News Republicans no longer a viable party?

[WhoWee]

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.

Actually, the President will have to run against his own sound bites in 2012 - all of the flip flops too.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I can remember in 1968 when the Democrats were no longer a viable party.

 

[WhoWee]

I can remember in 1968 when the Democrats were no longer a viable party.

IMO - the people who protested outside the Democrat Convention in 68 are now the core of the Party.
http://www.google.com/search?q=demo...MEJGEsALcqISxCA&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1216&bih=780

Isn't the President's re-election campaign based in Chicago?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can remember in 1968 when the Democrats were no longer a viable party.

True in part. As predicted by President Johnson when he signed it, passage of the Civil Rights bill cost the Dems the South for the next 40 years [and to this day still true!].

Before that we had the notorious Southern Democrats.

The tea party [Republicans] may go down as the party that destroyed the US credit rating. If we do default, no doubt that poor folks don't get their SS checks [needed for food, not Lear Jets or golf vacations, and not a matter of principle but reality].

Of course, that's just speaking as an Independent voter.

 

[mege]

True in part. As predicted by President Johnson when he signed it, passage of the Civil Rights bill cost the Dems the South for the next 40 years [and to this day still true!].

Before that we had the notorious Southern Democrats.

The tea party [Republicans] may go down as the party that destroyed the US credit rating. If we do default, no doubt that poor folks don't get their SS checks [needed for food, not Lear Jets or golf vacations, and not a matter of principle but reality].

Of course, that's just speaking as an Independent voter.

Funny you bring up golf vacations. How many rounds does the President have in this term?

Why is this solely on the Republicans, even in perception? I blame the Democratic monopoly for almost 2 years which failed to get anything done except spend more money. Why aren't we talking about that? They had an open ticket to raise taxes to nearafter-WW2 rates if they wanted. Instead, President Obama extended the Bush cuts and he and congress started spending more money in the form of health insurance subsidies. (well, taxes will go up ~2% to collect for Obamacare, but even shy estimates say that's not nearly enough). The media is still giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt on policies because of the perception that 'Bush ruined everything!' (even though Congress was Democrats for the last 2 years of his term).

Where's that conversation?

 

[talk2glenn]

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.

At the top of the forum, you'll find a stickey titled "Tutorial On Argument and Fallacy". Click it, and review the links provided. When you're done, if you have any substantive critiques of the data - sourced from the CBO and independently verifiable - look me up.

Your data isn't being questioned; I don't need to question it. It is true, during the latter half of Clinton's term the deficit declined. It is also true that the Congress was dominated by Republicans during this same period. I believe the omitted fact of divided government is infinitely more relevant than the legally meaningless fact that the President was a liberal. The connection between the President and the deficit is tenuous at best, and relies on an appeal to the symbolic authority of the office. The budgeting responsibility lies exclusively and absolutely with the Congress of the United States. I believe this is 3rd grade social studies.

PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh??

Seriously? And you presume to debate budget policy?

 

[WhoWee]

True in part. As predicted by President Johnson when he signed it, passage of the Civil Rights bill cost the Dems the South for the next 40 years [and to this day still true!].

Before that we had the notorious Southern Democrats.

The tea party [Republicans] may go down as the party that destroyed the US credit rating. If we do default, no doubt that poor folks don't get their SS checks [needed for food, not Lear Jets or golf vacations, and not a matter of principle but reality].

Of course, that's just speaking as an Independent voter.

Actually, doesn't President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other Dem leaders deserve a lot of the credit for insolvency of the USA? Haven't they led the charge to outspend all of their predecessors?

 

[WhoWee]

This seems like a good place to insert this bit of opinion.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff284.html
"The Bubble That Must Burst"

 

[daveb]

If democrats are "tax and spend" politicians, and republicans are "reduce taxation and spending" politicians, then nothing would ever get done unless one side gives up on both of these, or each gives up on one of them.

From everything I've seen, the democrats are willing to reduce spending but hold to their increased taxes (whether you call closing loopholes in the tax code a tax increase or not is debateable anyway)http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41257" .

