News Republicans no longer a viable party?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights concerns that the Republican Party is being defined by tea party extremists, potentially leading to a government default and damaging the party's viability. Conservative columnist David Brooks argues that Republicans are resisting necessary compromises, which could alienate independent voters who may view them as unfit to govern. The conversation also touches on the need for spending reform and the perception that Democrats are unwilling to cut entitlements, while Republicans are seen as inflexible on tax increases. Participants express frustration with both parties, suggesting that extremism is hindering effective governance and reform. The overall sentiment is that the current political climate could lead to a painful restructuring for the Republican Party.
  • #451
turbo said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #452
OmCheeto said:
knowing my republican brother's job is being outsourced to India: priceless

Part of free trade.
 
  • #453
OmCheeto said:
There are some things that money can buy, but the best things in life are when you can just say; "Ha! Ha!"

:blushing:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #454
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
  • #455
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #456
russ_watters said:
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.

Since you didn't cite any specific reference and only provided a generic, unsupported allegation, there is no way to even in respond to that statement.

If you mean in terms of stimulus, that isn't a matter of appealing to the base. That is a matter of economics and a struggling recovery. I as much as anyone want to see a reduction in spending and a balanced budget, but how we do that, and how fast, are different matters all together. Drastic spending cuts now could stifle the recovery, reduce growth, and throw us into a double-dip recession. Given the problems in Europe, the situation is still quite critical. For now, and only for now, reduced growth could be far more costly than continued spending. We all know that we need to make major cuts as soon as the economy will allow. And Obama and Geithner are the first to say so.
 
Last edited:
  • #457
turbo said:
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.

My guess: Either the tea party dies, it diverges from the Republicans, or we see a new more moderate party emerge. My vote would be for a new party that pulls moderates from both parties. I would sign on in a heartbeat.

I honestly don't know if the Republican party is even salvageable at this point. I do know that as the party stands, they will never get my vote again. Even for local elections, I may start voting a straight ticket as the norm; except where there are viable Independents.
 
Last edited:
  • #458
Ivan Seeking said:
My guess: Either the tea party dies, it diverges from the Republicans, or we see a new more moderate party emerge. My vote would be for a new party that pulls moderates from both parties. I would sign on in a heartbeat.
Between Norquist and the Koch brothers, they will arrange for fringe-y, unknown Tea Partiers to enter the primaries and challenge any GOP incumbent that even thinks about raising taxes. The partisans will buy massive blocks of ads for the TP candidates. In small TV markets like Maine, they might be able to make ad-buys so expensive that incumbents are hard-pressed to keep up.

Our democracy is for sale to the highest bidder, thanks to the Citizens United ruling. If a large group of Republicans told the Tea Party where to go, Norquist and the Koch brothers might not have the resources to challenge them all in the primaries. Unfortunately, those GOP reps and senators want to keep their cushy jobs, their perks, their health-care and retirement, and most of all, those fat "speaking fees" for saying a few words over breakfast to the fat-cats that their most "generous" lobbyists shill for.
 
Last edited:
  • #459
turbo said:
Between Norquist and the Koch brothers, they will arrange for fringe-y, unknown Tea Partiers to enter the primaries and challenge any GOP incumbent that even thinks about raising taxes. The partisans will buy massive blocks of ads for the TP candidates. In small TV markets like Maine, they might be able to make ad-buys so expensive that incumbents are hard-pressed to keep up.

Our democracy is for sale to the highest bidder, thanks to the Citizens United ruling. If a large group of Republicans told the Tea Party where to go, Norquist and the Koch brothers might not have the resources to challenge them all in the primaries. Unfortunately, those GOP reps and senators want to keep their cushy jobs, their perks, their health-care and retirement, and most of all, those fat "speaking fees" for saying a few words over breakfast to the fat-cats that their most "generous" lobbyists shill for.

Care to support your assertions? I could list all of the well known "fat-cat" Left Wingers (like Beck's "scary dude" character?) but you'll just cry not fair - I'll label IMO - and consider your narrative silly as well.
 
  • #460
And there we go. Bachmann wins the Iowa straw poll. Who comes in next? Ron Paul!

Watch her lie and obfuscate on Meet the Press this morning.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

This is the woman who, in stark contrast to economists of all brands, argued that we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, but now says she still would have paid all of the bills. Double-talk through and through. Apparently she skipped math class. It we could pay all the bills without raising the debt ceiling, there wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

She also now claims that when she says she will be "submissive to her husband", what she really means is that she respects him. So submission and respect are the same thing. Apparently she skipped her English classes as well as her math classes. [Isn't this precisely the sort of definition drift that Orwell talked about?]

I too was once very religious and I know exactly what is meant when a religious [fundamentalist Christian] person talks about women being submissive to their husbands. It means just that - the man is in charge. Apparently she skipped bible study - in particular the part about honesty.


http://www.portlandmercury.com/binary/b131/1312835716-michele-bachmann-newsweek.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #461
Any appeals to Christian values by politicians is utter BS. If these people were true children of the Gospel, they'd all be socialists.
 
