-
Future of Republican Party?
-
Quote from RVU
Gee that is a lot of run-on non-sense for my three or four sentences, all done with predictable Lux, Nobody 2008, Specultus, tell-tale overuse of CAPS and italics to make circumlocutions points amounting to nothing but gas-bag Marxist filibustering.
Yes, I have no doubt that the only thing you read (or at least understood) in my reply were those 3 short words in caps, which I put there deliberately in complete expectation that you would nitpick 3 words and inflate them as representing an “overuse” of caps, rather than analyze and rebut.
But that’s the cherry-picking RVU we’ve all come to expect.
-
The concensus is that all this deficit cutting austerity is helping to kill the economy, at least keeping it suppressed. All the countries in Europe are see ing the results of cutting your way to prosperity as doing nothing but killing their economies. Even Germany has seen a decline of their GDP and Great Britain narrowly missed being the 1st country to experience a triple recession as a result of their austerity measures.
Stop digging the hole deeper. The way out is not down to the other side.
-
-
Census data released, confirms long term need for the GOP to find a way to get non-white voters:
[image]http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2013/05/electorate-race-2012-census.jpg[/image]
[link=http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/05/08/182301593/census-black-voting-surpassed-white-in-2012]http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/05/08/182301593/census-black-voting-surpassed-white-in-2012[/link]
Or to put it in a more hyperbolic tone, there’s this headline from [i]The New Republic[/i] regarding the same data:
[b][b]The New Census Data that Should Terrify Republicans:[/b] Obama’s coalition may only grow stronger after he leaves office[/b]
-
[link=http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/hotlineoncall/2013/05/ohio-tea-party-groups-considering-gop-insurrection-06]http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/hotlineoncall/2013/05/ohio-tea-party-groups-considering-gop-insurrection-06[/link]
The Ohio Tea Party/GOP split taking national attention.
The Ohio tea party’s fracturing of the state GOP could be a serious worry, [link=http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/hotlineoncall/2013/05/tea-party-groups-clash-with-kasich-in-ohio-03]we[i] [/i]noted last Friday[/link], if the harsh rhetoric is followed by real action. Today, a [link=http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/05/06/tea-party-has-had-it-with-gop.html]report in the [i]Columbus Dispatch[/i][/link] shows just how bad things have gotten in the Buckeye State.
Tea party groups, writes [b]Joe Hallett[/b], are considering three options: a clean split (either to form a new party or join another), primary challenges to “anybody who every crossed us” or under-voting to punish Republicans who don’t pass the tea party litmus test.
It isn’t clear how or when such actions would materialize, partly because the tea party lacks a single identifiable leader and is made up of factions of its own. But the open disgust with establishment Republicans from county GOP leaders, social conservatives and groups like Americans for Prosperity suggests the growing chorus of anger isn’t an idle threat.
[b]Tom Zawistowski[/b], who lost the race for Ohio GOP chair to an establishment-picked candidate, met Saturday with the Constitution Party’s head to discuss a possible merger. And tea partiers point to tepid Republican support for Gov. [b]John Kasich[/b]’s proposed Medicaid expansion as a sign they can wield the power of “threat” to garner enough votes to undermine his agenda.
Again, there’s no definite plan of action, but the talk of specific options — all designed to punish establishment Republicans — suggests the tea party rage amounts to more than just fist-shaking. It’s unclear what, if anything, can bring tea partiers back on board, but surely their revolt has GOP operatives worried as they gear up for 2014.-
I can tell you it has sucked firing so many good techs, nurses, and other employees over the past 5 years.
As our group has made less, I have had to cut way back on personal and corporate spending. That trickles down to all the services and goods I don’t use or buy anymore. Unfortunately I have to balance my personal finances every month.
I am happy enough with my workouts at the Y and biking on free local trails. I recently ported my home phone to Google Voice, saving $40/month. My kids can go to state schools. I don’t need to spend money to be happy.
However, it is a joke to think that the “trickle down” does not apply to economic misery as well. Every service and product I cancel or do not buy adds another feather to the camel’s back somewhere else in the chain. En mass those translate to further jobs lost and other people who have to cut back. I see very little reason to be more productive if it is going to push me up into the “not paying their fair share” highest tax rate.