When one party holds both houses, it's fairly (relative to other times) easy for the party to hold to both of their ideas. When the balance of power is mixed, as it is now, it seems the responsible thing to do is to compromise.

Under House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan, passed by the Republican-controlled chamber in April, federal spending would be slashed by $6.2 trillion. The plan would also lower tax rates paid by corporations and top earners, bringing projected savings down to the $4 trillion range.

 

[WhoWee]

If democrats are "tax and spend" politicians, and republicans are "reduce taxation and spending" politicians, then nothing would ever get done unless one side gives up on both of these, or each gives up on one of them.

From everything I've seen, the democrats are willing to reduce spending but hold to their increased taxes (whether you call closing loopholes in the tax code a tax increase or not is debateable anyway)http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41257" .

When one party holds both houses, it's fairly (relative to other times) easy for the party to hold to both of their ideas. When the balance of power is mixed, as it is now, it seems the responsible thing to do is to compromise.

The Dems spent more than our credit line allows. We have 2 choices - ask for more credit or cut spending back to pre-Obama/Reid/Pelosi levels.

 

[daveb]

So you're essentially agreeing that Congress should only enact spending cuts and no tax increases. How is that a compromise?

 

[Char. Limit]

The Dems spent more than our credit line allows. We have 2 choices - ask for more credit or cut spending back to pre-Obama/Reid/Pelosi levels.

Orrrrrrr cut spending and increase taxes. Funny how NO ONE EVER THINKS OF THAT.

 

[daveb]

Back to the point of the OP, I don't think the republican party will go the way of the dodo. It may be set back several decades, as the dems were after civil rights, or their gambit may work and the democrats might get blamed if things tank even further, regardless of which budget bill passess. But with our two party system, I don't think any other party will become competitive enough to challenge the dominance of the two major parties.

 

[WhoWee]

Orrrrrrr cut spending and increase taxes. Funny how NO ONE EVER THINKS OF THAT.

I'm in favor of cutting EITC, make work pay, and child credits. These redistribution programs are an expense. By increasing the number of actual tax payers - tax revenues would increase drastically. Raising tax rates on higher income individuals might not increase tax revenues.

 

[WhoWee]

So you're essentially agreeing that Congress should only enact spending cuts and no tax increases. How is that a compromise?

We need solutions - not more compromises - IMO

 

[daveb]

I'm in favor of cutting EITC, make work pay, and child credits. These redistribution programs are an expense. By increasing the number of actual tax payers - tax revenues would increase drastically. Raising tax rates on higher income individuals might not increase tax revenues.

By that same logic, then loopholes which allow corporations and the wealthiest to pay little to no taxes should also be abolished.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm"
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/high-income-no-tax-returns-almost-doubled-in-2008-irs-says.html"
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/"

 

[daveb]

We need solutions - not more compromises - IMO

You do realize compromises can be solutions as well? That both sides get a little of what they want, but both sides also don't get a little of what they want?

 

[WhoWee]

You do realize compromises can be solutions as well? That both sides get a little of what they want, but both sides also don't get a little of what they want?

When was the last time a Washington compromise solved a problem without some kind of unintended consequence - or more specifically a pork insert?

 

[daveb]

When was the last time a Washington compromise solved a problem without some kind of unintended consequence - or more specifically a pork insert?

OK, you may have a point there, but that's only because I share your cynicism.

 

[WhoWee]

By that same logic, then loopholes which allow corporations and the wealthiest to pay little to no taxes should also be abolished.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm"
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/high-income-no-tax-returns-almost-doubled-in-2008-irs-says.html"
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/"

How many accountants and IRS agents do you want to put out of business?

 

[WhoWee]

OK, you may have a point there, but that's only because I share your cynicism.

The President worried me a few days ago when he said he wanted a "big deal". Are there any Congressional hearings underway (now) regarding specific budget cut options (actual numbers) - or are they 100% focused on the politics?

