotation and servicing of Mir and the International Space Station (ISS)
• Manned servicing missions, such as to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST)
• Manned experiments in low Earth orbit (LEO)
• Components for the construction of the ISS
• Supplies in Spacehab modules or Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules
• Carried satellites with a booster, the Payload Assist Module (PAM-D)
• Chandra X-ray Observatory
• Many TDRS satellites
• Two DSCS-III (Defense Satellite Communications System)
• A Defense Support Program satellite
• Magellan probe
• Galileo spacecraft
• Ulysses probe

The whole point of fundamental research is that we know from the beginning that all projects won’t be successful. But some of them will be very successful, and make all the difference in the world.

My understanding of it though is that the Space Shuttle costed far more than it was supposed to and was far more complex than it was originally supposed to be.

I.e., we need to "waste" money, on some project that will not be successful, to find those that is very successful – that’s the whole point!

No one can handpick the "good stuff" in advance, not even Einstein. Not one person on this planet could predict the importance of the research by Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, et al, on quantum theory/quantum mechanics. Not one.

Still, without the hard work of these guys, there would be no nuclear power, no internet, no IC computers, no cellular phones, no communication satellites, no GPS, no LCD, no HDD, etc, etc, etc, etc...

Hey, I am all for spending lots on a space program, but the space program must be devoted to actual space exploration and research, as it originally was, as opposed to becoming a government agency that just does everything it can in order to stay alive, which is what NASA became. Unfortunately this is a result of the public and the government losing interest completely in space.

What do you think Michele Bachman would have said to these QM geniuses?

- Sorry guys, it looks interesting, maybe, but we’re going to buy guns and bibles...​

Actually, I think someone like Bachmann would be all for something like space exploration. Usually things like defense and space exploration are things Republicans are willing to spend lots of money on, they tend to be against things like entitlements. Usually (at least from what I have seen/read), it is the Democrats and Left who argue against spending money on things like outer space (usually the argument is put forward that we should use the money on poverty-fighting programs and healthcare and so forth).

Yes, there were tragic disasters in the Shuttle program, but there is no way for you today, to evaluate if the program was a complete waste of money, or not.

No, but it was like a typical government program in that the costs and complexity of it ballooned far beyond what they were supposed to.

Unless Michele Bachman becomes President, the exploration of space has just begun, and all the knowledge gained in the Shuttle program will of course have great value in the future, for coming generations.

Sure, but what makes you think Bachmann would kill the space program (or has she said such?). Current President Barack Obama killed the follow-on to the Space Shuttle NASA had planned. As it currently stands, unless Space-X can start successfully launching people into space, the United States is now dependent on the Russians to launch our astronauts into space.

 

[mege]

Actually, I think someone like Bachmann would be all for something like space exploration. Usually things like defense and space exploration are things Republicans are willing to spend lots of money on, they tend to be against things like entitlements. Usually (at least from what I have seen/read), it is the Democrats and Left who argue against spending money on things like outer space (usually the argument is put forward that we should use the money on poverty-fighting programs and healthcare and so forth).



No, but it was like a typical government program in that the costs and complexity of it ballooned far beyond what they were supposed to.



Sure, but what makes you think Bachmann would kill the space program (or has she said such?). Current President Barack Obama killed the follow-on to the Space Shuttle NASA had planned. As it currently stands, unless Space-X can start successfully launching people into space, the United States is now dependent on the Russians to launch our astronauts into space.

Wrt GOP and space funding - it's tied into Global Competitiveness. If NASA is providing research that keeps the US globally competitive, then it's worth it. Because of the hyper-internationalization of the space projects in the last 20 years, GOP favor for NASA has slipped. It's seen has the US funding the competitiveness of other countrys in some ways, rather than just for the US.

Bottom line, however, if NASA was efficient and producing results within budget, the GOP would still give it a thumbs up. I think Rep. Bachmann is actually for limiting NASA, but mostly because it has become a poster-child for gov't waste more than any intrinsic scientific misgivings.

 

[BobG]

Getting back on topic, I think the debt ceiling dilemma in the House may be the most realistic indication that the Republican Party may not be a viable party.

In order for this to be the nail in the coffin of Obama's re-election hopes, Republicans actually have to have a bill that gets voted on by the House - and then the Senate. If they can't even get a bill to a vote in the House, this whole thing falls apart for them.