-
But that is exactly the goal of austerity spending, to contract the economy. Look at the European countries who have preceded our austerity spending. As I said above, they all have and are experiencing economic contraction with Great Britain narrowly avoiding a triple recession. Every country that has adopted austerity spending to reduce their deficits have in fact seen their deficits increase as well as seeing their economies contract.
Why are you surprised Drummer?
It’s not the taxes that’s destroying the economies. It’s the conservatives.-
And here lies the complete disconnect….
I can tell you it has sucked firing so many good techs, nurses, and other employees over the past 5 years… I see very little reason to be more productive if it is going to push me up into the “not paying their fair share” highest tax rate
-
Quote from Frumious
It’s not the taxes that’s destroying the economies. It’s the conservatives.
Well this is just the Keynesian vs supply-side economics argument. I tend to fall on the supply-side because it just makes more intrinsic sense to me.-
Supply-side is discredited. Other than when Reagan lowered rates from 70%, it has failed to bring revenue, it only increases deficits. Reagan also proved that. For all of Bush’s tax cuts, his economy was miserable and his deficits ballooned while Clinton increased taxes and his economy ballooned & got surpluses.
Reality bites. Evidence based observations discredit supply-side.
-
Quote from Frumious
Supply-side is discredited. Other than when Reagan lowered rates from 70%, it has failed to bring revenue, it only increases deficits. Reagan also proved that. For all of Bush’s tax cuts, his economy was miserable and his deficits ballooned while Clinton increased taxes and his economy ballooned & got surpluses.
Reality bites. Evidence based observations discredit supply-side.
In the eyes of Paul Krugman, I am sure you are right. You mention deficits, what are deficits to a Keynesian? Isn’t our ability to print money infinite because governments are different from people?
When you say Bush’s economy was miserable, was that the 5% unemployment economy? When you say Clinton balanced the budget, was it not in the years in which he declared “The era of big government is over” and passed comprehensive welfare reform, thus significantly reducing gov’t spending, all the while riding the dot com bubble that burst at the end of his presidency?
It is a fools game to debate this sort of topic in an internet forum. In a situation as complex and replete with easily misleading statistics as macroeconomics, it is all too easy to find “evidence” that one’s own opinion is correct. It is pure confirmation bias. Declaring opinions other than your own “discredited” is childish and unconvincing.-
Quote from Drummer
Quote from Frumious
Supply-side is discredited. Other than when Reagan lowered rates from 70%, it has failed to bring revenue, it only increases deficits. Reagan also proved that. For all of Bush’s tax cuts, his economy was miserable and his deficits ballooned while Clinton increased taxes and his economy ballooned & got surpluses.
Reality bites. Evidence based observations discredit supply-side.
In the eyes of Paul Krugman, I am sure you are right. You mention deficits, what are deficits to a Keynesian? Isn’t our ability to print money infinite because governments are different from people?
When you say Bush’s economy was miserable, was that the 5% unemployment economy? When you say Clinton balanced the budget, was it not in the years in which he declared “The era of big government is over” and passed comprehensive welfare reform, thus significantly reducing gov’t spending, all the while riding the dot com bubble that burst at the end of his presidency?
It is a fools game to debate this sort of topic in an internet forum. In a situation as complex and replete with easily misleading statistics as macroeconomics, it is all too easy to find “evidence” that one’s own opinion is correct. It is pure confirmation bias. Declaring opinions other than your own “discredited” is childish and unconvincing.
+1 -
Quote from Drummer
Quote from Frumious
Supply-side is discredited. Other than when Reagan lowered rates from 70%, it has failed to bring revenue, it only increases deficits. Reagan also proved that. For all of Bush’s tax cuts, his economy was miserable and his deficits ballooned while Clinton increased taxes and his economy ballooned & got surpluses.
Reality bites. Evidence based observations discredit supply-side.
In the eyes of Paul Krugman, I am sure you are right. You mention deficits, what are deficits to a Keynesian? Isn’t our ability to print money infinite because governments are different from people?
