Republicans no longer a viable party?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Republican Party's internal conflict, particularly regarding the influence of tea party extremists and their potential to lead the party towards political and fiscal disaster. Conservative columnist David Brooks argues that Republicans are being asked to close tax loopholes rather than raise tax rates, a straightforward compromise that could prevent a government default. The failure to reach an agreement on the debt ceiling may alienate independent voters, who could view Republicans as unfit to govern due to their extremism. The conversation highlights the urgent need for responsible leadership within the party to avoid long-term damage.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of U.S. political party dynamics
  • Familiarity with the concept of the debt ceiling
  • Knowledge of tax policy, including loopholes and expenditures
  • Awareness of the tea party movement and its impact on Republican ideology
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the U.S. debt ceiling on fiscal policy
  • Examine the role of independent voters in U.S. elections
  • Analyze the historical context of the tea party movement
  • Investigate tax reform proposals and their potential effects on government revenue
USEFUL FOR

Political analysts, Republican Party members, independent voters, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of U.S. fiscal policy and party extremism.

  • #151
mege said:
Right. Courts hear cases, not just make random decisions at the bequest of a government official. For the SCOTUS to evaluate a case, it needs to have merit and be wrung through the lower courts. Is the President going to sue the federal government to get his case heard? The President mandating a fiscal matter seems crazy to me. talk2glenn's run down in post #90 is put more eloquently than how I would describe how 'declaring the debt celing unconstitutional' would neccessarilly have to go - if done legally.

While I'm pretty neutral on the law myself, the President just declaring 'DADT unenforcable' seems like an abuse of power as well. There's proper channels to evaluate and dismantle policy if that is what he wants to do. The President is not King, he's one cog in a machine. Unfortunately, the Presidental importaince is fed to him by an overzealous media for the last few decades looking for stories. (one of my biggest gripes about ESPN is their focus on the superstars, I see this as an alegory to how the media handles many of the political storys)

The president would have to draw upon the 14th amendment in order to declare the law unconstitutional. And without a doubt this would make its way to the courts. Now this is a measure that everyone would like to avoid; however, it may become necessary if congress collapses. At that point, the president will need to do everything possible to avoid a major economic disaster.

If all else fails, this option absolutely must be taken.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
WhoWee said:
It was a response to your post that led to the impeachment quip.

"Originally Posted by SixNein
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 responded:
" I wonder if that would be an impeachable offense - hmmmm?"

My point was a power grab of this magnitude - and yes, combined with all of his other stretches - might be enough to trigger the impeachment process in the House. There are limits to the Presidents power for good reason.

But there are also limits to congressional powers. The courts can trump anything congress does short of an amendment.

But I think you are missing the big picture. Congress is the problem here, in particular, the house. This is a suggestion as a last resort option.
 
  • #153
WhoWee said:
... How do you feel about Congress telling us we can't buy incandescent light bulbs?

I think this is not an American problem; it’s the "Global Light Bulb Conspiracy" raging in Europe, Brazil and many other countries. Personally I think it is pure madness, because the replacement doesn’t work...

A German entrepreneur, Siegfried Rotthaeuser, was so pissed over this that he http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/15/us-germany-heatballs-idUSTRE69E3FS20101015" and imported them from China as "small heating devices", to outwit EU light bulb ban! :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #154
DevilsAvocado said:
Well, that’s one way of looking at it.

A slightly more 'comprehensive' analyze might be to realize that the deep global financial crisis is not over, by no means. It’s extremely shaky in Europe right now, some financial analyst’s talks about a "European-Lehman-Brothers-Situation". Greece is on the edge of bankruptcy, Italy’s economy is in 'free fall', Moody's has delivered another negative verdict on Ireland which hits the value of the euro, Spain and Portugal are in deep trouble... etc, etc.

You don’t need to be an expert to figure out what the ridiculous chicken race in Washington could do, in the worst scenario, to the already heavily wobbling world economy.

Time to wake up!

I just hope this lesson doesn't get learned the hard way.