  • #462
Willowz said:
If these people were true children of the Gospel, they'd all be socialists.

I think that's arguable. The case can be made that personal charity is a greater good than state-mandated charity.
 
  • #463
Ivan Seeking said:
And there we go. Bachmann wins the Iowa straw poll. Who comes in next? Ron Paul!

Watch her lie and obfuscate on Meet the Press this morning.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

This is the woman who, in stark contrast to economists of all brands, argued that we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, but now says she still would have paid all of the bills. Double-talk through and through. Apparently she skipped math class. It we could pay all the bills without raising the debt ceiling, there wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

She also now claims that when she says she will be "submissive to her husband", what she really means is that she respects him. So submission and respect are the same thing. Apparently she skipped her English classes as well as her math classes. [Isn't this precisely the sort of definition drift that Orwell talked about?]

I too was once very religious and I know exactly what is meant when a religious [fundamentalist Christian] person talks about women being submissive to their husbands. It means just that - the man is in charge. Apparently she skipped bible study - in particular the part about honesty.


http://www.portlandmercury.com/binary/b131/1312835716-michele-bachmann-newsweek.jpg

Personal attacks on women usually indicate fear on the Left - IMO.:smile:
 
  • #464
turbo said:
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.

I just went over the list of cars I've ever owned, there were 4 foreign made, and 4 domestic. My previous 7 were used cars, so I don't see that it made any difference in any nation's economy. When I was shopping for my new car, I was seriously looking at a PT Cruiser. But when I found out they were made in Mexico, it was dropped from my list. My younger brothers job(crane operator in a steel mill) was outsourced to Mexico about 5 years ago. He now mows laws for a living, and I'm quite certain he's one of those people who "doesn't pay taxes" now. :rolleyes:

Anyways, I don't have a problem with Mexico, or Mexicans, but I do have a problem with people who are too stupid to realize the effects of their being such cheapskates that they would buy foreign products, which results in the loss of decent paying American jobs, which results in the loss of tax revenue, which results in an increase in our debt, but they vote for people who've signed a pledge of "no tax increases", which only makes matters worse, for everyone. Except for rich people of course. But since we can't define what a rich person is, I guess my point is moot.

ps. I voted for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_H._Smith" in the last election. I'm a bad, bad, democrat. :blushing:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #465
WhoWee said:
Personal attacks on women usually indicate fear on the Left - IMO.:smile:

I would say that personal attacks on idiots indicates intelligence on the part of the attacker, regardless of the attackee's gender, race, and/or choice of breakfast cereals. - IMO :biggrin:
 
  • #466
OmCheeto said:
I would say that personal attacks on idiots indicates intelligence on the part of the attacker, regardless of the attackee's gender, race, and/or choice of breakfast cereals. - IMO :biggrin:

Another personal attack on her? The fear and nervous laughter is a little creepy - IMO.
 
  • #467
OmCheeto said:
I would say that personal attacks on idiots indicates intelligence on the part of the attacker, regardless of the attackee's gender, race, and/or choice of breakfast cereals. - IMO :biggrin:
How dare you? Who else knew that the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired in New Hampshire, and that the founding fathers worked tirelessly until there was no more slavery in the US? Where can we find her intellectual equal? Perhaps Sarah Palin will agree to take the VP slot, so we can learn more about how Paul Revere rode around ringin' those bells and warning the British...

It's scary that so many ignorant people want to give those loons a shot at running the country. They are dangerously misinformed even about grade-school history.
 
  • #468
turbo said:
How dare you? Who else knew that the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired in New Hampshire, and that the founding fathers worked tirelessly until there was no more slavery in the US? Where can we find her intellectual equal? Perhaps Sarah Palin will agree to take the VP slot, so we can learn more about how Paul Revere rode around ringin' those bells and warning the British...

It's scary that so many ignorant people want to give those loons a shot at running the country. They are dangerously misinformed even about grade-school history.

FEAR is hanging like a thick fog over this thread as the personal attacks continue.
 
  • #469
WhoWee said:
FEAR is hanging like a thick fog over this thread as the personal attacks continue.
Quoting their ignorant statements is a personal attack? Let's get real. If Obama had said ignorant patently false things like these two have, you'd be all over him.
 
  • #470
Vanadium 50 said:
The case can be made that personal charity is a greater good than state-mandated charity.
Why should personal charity be a greater good than state mandated charity? Can you provide reasonable justification for this assumption?
 
  • #471
turbo said:
Quoting their ignorant statements is a personal attack? Let's get real. If Obama had said ignorant patently false things like these two have, you'd be all over him.

Should the President of the United States know how many states we have (now) - or is it more important to have a working grasp of 200+ year old dates and events?
 
