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.
  • #91
Char. Limit said:
Orrrrrrr cut spending and increase taxes. Funny how NO ONE EVER THINKS OF THAT.
Yay!

Finally one thought in the right direction! THANKS!


(... and of course cuts should not mean the poor will be left without food ...)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
I have read this thread and I must say, I am not the least bit shocked by the responses in it!
 
  • #93
mheslep said:
Yes the Congress writes the budget law, specifically the House does, and only the House.

Ah, of course you’re right, I’d forgotten about Richard Nixon’s dictatorial tendencies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

Prior to 1974, Congress had no formal process for establishing a coherent budget. When newly-elected President Richard Nixon began to refuse to spend funds that the Congress had allocated, Congress needed a more formal means by which to challenge him. The Congressional Budget Act created the Congressional Budget Office and directed more control of the budget to CBO and away from the President's Office of Management and the Budget. The Act passed easily as the administration was embroiled in the Watergate scandal and unwilling to provoke Congress.



mheslep said:
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.

Seems consistent with other expert opinions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process#Overview_of_the_budget_process

The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February.
...
Each year in March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals. CBO budget report and other publications can be found at the CBO's website. CBO computes a current law baseline projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming 10 fiscal years.
...
The President's budget request constitutes an extensive proposal of the administration's intended spending and revenue plans for the following fiscal year. The budget proposal includes volumes of supporting information intended to persuade Congress of the necessity and value of the budget provisions. In addition, each federal executive department and independent agency provides additional detail and supporting documentation to Congress on its own funding requests.
 
  • #94
russ_watters said:
... You can believe whatever you want

Thanks, the choice between believing in a PF user, or the printed words from the President of the United States, is a no-brainer.

The only way to find any logic in some of the arguments in this thread, is to assume that President Obama have a "top-secret & vicious" goal to completely ruin the U.S. economy, by running the public debt to $20 trillion??

But, the "clever & evil" President Obama says something completely different the budget, just to trick the whole world...

Come on guys, what’s next?? He’s working for Al-Qaeda? :eek:

When it comes to draw conclusions on what the worst recession since the Great Depression do to the U.S. and world economy, that’s worse than a no-brainer, all you have to do is open your eyes.

800px-Gdp_real_growth_rate_2007_CIA_Factbook.PNG

GDP real growth rates for 2007

800px-GDP_Real_Growth.svg.png

GDP real growth rates for 2009
 
  • #95
mege said:
... Lastly, Just because the President says something doesn't mean it's true.

Cool! I should trust an anonymous PF user instead? :smile:

mege said:
His entire campaign for 2012 is going to be 'well it's not really my fault' and unfortunately many seem to believe him.

I think you’ve got a point there. Personally, I think it might be superfluous to spend money on a campaign... where are the (liable) alternatives...??

MicheleBachmann2012.PNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich"

[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Jimmy_McMillan_Blue_2_2011_Shankbone.jpg/100px-Jimmy_McMillan_Blue_2_2011_Shankbone.jpg[/URL] [URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Sharkey.JPG/116px-Sharkey.JPG[/URL]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_McMillan"

mege said:
Quoting political speeches isn't really good sourcing for any information IMO.

It was a reply to the political graph from Republican Paul Ryan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
WhoWee said:
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?:eek:

Interesting link, but maybe you should try http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1968+-+1961+=" first... Obama was 7 years old in 1968... and the Yippies in the '68 protest activity would be around 70 today (use the calculator).

It looks like your "Chicago Conspiracy Theory" needs some 'rethinking'...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #97
DevilsAvocado said:
Interesting link, but maybe you should try http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1968+-+1961+=" first... Obama was 7 years old in 1968... and the Yippies in the '68 protest activity would be around 70 today (use the calculator).

It looks like your "Chicago Conspiracy Theory" needs some 'rethinking'...

It was a joke - (lame) - but a joke.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #98
WhoWee said:
It was a joke - (lame) - but a joke.
Thank god WhoWee! I was real worried there for awhile...


:wink:
 
  • #99
SixNein said:
Is America governable today?

I don't know about America, but we just re-elected an ex-governor that said we weren't.

There was a time when Oregon’s then-and-future governor, John Kitzhaber, famously declared the state ungovernable.

But Kitzhaber learned from that experience. Come 2011, he not only showed Oregon is governable but also that it can be a model for the nation.

I think we admired his honesty. Oregoonians are a bit like other Americans. Governing us is like herding cats; It's simply impossible. But all you have to do is open a can of tuna in front of us, and we will follow.

:smile:
 
  • #100
talk2glenn said:
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.

I think misleading information is a violation of the PF rules. You better check that out before further accusations.

Here is the http://budget.house.gov/GraphsandCharts/fy2012charts.htm" graph from Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan (Republican).

Are you trying to tell me that all this labeling "Democrats Take Control Of Congress", now 'updated' with "OBAMA TAKES OFFICE" is nonpartisan "data" from CBO?? :eek:

I’ve seen some real bad arguments on PF, but this must be one of the worst.

They graph you provided is Republican political rhetoric, period.

At least, Paul Ryan had the decency to stamp the graph "REPUBLICAN STAFF", to avoid this kind of mishmash, which you seem to have 'missed' completely.

2e657rr.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #101
DevilsAvocado said:
Thanks, the choice between believing in a PF user, or the printed words from the President of the United States, is a no-brainer...
So you pretty much closed the book after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal" ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #102
richard+nixon.jpg


:biggrin:
 
  • #103
OmCheeto said:
... Governing us is like herding cats; It's simply impossible. But all you have to do is open a can of tuna in front of us, and we will follow. :smile:
Excellent analogy.

