News Republicans no longer a viable party?

[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.

 

[WhoWee]

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

It seems they quit counting in 2009?
(I didn't see Russ's post.)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Bush gets blamed for Obama's failure.

Exactly! This is what I’ve been saying all along! Everything is Obama’s fault!

I mean, for god’s sake, GWB was in *full* control of the economy until he started these 'secret meetings' with Obama, behind closed doors... that’s when the real problem started...

Until then GWB had it all under control.

On Saturday August 30, 2008, in the President's Radio Address, GWB was focusing on the good economy, and told the hardworking Americans that this Labor Day weekend was a good opportunity to stop worrying about the nation's economic health. GWB welcomed the fact that economic stimulus package signed by him earlier this year, is having its intended effect, and the growth package will return more than $150 billion back to American families and businesses, this year:

Bush: Economy Is Getting Better (August 30, 2008)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxF4zJz3jzg

(Then 8 days later, 'something' happened, right out of the blue...)

• On September 7, 2008, Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae was put under a conservatorship of the U.S. Federal government.
  
  
• On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers (the fourth largest investment bank in the USA) filed bankruptcy.
  
  
• On September 15, 2008, Merrill Lynch (the world's largest brokerage with $2.2 trillion in client assets) is purchased by Bank of America at a discount of 61% from its September 2007 share price.
  
  
• On September 16, 2008, American International Group (AIG) (the 29th-largest public company in the world) received a secured credit facility of up to $85 billion from the FED, to prevent the company's collapse, in an exchange for warrants for a 79% equity stake, the largest government bailout of a private company in U.S. history.
  
  
• On September 20, 2008, President Bush proposes a http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/20/news/economy/bailout_proposal/index.htm" .

Bush Warns "Entire Economy is in Danger" (September 24, 2008)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXqxN1XBMH8

This is the historical facts, right there; GWB was indeed a 'dynamical swinger', in full control, who could handle the financial 'ups & downs' – even if they were only 3 weeks apart!

All this is Obama’s fault, alone, no doubt about it!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

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

Thanks Vanadium 50, I think russ_watters presented a 'compelling story' about this...

 

[mheslep]

Reminder: Pelosi had been running the House going back to Jan 2007; Pelosi and Reed together had total control, a i.e. filibuster proof Congress since the same time.

 

[Willowz]

Hot-potato!

 

[turbo]

Reminder: Pelosi had been running the House going back to Jan 2007; Pelosi and Reed together had total control, a i.e. filibuster proof Congress since the same time.

Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget. Congress failed to check him, and that was their fault, but the primary responsibility for those war costs falls on the administration that started them, IMO. Those costs are not insignificant, and they are going to continue.

 

[WhoWee]

Reminder: Pelosi had been running the House going back to Jan 2007; Pelosi and Reed together had total control, a i.e. filibuster proof Congress since the same time.

Let's not forget Barney Frank and Chris Dodd - both steering the financial sector - Barney even claimed Freddie and Fannie were in good shape - give credit when due.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget. Congress failed to check him, and that was their fault, but the primary responsibility for those war costs falls on the administration that started them, IMO. Those costs are not insignificant, and they are going to continue.

...and now President Obama is in another...

 

[talk2glenn]

Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget.

This is one of those oft repeated talking points that everyone just knows is true, because its been said so often without challenge, but nobody is really sure what it means.

Care to explain, turbo? The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were paid for with money appropriated by Congress through supplemental budget bills. These are published - with specific dollar amounts - in the federal register, and available for you to perude as your leisure.

Perhaps you mean that the operations should have been part of the general fiscal budget debate in Congress. On its face, this doesn't sound unreasonable (which is probably why it makes such a good 10 second talking point). In practice, though, the process of budgeting is slow, political, and painstaking (which is why its a really seneless idea if you think about it for more than 10 seconds). The process actually begins over two years before the fiscal year in which the budget is due. Eg, the 2011 budget - if we had one, I mean - is not worked on in 2010, but in 2009-2010.

This is not an effective means to fund a war. Perhaps the administration and Congress could have shifted some of the more stable, ongoing and predictable costs of the wars onto the general budget sooner than they did, but in any case it isn't reasonable to expect these operations to be entirely funded by the general budgeting proecss. Indeed, President Obama has continued the trend. In 2010, the wars were funded by two supplemental appropriations bills. In 2009, when the previous Supplemental Appropriations Act was passed, Obama promised - promised - that this was, for real guys seriously, the last time that'd ever be done.