And right now, your Republican House leaders can't get a bill that even Republicans agree on.

Or, as John McCain said:

The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue and the public will turn en masse against Barack Obama... Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea party hobbits could return to Middle-earth having defeated Mordor.

He goes on to say:

This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP Senate nominees.

The reality is the debt limit will be raised one way or the other... If conservatives defeat the [GOP] plan, they will not only undermine their House majority, they will go far to reelecting Mr. Obama and making entitlements that much harder to reform.

Mark Meckler of the Tea Party Patriots responded via CNN.

Clearly he's been corrupted by the ring of power.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mccain-tea-party-20110728,0,2277765.story

Right now, I think it has to be acknowledged that the Republican Party has split and that the Tea Party is pretty much a de facto political party of its own, independent of the Republican Party. Regardless of whether that turns out to be true, the inability of Boehner to bring the Tea Party caucus into line pretty much dooms any chance of getting a legislative bill that has any chance of reaching Obama's desk.

 

[BobG]

One effect of the debt ceiling debate will be Tea Party groups going on the attack against Republicans.

Tea Party groups targeting defectors

Except in this case, defecting means Republicans voting for the Republican debt ceiling bill.

Does it matter? It sure does when Tea Party candidates run as Republicans in the primaries. Primary elections are notorious for poor turnout. Primary elections are the perfect target for fringe groups, since an effort to turn out your supporters for a primary election have a much better chance of paying off than in the general election.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the credible Republicans should cut a deal with Dems in the House. That is the solution here.

They have to make the tea party irrelevant and force a split. But either way, the Reps have big problems. What they should do is target moderate Dems.

 

[BobG]

I think the credible Republicans should cut a deal with Dems in the House. That is the solution here.

They have to make the tea party irrelevant and force a split. But either way, the Reps have big problems. What they should do is target moderate Dems.

I'm pretty sure that that will be the final result after all is said and done. The debt ceiling bill will be written by a Democrat (maybe Reid's bill?) and will be just good enough to pull in just enough Republican votes to pass. They have to hold out as long as possible, though, and give Boehner every chance possible to make this a Republican bill. It's going to be pretty bad if the majority party winds up having the minority party write this legislation.

 

[WhoWee]

I think the credible Republicans should cut a deal with Dems in the House. That is the solution here.

They have to make the tea party irrelevant and force a split. But either way, the Reps have big problems. What they should do is target moderate Dems.

I hope Boehner has a strategy worked out with a few key Senate Republicans - someone needs to close Harry Reid. IMO - the President will sign whatever Reid puts on his desk.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Iowa Republican primary debate last night.

BAIER: Well, I’m going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage. Say you had a deal, a real spending cuts deal, 10 to one, as — as Byron said, spending cuts to tax increases.

Speaker, you’re already shocking your head.

But who on this stage would walk away from that deal?

Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10 to one deal?

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/08/12/full-transcript-complete-text-of-the-iowa-republican-debate-on-fox-news-channel/

I believe every candidate raised their hand. Not one would support any taxes even given a 10:1 deal on spending cuts to tax increases. However, when we consider what the American people want...

A slew of 23 recent polls compiled by the website Capital Gains and Games show that Americans overwhelmingly support tax increases as a way to reduce the deficit.

The polls, posted by Bruce Bartlett -- a former official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush who later became a critic of George W. Bush, span the last several months and suggest that Americans consistently believe deficit reductions should not be achieved by spending cuts alone.

An August 10 Gallup poll cited in the compilation, 66 percent of respondents said they thought the federal debt should be reduced by including income tax increases for upper-income Americans

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20091210-503544.html

So again we see that the entire cast of players is out of step with mainstream America. But they have no choice but to appeal to their base if they are to win the primary. Even worse, their position is logically and morally flawed. There is no justification for this absurd, purely ideological position. And, finally, America is smelling a rat. Congress has never seen such low approval ratings. It seems the tea party hasn't quite captured the heart of the country.

David Gergen's comment today comes to mind: ~ Obama has a lot of problems and he's injured. The only thing he has going for him is the field of Republicans!

The Republicans have allowed the radical right to completely define the party, and now they will pay for that.