 

[SixNein]

Back to the point of the OP, I don't think the republican party will go the way of the dodo. It may be set back several decades, as the dems were after civil rights, or their gambit may work and the democrats might get blamed if things tank even further, regardless of which budget bill passess. But with our two party system, I don't think any other party will become competitive enough to challenge the dominance of the two major parties.

The structure of our government encourages a two party system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

I think a better question is if the United States is becoming ungovernable. This tax issue is a good example. I don't see a bridge anywhere in sight to build an agreement on taxes or spending for that matter. Many matters of state have left the realm of reason and entered the realm of religion. In my opinion, the foxification of news combined with a lack of critical thinking has been very damaging to our political system. Can our political system survive the information era?

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

OK, so the question is this. supposing that the government does not have the funds to pay for ALL financial obligations Congressional power has mandated, can ANY financial obligations be met? or, is there a predetermined order in which checks are written? if not, who has the authority to decide which Congressional mandates get met first, Congress, the Courts, or the Executive?

 

[daveb]

OK, so the question is this. supposing that the government does not have the funds to pay for ALL financial obligations Congressional power has mandated, can ANY financial obligations be met? or, is there a predetermined order in which checks are written? if not, who has the authority to decide which Congressional mandates get met first, Congress, the Courts, or the Executive?

WOW! Excellent question! I hadn't thought of that, and I have no idea. I'll investigate, but I can't guarantee I'll find anything.

 

[SixNein]

WOW! Excellent question! I hadn't thought of that, and I have no idea. I'll investigate, but I can't guarantee I'll find anything.

The executive branch would dictate who gets paid.

 

[WhoWee]

The executive branch would dictate who gets paid.

Does that mean President Obama would have to call his own bluff?

 

[SixNein]

Does that mean President Obama would have to call his own bluff?

The executive branch would only have the funds to pay for about 56% of its obligations. My guess is that Obama would declare the debt limit unconstitutional and ignore the limit. At such time, the debt limit would be decided by the courts.

Personally, I don't see anything remotely funny about the possibility of the debt limit not being raised. It's economic suicide. Which brings me back to the point of governance. Is America governable today?

 

[WhoWee]

The executive branch would only have the funds to pay for about 56% of its obligations. My guess is that Obama would declare the debt limit unconstitutional and ignore the limit. At such time, the debt limit would be decided by the courts.

I wonder if that would be an impeachable offense - hmmmm?

 

[Char. Limit]

I wonder if that would be an impeachable offense - hmmmm?

Under what crime? Being wrong about constitutionality? (That's assuming he IS wrong, which is for the courts to decide)

You guys seem REALLY into the whole "impeach Obama" thing.

 

[talk2glenn]

Under what crime?

Err...ignoring the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling is a legal limit. If the President instructs the Treasury to ignore the law, he can (and probably would) be impeached. As part of the article, the House would probably toss on a whole pile of added offenses, including the stimulus and bailouts, and the war in Libya, etcetera. It'd get ugly for the President, indeed.

The courts have no independent standing to decide anything, including the consitutionality of a debt ceiling. To weigh, an independent party with standing but bring suit. In the case of impeachment, the President would have standing to appeal the constitutionality of his impeachment, on the basis that the underlying law itself was unconstitutional.

To reverse the order, a party would have to show direct harm as a result of the presidents decision to break the law in order to sue. With the debt ceiling, this would be very difficult to do; the most likely candidate would be a group of lawmakers (whose authority has been circumscribed), but here the courts have historically been skeptical. Lawmakers are encouraged to manage their disputes internally using their existing constitutional powers, through legislative or impeachment means. It would probably take a majority of even supermajority of lawmakers to make "standing", and if such a majority exists, why not impeach rather than bring suit?

As an aside, there is not a chance in hell that the courts would agree with an interpretation of the 14th Amendment which authorizes the President to ignore congressional spending power (specifically, the 14th amendment says debt authorized in article 1, which gives congress the authority to borrow, shall not be questioned - it doesn't give the president the authority to issue new debt unilaterally). It won't matter, though; the Senate would almost certainly fail to follow the House in formally impeaching the president. The damage would be entirely political, but it would be severe. The president is much too politically aware to ever go this route.