This year, the entire government is paid for by supplemental approrprations bills.

 

[WhoWee]

This year, the entire government is paid for by supplemental approrprations bills.

Now THAT'S what I call a talking point!

 

[talk2glenn]

And Avocado, I always enjoy graphs that chart deficit spending over the party in control of the White House, as though it weren't in fact the Congress that writes a budget and appropriates funds. Pity the constitution.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/Dow%20roller%20coaster.jpg

I submit that this is significantly more honest, and revealing.

 

[turbo]

This is one of those oft repeated talking points that everyone just knows is true, because its been said so often without challenge, but nobody is really sure what it means.

Obama pledged to end the abuse of "supplemental spending" to fund the wars and put the costs of the wars back on-budget. IMO, he has made strides toward that goal. Apparently, the folks at PolitFact concur.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nd-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/

 

[mheslep]

Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget. Congress failed to check him, and that was their fault, but the primary responsibility for those war costs falls on the administration that started them, IMO.

You recognize of course Obama would have also engaged in the Afghanistan conflict, and now is in Libya.

Those costs are not insignificant,

Depends on the context. In the context of the total US $3.6T annual budget one can argue the wars are not significant.

and they are going to continue.

No, they will end as all wars do and as the Iraq war is imminently doing. However, one can easily argue that entitlement programs in fact do continue forever, or at least until the collapse of a nation.

 

[WhoWee]

Obama pledged to end the abuse of "supplemental spending" to fund the wars and put the costs of the wars back on-budget. IMO, he has made strides toward that goal. Apparently, the folks at PolitFact concur.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nd-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/

I can't find anything in their piece regarding private contractors in Iraq/Afghanistan/Africa and elsewhere in the region?

 

[WhoWee]

However, one can easily argue that entitlement programs in fact do continue forever, or at least until the collapse of a nation.

As long as the global welfare mindset doesn't become too popular.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... I submit that this is significantly more honest, and revealing.

I don’t know about "honesty", but maybe it’s revealing that you’re presenting data from Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, as some form of 'objective truth'... At least my data came from Wikipedia, and AFAIK Wikipedia is not controlled by any political party.

But okay, let’s be biased and quote a small part of http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html" :

[emphasis mine]

"As we look to the future, we must recognize that the era of irresponsibility in Washington must end. On the day my Administration took office, we faced an additional $7.5 trillion in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program. We also inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression—which, even before we took any action, added an additional $3 trillion to the national debt. Our response to this recession, the Recovery Act, which has been critical to restoring economic growth, will add an additional $1 trillion to the debt—only 10 percent of these costs. In total, the surpluses we enjoyed at the start of the last decade have disappeared; instead, we are $12 trillion deeper in debt. In the long term, we cannot have sustainable and durable economic growth without getting our fiscal house in order."

Barack Obama -- The White House, February 1, 2010.​

​

PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh??

PS2: I think Paul Ryan missed one label on the graph; "2008 – George W. Bush is one or two pennies from ruin the world economy."

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Hot-potato!

 

[Willowz]

Charts are only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[mheslep]

PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh??

Yes the Congress writes the budget law, specifically the House does, and only the House. Of course the President, Senate Chairmen, and my granny are free to write up their own ideas on the subject and frequently do, but have only political significance, not legal.

According to the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, clause 1), all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_bill#United_States

 

[Proton Soup]

obama threatens social security checks: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

i get the feeling that plan might backfire. but it's obvious we're not going to default.

 

[russ_watters]

But okay, let’s be biased and quote a small part of http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html" :

[emphasis mine]

"As we look to the future, we must recognize that the era of irresponsibility in Washington must end. On the day my Administration took office, we faced an additional $7.5 trillion in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program. We also inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression—which, even before we took any action, added an additional $3 trillion to the national debt. Our response to this recession, the Recovery Act, which has been critical to restoring economic growth, will add an additional $1 trillion to the debt—only 10 percent of these costs. In total, the surpluses we enjoyed at the start of the last decade have disappeared; instead, we are $12 trillion deeper in debt. In the long term, we cannot have sustainable and durable economic growth without getting our fiscal house in order."