 

[CAC1001]

So again we see that the entire cast of players is out of step with mainstream America. But they have no choice but to appeal to their base if they are to win the primary. Even worse, their position is logically and morally flawed. There is no justification for this absurd, purely ideological position.

Yes there is. The fact that almost every time in recent history tax increases are agreed to with corresponding spending cuts, the cuts never occur. So why agree to tax increases if spending cuts are promised when the cuts likely will not occur?

 

[turbo]

So again we see that the entire cast of players is out of step with mainstream America. But they have no choice but to appeal to their base if they are to win the primary. Even worse, their position is logically and morally flawed. There is no justification for this absurd, purely ideological position. And, finally, America is smelling a rat. Congress has never seen such low approval ratings. It seems the tea party hasn't quite captured the heart of the country

It's worse than that, IMO. The GOP that I used to whole-heartedly endorse when I was in my teens an twenties (to the disgust of my father, whose family suffered through the Depression) has given in completely to the Grover Norquist-led anti-tax movement.

It is obvious that in order for our government to have revenues to work with, taxes and fees must be levied. The hard-right (which now encompasses most of the mainstream GOP, it seems) denies this, and claims that we must cut taxes to get out of our debt problems. Huh? If we look at our household finances (which the GOP continuously holds up as an example of "living within our means"), this would be tantamount to claiming that we would be in better financial shape by reducing our family's income (wage-reduction, or fewer worked hours, perhaps) because that would force us to budget and spend less. That's a pretty stupid idea. There are plenty of things that we can stop spending on (defense, ethanol, mega-farm subsidies, etc come to mind) to reduce spending without FIRST reducing our income. It is sad that our supposedly "liberal" media can't manage to cover this mendacity.

 

[DoggerDan]

Yes there is. The fact that almost every time in recent history tax increases are agreed to with corresponding spending cuts, the cuts never occur. So why agree to tax increases if spending cuts are promised when the cuts likely will not occur?

I agree. Show me the cuts, first. However, there's nothing wrong with cutting the taxes at the same time.

I've not done the best job of saving for my retirement. I did better in the second half of my career than the first, but had I done the same things during the first half, I'd have three to four times as much, not just twice as much.

Now I'm living in a 1 BR, 1 BA apartment, spend less than $50 on internet+phone+movies, and shop the generic foods. I'm spending about half of what I used to spend each month. Why? I have to, as that's all I can afford!

It's why I support both a balanced budget as well as a zero dollar debt ceiling.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes there is. The fact that almost every time in recent history tax increases are agreed to with corresponding spending cuts, the cuts never occur. So why agree to tax increases if spending cuts are promised when the cuts likely will not occur?

Exactly. Newt specified instead of a new group of 12 - why not send of all the existing committees back to find fraud, waste, duplication and other potential cuts ALREADY under their control? Why do we refuse to hold these people accountable?

 

[WhoWee]

Rick Perry made it official - let the religious attacks from the (apparently God-less?) Left begin - IMO.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/13/us-usa-politics-perry-idUSTRE77C1EI20110813?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71

"Rick Perry, the conservative governor of Texas, declared himself a candidate for president on Saturday, shaking up the race for the Republican nomination to face Democratic President Barack Obama in 2012."

 

[OmCheeto]

P.S. What happened to this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLdA1ikkoEc

me: democrat: April 2009: Decided I should invest in America, and asked my brother what he thought of GE as an investment
my brother: republican: April 2009: told me not to buy GE because they did business with Iran
me: democrat: April 2009: googled "American companies that did business with Iran". Saw Halliburton on the list. Bought GE.

me: democrat: May 2009: purchased http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Cities_Assembly_Plant" .
my brother: republican: May 2009: purchased http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_%28automobile%29" .

me: democrat: April 2011: sold all my stock in GE when I found out they'd given America the "We don't need to pay no stinking taxes" finger. Invested all the profits in an upstart company. (The one that made me $500 in one hour on Tuesday. :!))
my brother: republican: July 2011: Works as an engineer for Xerox. Told me his job was being outsourced to India.

being a democrat: free
paying taxes: ~$15,000/year
knowing my republican brother's job is being outsourced to India: priceless

There are some things that money can buy, but the best things in life are when you can just say; "Ha! Ha!"

 

[Willowz]

Newt Gingrich = Dick Cheyney [?]