Wrt the OP, I don't see how the Republican party could actually become nonviable. I think of the Republican party as representing the more libertarian leanings of big money, big corporate interests, with the Democratic partiy representing the more egalitarian leanings of big money, big corporate interests.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
ThomasT said:
Excellent analogy.

Wrt the OP, I don't see how the Republican party could actually become nonviable. I think of the Republican party as representing the more libertarian leanings of big money, big corporate interests, with the Democratic partiy representing the more egalitarian leanings of big money, big corporate interests.

I agree, but it seems now the R's are in a weird place. I know both parties have to go to the fringes in the early part of a campaign, then veer to the center hopefully in time to capture independents and win the election. But it seems to me, the R's are going far too right and I don't see how independents are going to buy in.
 
  • #105
lisab said:
I agree, but it seems now the R's are in a weird place. I know both parties have to go to the fringes in the early part of a campaign, then veer to the center hopefully in time to capture independents and win the election. But it seems to me, the R's are going far too right and I don't see how independents are going to buy in.

I don't think the Republicans are that far right - they want Government to learn the lesson that millions of Americans have learned - to live within your budget. You really can't borrow yourself out of debt.
 
  • #106
daveb said:
... 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.
I think this is true. The Democratic and Republican political machines represent the status quo, and the voting public doesn't seem interested in changing the status quo. So, what's the problem?
 
  • #107
lisab said:
I agree, but it seems now the R's are in a weird place. I know both parties have to go to the fringes in the early part of a campaign, then veer to the center hopefully in time to capture independents and win the election. But it seems to me, the R's are going far too right and I don't see how independents are going to buy in.
Maybe it won't be a matter of buying into (or accepting as part of the platform) the more extreme views if the more moderate views prevail. Isn't this what's most likely to happen?
 
  • #108
WhoWee said:
I don't think the Republicans are that far right - they want Government to learn the lesson that millions of Americans have learned - to live within your budget. You really can't borrow yourself out of debt.

IMO, the majority of them have the same #1 priority the majority of democrats have.

To gain/retain political power.
 
  • #109
ThomasT said:
I think this is true. The Democratic and Republican political machines represent the status quo, and the voting public doesn't seem interested in changing the status quo. So, what's the problem?

I don't think the Republican Party will be diminished - unless the Tea Party grows solid legs and is taken over by small business owners and professional managers - those groups are currently unrepresented (IMO).
 
  • #110
WhoWee said:
I don't think the Republicans are that far right - they want Government to learn the lesson that millions of Americans have learned - to live within your budget. You really can't borrow yourself out of debt.

I think it's going too far right to ask candidates to sign a pledge against gay marriage (something most people don't give a rat sass about), against sharia law (oh pander, baby, pander!), and against porn (that's government sticking its head waaaay too far into people's...private lives).

Holy cow, an early version of the pledge actually stated that black children born during slavery were better off than those born today...wow, you can't make this stuff up! (That statement was removed from the pledge. Not sure if Bachmann or Santorum signed it before or after it was removed.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/...out-slavery-from-pledge-against-gay-marriage/
 
  • #111
KingNothing said:
IMO, the majority of them have the same #1 priority the majority of democrats have.

To gain/retain political power.

I'm in favor of term limits in the House.
 
  • #112
Are there enough fanatics in the US to make the Republican party into 'the party of the weird'? Well, wrt certain regions, maybe. But I don't see this happening nationwide.
 
  • #113
Char. Limit said:
You guys seem REALLY into the whole "impeach Obama" thing.

Agreed...
 
  • #114
lisab said:
I think it's going too far right to ask candidates to sign a pledge against gay marriage (something most people don't give a rat sass about), against sharia law (oh pander, baby, pander!), and against porn (that's government sticking its head waaaay too far into people's...private lives).

If you want support from a religious segment of the population - they might want assurances?

How do you feel about Congress telling us we can't buy incandescent light bulbs?
 
  • #115
lisab said:
I think it's going too far right to ask candidates to sign a pledge against gay marriage (something most people don't give a rat sass about), against sharia law (oh pander, baby, pander!), and against porn (that's government sticking its head waaaay too far into people's...private lives).

Holy cow, an early version of the pledge actually stated that black children born during slavery were better off than those born today...wow, you can't make this stuff up! (That statement was removed from the pledge. Not sure if Bachmann or Santorum signed it before or after it was removed.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/...out-slavery-from-pledge-against-gay-marriage/
Good points. Although I don't understand the part about sassy rats.
 
  • #116
ThomasT said:
Are there enough fanatics in the US to make the Republican party into 'the party of the weird'? Well, wrt certain regions, maybe. But I don't see this happening nationwide.

Have you ever been to California - the Left wins the weird title (IMO).
 
  • #117
WhoWee said:
I'm in favor of term limits in the House.
Me too. Is it possible that most everybody except the members of the House is in favor of term limits in the House?
 
  • #118
ThomasT said:
Good points. Although I don't understand the part about sassy rats.

Lol, it's my way of getting around the profanity filter. I was wanting to say, "rat's ***". It's a mildly profane American term (not sure if it's used elsewhere), as in "I don't give a rat's *** what you say!" But see, that gets bleeped out.

o:)
 
  • #119
WhoWee said:
Have you ever been to California - the Left wins the weird title (IMO).
Haven't been there in about 40 years. Why do you say that the Left wins the weird title there?
 
  • #120
SixNein said:
Agreed...

If you go back to the reason the impeachment comment was made - your agreement might not be as certain. The President is not above the law - it's doubtful the House would allow a power grab of that magnitude.
 

Similar threads

News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
  • · Replies 293 ·
10
Replies
293
Views
36K
News Paul Krugman Explains True Conservatism: Same Old Party
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K