  • #472
You know exactly what I mean. Mis-speaking about campaign stops and/or the states and territories one has visited is a whole lot different than being ignorant of grade-school history. If you think that Obama truly doesn't know how many states are in the US, you have clearly drunk the Kool Aid.

I did not attack Bachmann or Palin - just quoted them. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether either if them is the sharpest tool in the shed.
 
  • #473
WhoWee said:
Should the President of the United States know how many states we have (now) - or is it more important to have a working grasp of 200+ year old dates and events?

Can we just shut up already about the 57 states mistake? That's what it was: a mistake. You really expect me to think you've never made a mistake? Ever?

Jesus Christ, it was three years ago. And it's brought up by every single conservative in America daily (note: hyperbole). Let it go.
 
  • #474
Char. Limit said:
Can we just shut up already about the 57 states mistake? That's what it was: a mistake. You really expect me to think you've never made a mistake? Ever?

Jesus Christ, it was three years ago. And it's brought up by every single conservative in America daily (note: hyperbole). Let it go.

My point is that Bachman made a mistake as well - it doesn't mean she's incompetent. If it's necessary to lump her together with things Palin has said - then perhaps we need to combine President Obama's words with his Vice President Joe Biden?
 
  • #475
Ivan Seeking said:
And there we go. Bachmann wins the Iowa straw poll.

WTF? She had 13% or something when I looked at CNN the other day? :confused:

Ivan Seeking said:
Double-talk through and through.

And I would add "Double-entry bookkeeping":
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bachmann-20110626,0,7475882,full.story

Bachmann's had her share of government aid - Los Angeles Times

But the Minnesota Republican and her family have benefited personally from government aid, an examination of her record and finances shows. A counseling clinic run by her husband has received nearly $30,000 from the state of Minnesota in the last five years, money that in part came from the federal government. A family farm in Wisconsin, in which the congresswoman is a partner, received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.


Isn’t it cute? I love this divine truth-teller! :!) (:mad:)

Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.portlandmercury.com/binary/b131/1312835716-michele-bachmann-newsweek.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eesuH_9bSjM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #476
OmCheeto said:
my brother: republican: July 2011: Works as an engineer for Xerox. Told me his job was being outsourced to India.

Maybe Bachmann could be outsourced to North Korea?? :rolleyes:

(:wink:)
 
  • #477
DevilsAvocado said:
P.S. What happened to this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLdA1ikkoEc
mheslep said:
The sentiment expressed in that inauguration speech, that the US will continue indefinitely to protect allies now utterly uninterested in protecting themselves is gone.


There must be some misunderstanding... when GWB was in the House, we (Europeans) wondered if we should sell all our stocks in Planet Earth... now when Michele "Government Aid" Bachmann is staring at us – we know that’s the right thing to do.

This is not what I’m talking about. JFK’s speech seems like some wizard wisdom from the future, yet it’s 50 years old. The mantra of today seems to be – "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask how you can burn the damned thing down!"

:bugeye:
 
  • #478
SW VandeCarr said:
.. Actually, didn't Werner Heisenberg win a Nobel?

Yes, but where can you find another eggplant that can cut brush in the hot Texas sun? And you forgot to mention Dick Cheney's "Deficits don't matter".

A hundred years?? That's beyond comprehension. I'm lucky if I can remember what happened last week.

Again. I don't understand. Can you put noodles in coffee too?

Who wrote that commie propaganda? Hang 'em!
...

More seditious commie crap trying to poison our minds with rational thoughts.

How can you love us when we hate each other in the finest American tradition?

No need to worry. Just acquire a taste for noodles and eggplant.

Who's he? Sounds like some foreigner with a funny accent trying to tell us what to do.

EDIT: By the way, Michele Bachmann is a tax lawyer who worked for the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Anyone who immerses themselves in US tax law too long can be excused if they longer can think rationally. They're lucky if they can think at all.

HAHA LOL! :smile::smile::smile: With this kind of excellent humor maybe everything will be okay! :biggrin:
 
  • #479
DevilsAvocado said:
There must be some misunderstanding... when GWB was in the House, we (Europeans) wondered if we should sell all our stocks in Planet Earth... now when Michele "Government Aid" Bachmann is staring at us – we know that’s the right thing to do.

This is not what I’m talking about. JFK’s speech seems like some wizard wisdom from the future, yet it’s 50 years old. The mantra of today seems to be – "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask how you can burn the damned thing down!"

:bugeye:

nothing is harder to put out than a Greece fire, eh?
 
  • #480
DevilsAvocado said:
Maybe Bachmann could be outsourced to North Korea?? :rolleyes:

(:wink:)
If she would take Palin, then Palin might actually be able to see Russia from her house.
 

Similar threads

News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
  • · Replies 293 ·
10
Replies
293
Views
35K
News Paul Krugman Explains True Conservatism: Same Old Party
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K