 

[CAC1001]

It is obvious that in order for our government to have revenues to work with, taxes and fees must be levied. The hard-right (which now encompasses most of the mainstream GOP, it seems) denies this, and claims that we must cut taxes to get out of our debt problems. Huh?

The GOP recognizes that much of our problems are also due to spending too much. No amount of money will fix the problem of a government that spends too much. Just look at California's current financial predicament for example. That said, the idea behind the tax cuts many in the GOP are calling for is to reduce rates and simplify the tax code, but end all the various loop holes. That is what was done to a good degree under Ronald Reagan. Some people were ticked off when the top rate was reduced from 70% to 28% because certain loopholes they made use of were closed, and they ended up paying more money to the government.

Bill O'Reilly I know has called for a national sales tax to tap into the underground economy (a trillion dollars he says).

If we look at our household finances (which the GOP continuously holds up as an example of "living within our means"), this would be tantamount to claiming that we would be in better financial shape by reducing our family's income (wage-reduction, or fewer worked hours, perhaps) because that would force us to budget and spend less. That's a pretty stupid idea.

IMO, if a family is spending too excessively and getting themselves into crazy levels of debt, that is precisely one of the things that should be done. Cut their income enough to force them to start living within their means. What the Democrats are suggesting is to give this family that is spending excessively an even higher income to fix their problems. You do that, and you'll only see them get into even higher levels of debt.

There are plenty of things that we can stop spending on (defense, ethanol, mega-farm subsidies, etc come to mind) to reduce spending without FIRST reducing our income. It is sad that our supposedly "liberal" media can't manage to cover this mendacity.

Regarding areas of legitimate waste in defense, I agree with cutting, but many areas of defense need to be increased as it is, not decreased. They can't be done because the money isn't there right now, but cutting those areas would be too dangerous. Defense spending, as a percentage of the GDP, as a percentage of the federal budget, and as a percentage of government spending, is at historical lows as it is. Also, defense is not the main budget buster. You could eliminate the entire defense budget and still not close the deficit.

Ethanol I agree with, but that will never happen because any politician who supports cutting ethanol subsidies slits their throat with the Iowa vote (which I really find dispicable, as are so many Iowans of the mindset that they are entitled to freebies from the government and will punish someone who removes them?). Mega-farm subsidies I also agree with.

 

[CAC1001]

knowing my republican brother's job is being outsourced to India: priceless

Part of free trade.

 

[turbo]

There are some things that money can buy, but the best things in life are when you can just say; "Ha! Ha!"

Years back, I owned one of the first Datsun/Nissan 4x4 pickups in the area. Some of the rabid flag-wavers on the paper machine gave me crap for driving a Japanese vehicle, even though it was built in Smyrna by US workers. Most telling was the fact that I was the only person in the paper machine crew that owned a Harley. Everybody else that had a motorcycle rode Japanese bikes. When one of those jerks gave me crap about my truck, I'd let it ride until a few of their "buy American" friends were present and let them have it and ask them what they were riding.

More recently, I got crap from a brother-in-law for buying a Honda Ridgeline pickup. Clueless, as usual, he had no idea that they are all built here in the US. There isn't a market in Japan for an AWD crew cab 3/4 ton pickup with 5000# towing capacity. The right-wing seems to have managed to tap into knee-jerk nationalism in their base - not that they haven't been working at it for decades.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe every candidate raised their hand. Not one would support any taxes even given a 10:1 deal on spending cuts to tax increases. However, when we consider what the American people want...

So again we see that the entire cast of players is out of step with mainstream America.

Before the election last year, Obama called for an INCREASE in spending. So who'se really more out of step?

It's primary season - it is natural for them to appeal to their base.

 

[turbo]

Before the election last year, Obama called for an INCREASE in spending. So who'se really more out of step?

It's primary season - it is natural for them to appeal to their base.

Russ, that's all well and good during the primary season. What's going to happen to the GOP nominee in the general election when the Dems replay footage from the debate and NO GOP candidate would agree to take a deficit-reduction deal that had 10 parts cost-cutting to 1 part revenue increases?

IMO, Grover Norquist and his ilk are going to radicalize and marginalize the GOP to the point where the past checks-and-balances of a 2-party system will no longer be viable. That's not good for the country.