When you say Bush’s economy was miserable, was that the 5% unemployment economy? When you say Clinton balanced the budget, was it not in the years in which he declared “The era of big government is over” and passed comprehensive welfare reform, thus significantly reducing gov’t spending, all the while riding the dot com bubble that burst at the end of his presidency?
It is a fools game to debate this sort of topic in an internet forum. In a situation as complex and replete with easily misleading statistics as macroeconomics, it is all too easy to find “evidence” that one’s own opinion is correct. It is pure confirmation bias. Declaring opinions other than your own “discredited” is childish and unconvincing.
+1
It is a fools game to debate this sort of topic in an internet forum. Never any motion toward agreement, simply endless posturing.
No one listens. There is no dialog (dialog requires listeners as well as speakers)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Drummer
In the eyes of Paul Krugman, I am sure you are right. You mention deficits, what are deficits to a Keynesian? Isn’t our ability to print money infinite because governments are different from people?
When you say Bush’s economy was miserable, was that the 5% unemployment economy? When you say Clinton balanced the budget, was it not in the years in which he declared “The era of big government is over” and passed comprehensive welfare reform, thus significantly reducing gov’t spending, all the while riding the dot com bubble that burst at the end of his presidency?
It is a fools game to debate this sort of topic in an internet forum. In a situation as complex and replete with easily misleading statistics as macroeconomics, it is all too easy to find “evidence” that one’s own opinion is correct. It is pure confirmation bias. Declaring opinions other than your own “discredited” is childish and unconvincing.
Wow, talk about cherry-picking half truths. What sane economist would characterize the Bush economy as “healthy”? You may think Bush [i]averaged[/i] a 5% unemployment, but every single analysis shows that it [i]trended[/i] into the deep double-digits and was saved in the nick of time from a catastrophic collapse. And in the same breath you have the nerve to cite how Clinton [i]trended[/i] at the end of his presidency and not how he [i]averaged[/i] through his 8 years?
It’s no surprise that you would simply hand wave this discussion as being categorically “complex” and decide it doesn’t warrant debate on an internet forum at all.
I do believe you are underestimating the intelligence of readers in this forum.
-
[link=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57586242/gop-ought-to-be-closed-for-repairs-says-bob-dole/]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57586242/gop-ought-to-be-closed-for-repairs-says-bob-dole/[/link]
Quote from Bob Dole
“I think they ought to put a sign on the [Republican] national committee doors that says ‘closed for repairs’ until New Year’s Day next year and spend that time going over ideas and positive agendas.
Asked whether Republicans of years past, many of whom had a more diplomatic approach to compromise and governance than today’s Republicans, would be able to make it in the modern GOP, Dole said, “I doubt it.”
“Reagan wouldn’t have made it. Certainly Nixon couldn’t have made it, because he had ideas,” he explained. “We might have made it, but I doubt it.”
-
Quote from dergon
Asked whether Republicans of years past, many of whom had a more diplomatic approach to compromise and governance than today’s Republicans, would be able to make it in the modern GOP.”
This narrative, that republicans are immoderate, that you eagerly try to restate whenever you can, is just not supported by the facts. Take the last two republican presidential nominees, Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney. Both well recognized moderate republicans. 30 of the 50 states in the union are currently controlled by republicans governors and statehouses. Empirically, this directly contradicts your rhetoric.
However, a near majority of democrats in Congress are part of the Progressive Caucus. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the recent past have tried to pass laws for: direct income redistribution, removal of God from every public forum including all colleges and medical institutions, unilateral abrogation of trade agreements, state directed industry, abolition of the 2nd amendment, pacifism as foreign policy, quotas, government run, single-payer healthcare with waitlists, bottomless welfare obligations or welfare without means testing, open border policy to any and all immigrants without screening or protection, debt accumulation, leniency with violent criminals, higher taxes on corporations or and individuals that create jobs, third trimester/partial birth abortion on demand funded by the government, uber-regulation of every industry as a part of regulation or even stifling business, arbitrary speech codes, etc . This is why less than 20% of Americans label themselves as liberal. Please name me similar planks that are as objectionable as these that a majority of republicans believe in?-
Romney and McCain both *were* moderates, yeah. But by the time they had run the gantlet of the GOP primary process they were pulled off of their moderate ground so far rightward that there was no hope of getting back tothe middle.