Moody's rated Greece debt as junk.
 
  • #155
SixNein said:
The president would have to draw upon the 14th amendment in order to declare the law unconstitutional. And without a doubt this would make its way to the courts. Now this is a measure that everyone would like to avoid; however, it may become necessary if congress collapses. At that point, the president will need to do everything possible to avoid a major economic disaster.

If all else fails, this option absolutely must be taken.

If Congress collapses?

I expect the House to generate a sensible piece of legislation - that Harry Reid will choke on and the President will hold multiple press conferences over - then sign because he has no choice (it's not his fault that spending is cut) - IMO.
 
  • #156
WhoWee said:
If Congress collapses?

I expect the House to generate a sensible piece of legislation - that Harry Reid will choke on and the President will hold multiple press conferences over - then sign because he has no choice (it's not his fault that spending is cut) - IMO.

Many members of the house have pledged to not vote for a debt limit increase.

Something must be done in 8 days. If it is not done, the US goes over the cliff into the abyss.

So let me ask you a question, do you understand that not raising the debt limit causes a major financial crisis?
 
  • #157
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #158
Six: Wait, hold on - it sounds like you're suggesting that Obama should seize dictatorial power, taking over some of the the key functions of both congress and the ussc. Am I reading that right?
 
  • #159
SixNein said:
Many members of the house have pledged to not vote for a debt limit increase.

Something must be done in 8 days. If it is not done, the US goes over the cliff into the abyss.

So let me ask you a question, do you understand that not raising the debt limit causes a major financial crisis?

Do you understand the US borrows 40% of it's "budget" - and actually - we don't even have a budget? It's time for the adults (Republicans) to bring the kids (Democrats) back to reality.
 
  • #160
russ_watters said:
Six: Wait, hold on - it sounds like you're suggesting that Obama should seize dictatorial power, taking over some of the the key functions of both congress and the ussc. Am I reading that right?

Like I said - an impeachable offense.
 
  • #161
WhoWee said:
Do you understand the US borrows 40% of it's "budget" - and actually - we don't even have a budget? It's time for the adults (Republicans) to bring the kids (Democrats) back to reality.

You are avoiding my question about the debt limit. Do you understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

To answer your question, default is not a resolution for budget issues.
 
  • #162
russ_watters said:
Six: Wait, hold on - it sounds like you're suggesting that Obama should seize dictatorial power, taking over some of the the key functions of both congress and the ussc. Am I reading that right?

The executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and the 14 amendment may be used to challenge the debt limit.

This is a last resort option, but preferable to an economic disaster.
 
  • #163
SixNein said:
You are avoiding my question about the debt limit. Do you understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

To answer your question, default is not a resolution for budget issues.

I fully understand the consequences - that's why I've been beating the drum to reverse the spending and the ever expanding debt for the past several years. The President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrat leaders have put (spent) us into a very dangerous place!
 
  • #164
Maybe we should stop thinking about the raising debt celing and raising taxes as a 'path to recovery' and start thinking more long term. Maybe this is all the recovery we are going to get so the CBO estimates for tax income will be even smaller over the next 10 years.
 
  • #165
SixNein said:
You are avoiding my question about the debt limit. Do you understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

To answer your question, default is not a resolution for budget issues.

Not raising the debt limit means that the first lady has to fire one of her 80 staffers? or less West Coast golf trips for the President? Or does it mean we have to start taxing unions?

Raising the debt limit is going to be neccessary, but only because we're in a corner. The sticking point for both parties is the resolution beyond raising the debt celing. I don't think there's really serious policy debate, at this point, about NOT raising the debt celing beyond hyperbole.
 
  • #166
mege said:
Maybe we should stop thinking about the raising debt celing and raising taxes as a 'path to recovery' and start thinking more long term. Maybe this is all the recovery we are going to get so the CBO estimates for tax income will be even smaller over the next 10 years.

I agree - the Democrats have made spending commitments that require either raising the debt limit and/or tax hikes - that might not increase revenues.