Barack Obama -- The White House, February 1, 2010.​

​

So he's saying that no part of the state of the American economy up to Feb 1, 2010 was his doing. You can believe whatever you want, but I'd say that based on the 2010 election results, the voting public didn't buy it.

 

[russ_watters]

obama threatens social security checks: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

i get the feeling that plan might backfire. but it's obvious we're not going to default.

The way the media and the politicians are harping on this issue, it makes one forget that the due date here is more than 3 weeks away. They can grandstand about this for another 2.5 weeks before even trying to get anything done! And I'm already fatigued from the last three times they did this!

 

[russ_watters]

Obama pledged to end the abuse of "supplemental spending" to fund the wars and put the costs of the wars back on-budget. IMO, he has made strides toward that goal. Apparently, the folks at PolitFact concur.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nd-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/

It doesn't look to me like you read past the header, tubo-1. "supplemental spending" still happens and it is still off-budget (by definition). They gave him a pass because he also put some war funding on the budget and didn't say he wanted to end their use, just their "abuse" (which is meaningless). Obama has asked for more suppliments (3) than budgets (2).

 

[mege]

I don’t know about "honesty", but maybe it’s revealing that you’re presenting data from Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, as some form of 'objective truth'... At least my data came from Wikipedia, and AFAIK Wikipedia is not controlled by any political party.

But okay, let’s be biased and quote a small part of http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html" :

[emphasis mine]

"As we look to the future, we must recognize that the era of irresponsibility in Washington must end. On the day my Administration took office, we faced an additional $7.5 trillion in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program. We also inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression—which, even before we took any action, added an additional $3 trillion to the national debt. Our response to this recession, the Recovery Act, which has been critical to restoring economic growth, will add an additional $1 trillion to the debt—only 10 percent of these costs. In total, the surpluses we enjoyed at the start of the last decade have disappeared; instead, we are $12 trillion deeper in debt. In the long term, we cannot have sustainable and durable economic growth without getting our fiscal house in order."

Barack Obama -- The White House, February 1, 2010.​

​

PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh??

PS2: I think Paul Ryan missed one label on the graph; "2008 – George W. Bush is one or two pennies from ruin the world economy."

As I've already pointed out - Bush Tax Cuts weren't the issue. 2006-7 Individual+Corporate tax income was higher than it was in 2000 even accounting for inflation. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203 (note - TPC is associated closely with the Brookings Inst. which is generally associated with collectivists). While you can attribute 3 years of debt under President Bush to the tax cuts, that doesn't hold any water any further (esspecially since President Obama extended them...). IMO, the 2008 crash could have been prevented if policy earlier in the decade wasn't hamstrung by Democrat's political correctness. Let's not forget that clinging to our entitlements caused the economic mess we're in now, not 2 wars (in this case a 'stealth' entitlement in the form of sub-prime loan subsidies). It could be argued that the wars actually staved off the crisis a little bit because of the additional spending that was happening. The GD plant near my old house in metro Detroit produced land systems, that plant would have likely been idled if it weren't for the demand of the wars.

Also, let's not forget that the 'Iraq war' was still approved by almost 1/2 of the Democrats in congress. The 'Afghan War' had almost zero nay votes from either party. Only when the wars started becoming unpopular did Democrats start bailing. It's also important to note that President Obama's decisions to withdraw troops from both Iraq and Afghanastan were not good ideas in the eyes of his military heads. Withdrawing is a political move only, and in noone's best interest (except maybe the DNC).

Lastly, Just because the President says something doesn't mean it's true. His entire campaign for 2012 is going to be 'well it's not really my fault' and unfortunately many seem to believe him. Quoting political speeches isn't really good sourcing for any information IMO.

 

[daveb]

obama threatens social security checks: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

i get the feeling that plan might backfire. but it's obvious we're not going to default.

Threaten? He didn't threaten. He merely stated that a consequence is that he cannot guarantee checks will go out. That's a far cry from threatening. If nothing happens, he can't send out checks, since that would be tantamount to forcefully usurping Congressional power, an (IMO) impeachable offense.

Basically, if nothing happens, his hands are tied.