-
Quote from RVU
However, a near majority of democrats in Congress are part of the Progressive Caucus. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the recent past have tried to pass laws for: [a bunch of stuff RVU framed from the GOP talking points]
The house progressive caucus yields much much less power over the democratic party than the Tea Party wields over the GOP.
Both parties have their wings, the far left and the far right. It is the undue influence held by the far right of the GOP that has led to their national problems.
When push comes to shove, the progressives, for the most part, have been willing to give breathing room to democrats in order to hold seats. The “primarying” of democrats from the left happens, but to nowhere neat the extent it has in the last few years with the GOP. (The Bloomberg foray against a southern pro-gun democrat might mark a significant change in this, howere … or it might be a one-off). There are some progressives that lament the lack of influence that the far left has over the mainstream democratic party and wish there was something on the left that even close to a Tea Party equivalent. But it doesn’t exist right now. The overall political reality is that GOP candidates are currently bound much more tightly to the right wing of their party than are democrats to the left.
-
This says it all:
[b] [/b][b]Words that up-for-grabs voters associate with the GOP:[/b] The responses were brutal: closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned.
From a report on how the GOP lost young voters.
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/gop-youth-vote-report-92119.html]http://www.politico.com/s…vote-report-92119.html[/link]It is not hard to find examples of Republican missteps in the 2012 election that enhanced this brand challenge, the study said. Whether the infamous 47 percent remarks made by [Mitt] Romney or the legitimate rape comments made by Rep. Todd Akin in his Senate campaign, there were numerous examples of Republican leaders making statements that were terribly out of step with where voters particularly young voters stand.
-
I loved the chairman’s quip that “there are a lot of misconceptions”. The misconceptions I see is that the Republican Party has a total misconception about what’s good for America at this point.
I got a kick out of the reader comment after the article:
[blockquote] “Young people are frustrated and angry. We’ve been handed a nearly insurmountable debt generated by unsustainable tax policies and unfunded wars. The environment is damaged, infrastructure is crumbling, and starting a life is impossibly expensive for many. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is more concerned with cutting healthcare, banning abortion, and discriminating against gays. They deny evolution, mock science, and take pride in their ignorance. They are childish, petty, and obstructive; mainly just outright mean. They seem to delight in insulting and denigrating liberals. As the article states above, it’s a hard sell.”
[/blockquote] which was followed by a reply comment:
[blockquote] “But other than that….”
[/blockquote] The youth of America are actually quite educated and represent a very real threat to the Republican Party.
-
-
Quote from dergon
The house progressive caucus yields [u]much much less power [/u]over the democratic party than the Tea Party wields over the GOP.
Say what???!!
A higher percentage of democrats (76) consider themselves in the Progressive Caucaus, than Republicans who label themselves as Tea Party members (53). Not only that, most of the recent leadership (committee chairmen or ranking members) controlling what legislation comes out of onto the floor of the democrat party are Progressive Caucus members. In other words, the cards are staked against moderate democrats because the TRUE power players in the Democratic party, in particular in a White House that is disengaged, is held by pernicious Progressives Caucus members.