It's funny we aren't hearing how much money Obamacare is going to save us - as it was presented previously - where are those arguments?
 
  • #167
mege said:
Not raising the debt limit means that the first lady has to fire one of her 80 staffers? or less West Coast golf trips for the President? Or does it mean we have to start taxing unions?

Raising the debt limit is going to be neccessary, but only because we're in a corner. The sticking point for both parties is the resolution beyond raising the debt celing. I don't think there's really serious policy debate, at this point, about NOT raising the debt celing beyond hyperbole.

Correct again - the limit will have to increase - but the Republicans will get spending rollbacks whether the President or Harry Reid like it (IMO).
 
  • #168
SixNein said:
The executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and the 14 amendment may be used to challenge the debt limit.

This is a last resort option, but preferable to an economic disaster.
Challengingthe law is not enforcing the law. In fact its pretty much the opposite.

In any case, which clause of the 14th amendment are you invoking and why?
 
  • #169
mege said:
Raising the debt limit is going to be neccessary, but only because we're in a corner. The sticking point for both parties is the resolution beyond raising the debt celing. I don't think there's really serious policy debate, at this point, about NOT raising the debt celing beyond hyperbole.

According to Michele Bachman who is tied for the lead for the Republicans, a default would be no problem.

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?
 
  • #170
mege said:
Maybe we should stop thinking about the raising debt celing and raising taxes as a 'path to recovery' and start thinking more long term. Maybe this is all the recovery we are going to get so the CBO estimates for tax income will be even smaller over the next 10 years.
I think regardless of if it is all we're going to get it is all we have now, so our budgets should be dealing with that reality.
 
  • #171
Ivan Seeking said:
Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?
Certainly not!
 
  • #172
I have no respect for both parties. I respect individuals. I may be a left wing wacko, but I respect the likes of George Will and William F Buckley. I may disagree with them at times, but I cannot fault their opinions which I consider well informed and thoughtful (I just disagree with some of their conclusions). I also respect liberal intellectuals such as Chomsky, even though I also disagree with his conclusions at times.
 
  • #173
WhoWee said:
Do you understand the US borrows 40% of it's "budget" - and actually - we don't even have a budget? It's time for the adults (Republicans) to bring the kids (Democrats) back to reality.

:smile:

Being a lifelong registered Democrat, I of course view the labels completely the opposite.

My solution to the whole deficit/debt thing is the following.

As long as we are running a deficit or are in debt:

Raise taxes each year by:

5% on the top 0.1% until they reach 70% (~5 years)
2.5% on the top 0.1-1% until they reach 60% (~10 years)
1% on the top 1-5% until they reach 50% (~15 years)
.5% on the top 5-10% until they reach 40%
.25% on the top 10-25% until they reach 30%
.125% on the top 25-50% until they read 20%

When we finally are out of this hole, we can of course lower the rates each year by the same amount, until we reach our happy, debt free equilibrium.

These rates are of course higher than what I posted in the other thread:

OmCheeto said:
50% on the top 1% (currently $1,423,580 agi average)
40% on the top 1-5% (currently $227,950 agi average)
30% on the top 5-10% (currently $132,316 agi average)
20% on the top 10-25% (currently $85,891 agi average)
15% on the top 25-50% (currently $47,490 agi average)

Because those were the rates we would have needed over the past 20 years to have zero debt. So to get out of debt we need to be, what do the Greeks call it, austere? And how again did we get to where we are? Do I have to mention by name the two flimflam Republicans again who lowered the taxes on everyone that put us here in our current predicament?

I realize that the above scenario seems a bit simple, but being just off the top of my head, it should. But my point is that "we can not, and will not, raise taxes, on anyone" is about as childish a response to this whole mess as you can get.

I would do the mathematical analysis of how long it would take us to get out of debt with my revised plan, but I have a dental appointment to have my teeth cleaned in about an hour. :biggrin:
 
  • #174
OmCheeto said:
I realize that the above scenario seems a bit simple, but being just off the top of my head, it should. But my point is that "we can not, and will not, raise taxes, on anyone" is about as childish a response to this whole mess as you can get.