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus[/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus]http://en.wikipedia.org/w…nal_Progressive_Caucus[/link]
List of Progressive Caucus Members in Congressional Leadership:
Nancy Pelosi-Speaker of the House,
E. Cummings (Banking),
E. Markey (Telecommunications),
L. Gutierrez (Immigration),
C. Rangel (Ways/Means),
J. Lewis (Ways and Means, Oversight),
M. Waters (YUCK–whip, Judicial),
J. Conyers (antisemitic YUCK-Judicial),
L. Sanchez (Ways and Means),
R. Holt (Energy),
N. Velazquez (Small business),
C. Maloney (Finance),
J. Nadler (Judicial),
M. Watt (MR.GERRYMANDER-Judiary),
P. DeFazio (Energy),
M. Fudge (Oversight),
D. Davis (Ways and Means),
H. Waxman (Energy, Oversight),
J. McDermott (Ways and Means),
X. Becerra (Ways and Means),
C. Fatah (Judicial),
E. Blumenauer (Ways and Means),
J. Moran (Interior),
S. Jackson-Lee (Transportation),
S. Bonamici (Environment),
Y. Clarke (Security),
M. Capuano (Financial),
R. Grijalva (Natural Resources),
G. Miller (Education),
W. Clay (Banking-Financial),
R. DeLauro (Steering Comm., Labor),
K. Bass (Foreign Affairs),
M. Takano (Veterans Affairs),
J. Tierney (Foreign Affairs),
S. Cohen (Judicial),
E. Johnson (Sci/Technology),
S. Farr (Appropriations),
M. Cartwright (Oversight),
All of these Progressive Caucus democrat members are in leadership positions. They uphold the out-of-the mainstream-to-extremist views of non-negotiable interventionist huge central government that is modeled after what occurred in the US during WWII and after WWII in the UK/France.
Now, here is your challenge. Please construct a similar list of Tea Party members who hold even 1/10th as many powerful position as the extremist Progressive Caucus does.
Just for a start: Here’s the Current Republican House Leadership/Chairmen of Committees: Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, McMorris-Rodgers, Ryan, Lankford, Camp, Goodlatte, Issa, Lucas, M. Rogers, H. Rogers, Kline, Upton, Hensarling, Bachus,Hastings, J. Miller. All of these Republican Congressional leaders are not Tea Party members. There are two. E. Royce-Chairman of the Foreign House Committee and Lynn Westmoreland -ONLY tea party members in position of power in Congress.
That’s 38 Progressive Caucus members to 2 Tea Party members. There are things to admire about your responses. But when you are wrong it’s glaring, really.-
Your mistake is considering congressional numbers and leadership positions as the prime measure of influence of behavior over individual candidates.
The influence of the Tea Party comes primarily from grass roots. It is the tea party affiliates on the ground that keep republicans latched to the right wing.-
Quote from dergon
Your mistake is considering congressional numbers and leadership positions as the prime measure of influence of behavior over individual candidates.
Strongly disagree with this rather strange statement. Whatever perceived non-elected or non-legislative ‘power’ tea party constituents have, it is no where near as powerful as being able to directly fashion laws and regulations that the Progressive Caucus members have being in positions of power throughout the government. Take obamacare as a specific instance. During the 111th congress, progressives (in the caucus and WH) stuffed this unseemly large bill with regulations that have been estimated to cost up to 1.8 trillion dollars in tax/regulation, most of which is levied against business. Although there has been consistent 55% of the population against obamacare, progressive democrats with levels on the power adopted a bill. That’s real power or a ‘big fu-king deal’ in the words of the VP.
Quote from dergon
The influence of the Tea Party comes primarily from grass roots. It is the tea party affiliates on the ground that keep republicans latched to the right wing.
Here’s where you can argue your point about influence. In early 2009, after the start of the profligate spending of Obama/ democrat party , spending more in 18 months than GWB did in 8 years, the message of limited government galvanized almost instantly. The simple Tea Party message of “Limited/better managed government, and lower taxes” cropped up and quickly rallied behind as an effective defense against the social welfare state desires of Progressives including Obama.
The message of ‘limited govt/lower taxes’ has had its effects on both parties. It has made the republican party, on financial issues, more ‘conservative’. At the same time, liberals have tried, legally (and now we are starting to find out, illegally), to have a bulwark in place against implementation of limited/efficient government. In fact, liberals have increased their demands for higher government intervention in everything (budget, energy, banking, industry regulation, etc). As a liberal, you have to ask yourself, what is inherently wrong about a message of ‘Limited/better managed government, and lower taxes’? If you think government needs to be expanded before it reforms-come out and say it. However, most public democrats do not and instead try to deviance label or conduct a multifaceted class warfare, as obama did in the 2012 campaign, instead of directing taking on the simple idea ‘limited government, lower taxes’.