Agree! Kudos! :approve::approve::approve:
 
  • #175
Ivan Seeking said:
According to Michele Bachman who is tied for the lead for the Republicans, a default would be no problem.

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?

It's doubtful she believes default would be "no problem".

I also remember this:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=54464227&category=views&id=20110425205730

"Moreover, I am concerned that a second round of quantitative easing will further aggravate market participants’ uncertainty about near-term economic conditions. There can be little doubt that a second round of quantitative easing would represent a near-emergency intervention by the Federal Reserve and a signal of duress about the future of our economy. In addition, quantitative easing and the concomitant ex nihilo creation of money will undoubtedly impact the inflation rate. Unsettlingly, it remains to be seen where inflation would settle after the proposed implementation of a second quantitative easing."

I don't think the printing of money can be separated from the discussion of the national debt.
 
  • #176
OmCheeto said:
:smile:

Being a lifelong registered Democrat, I of course view the labels completely the opposite.

My solution to the whole deficit/debt thing is the following.

As long as we are running a deficit or are in debt:

Raise taxes each year by:

5% on the top 0.1% until they reach 70% (~5 years)
2.5% on the top 0.1-1% until they reach 60% (~10 years)
1% on the top 1-5% until they reach 50% (~15 years)
.5% on the top 5-10% until they reach 40%
.25% on the top 10-25% until they reach 30%
.125% on the top 25-50% until they read 20%

When we finally are out of this hole, we can of course lower the rates each year by the same amount, until we reach our happy, debt free equilibrium.

These rates are of course higher than what I posted in the other thread:



Because those were the rates we would have needed over the past 20 years to have zero debt. So to get out of debt we need to be, what do the Greeks call it, austere? And how again did we get to where we are? Do I have to mention by name the two flimflam Republicans again who lowered the taxes on everyone that put us here in our current predicament?

I realize that the above scenario seems a bit simple, but being just off the top of my head, it should. But my point is that "we can not, and will not, raise taxes, on anyone" is about as childish a response to this whole mess as you can get.

I would do the mathematical analysis of how long it would take us to get out of debt with my revised plan, but I have a dental appointment to have my teeth cleaned in about an hour. :biggrin:


I assume you're proposing to raise your own personal taxes?
 
  • #177
Ivan Seeking said:
According to Michele Bachman who is tied for the lead for the Republicans, a default would be no problem.

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?

Absolutely not, Michele Bachman is a danger for herself and the surroundings*.


*global economy
 
  • #178
russ_watters said:
Try doing a forum search for "impeach Obama", then another for "impeach Bush" and let me know if you still think that.

Also, I had trouble finding the original quote - did more than one person say it or is "you guys" just one person?

There is a fallacy here, but I can't figure out what it is. Basically, I never said that Democrats weren't really into impeaching Bush. And how many Democrats believe in impeaching Bush is irrelevant to the fact that a lot of Republicans still really want to impeach Obama.

Also, I meant "you guys" as in "all of the people who want to impeach Obama". And I've personally seen quite a few.
 
  • #179
Char. Limit said:
There is a fallacy here, but I can't figure out what it is. Basically, I never said that Democrats weren't really into impeaching Bush. And how many Democrats believe in impeaching Bush is irrelevant to the fact that a lot of Republicans still really want to impeach Obama.

Also, I meant "you guys" as in "all of the people who want to impeach Obama". And I've personally seen quite a few.

Perhaps we can move this to a new thread - actions of President Obama - discuss what might be impeachable on their own merits (things like the level of our involvement in Libya, our relationship in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, our energy policy, czars, EPA administrative actions, expansion of the IRS to enforce health insurance) and collectively?
 
  • #180
WhoWee said:
It's doubtful she believes default would be "no problem".

Oh yeah!? So why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqjqDV4fxLY", i.e. default is NOT a problem, according to the financial oracle Michele Bachman!
"We cannot go on scaeerrrring the American people!" ​
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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