The Obama’s WH m.o., unlike every other President in my lifetime, has been not to sit down, get to know and then compromise with political adversaries. Ronald Reagan did this often and in fact it likely made him a successful President, despite being pitilessly belittled and painted as an intense ideologue by the left over the course of 4 decades. Instead Obama is on constant campaign mode trying to sell his brand of liberalism to the public. Then he tries to fashion policy afterwards once he’s lambasted both the conservative and moderate positions and politicians.
This is where the tea party’s simple message is a most effective tool. Simply put, Obama can not talk around or compel enough Americans to believe that limited government is wrong, and, bigger government is right. Liberal populism has its limits-highlighted by the Tea Party’s message and commonsense. Because he cant talk around the tea party’s message, Obama has lost Congress, he lost/stalemated budget battles, lost gun control, and now losing the implementation of obamacare, the ‘crown’ achievement of his administration. Its likely the reason he’s is graying so quickly. It is also a very likely motive that his White House may have resorted to illegality to go after Tea Party and media adversaries. Its only the Tea Party and adversarial media outlets that has been investigated. Do you believe in random occurrences that much to not be suspicious? Or, like Progressive ilk such as Jim McDermott, in hearings, you just dont care?
IMHO, the current scandals, especially the IRS, does more to damage the obama presidency, even if a direct tie can not be established to obama himself (a WH tie is a near certainty at this point). Why? Because the scandals brings a clear shadow of senseless and vicious government power conducting multiple illicit and illegal acts. It directly hurts him as campaigner-in-chief of expanded government and trust in Washington. How long can the obama campaign style press on about how expanding government ‘helping’ people, all while ignoring illegality of multiple branches of his government. “The Emperor has no clothes” effect is quickly in play whenever you hear obama speak publicly nowadays. He cant engage [i]any [/i]republican at this point without accounting for what is out in front crimes committed by his attorney general/justice dept, Treasury, and soon Re-election campaign. In other words, he will try to endlessly campaign, however in light of the scandals, it will seem more and more like cynical banter from a generic leftist politician. He will be faced with more and more questions in public. The results may be that he becomes as bunkered in the White House, as Pres Nixon was in the very early 1970s after the Laos campaign.
Here’s something to ponder about your continuous assertions that the republican are now ideological radicals. You keep claiming this despite republicans picking well recognized moderates as its last two nominees and 60% of the states having republican legislatures/executives.
However, ask yourself this: with this left leaning and ideologically pure democratic base, how many recent democratic president would have been elected? Would they have elected JFK today, a foreign policy hawk and tax cutter? Would democrats elect Bill Clinton, who ushered in modern American free-trade, cut capital gains for those ‘fat cats wall-streeters’ by 30%, workfare instead of welfare, and pronounced before getting re-elected that the era of big govt is over?! Would the democrats have elected a religiously conservative Southerner like Jimmy Carter? Would they have elected an young Al Gore, war-hawk and ‘raging’ moderate?
-
The IRS scandal, Bengazi, etc will have no efect at all on next elections. People don’t have that long of a memory and unless somebody shows that Obama personally ordered any of it, it will become much ado about nothing.
The GOP ultimately has to decied if it is a party of fiscally conservatives with no big social message or if it is the party of social conservatism. The latter will come with the baggage of antigay, antiimmigrant, and in reality old white male look. The GOP will never attract more young, Hispanics, gays, etc as long as they fear and cater to the far right Tea Party types. If the standard barer of the GOP (Reagan) was running today he couldn’t win in the GOP as it now stands.-
A republican moderate reformer on the need for the GOP to leave conservatism behind
The obvious question, then, is what business I have trying to tell the Republican Party to change or be less conservative. After all, aren’t Republicans entitled to first principles that differ from mine? They are.
But conservatism isn’t a first principle, and it increasingly runs counter to the stated first principles of Republicans.
I’m a utilitarian, so my first principle is “make people better off.” You could have some alternative set of first principles, perhaps based around protecting a concept of natural rights or a set of religious beliefs. But the justifications we most often hear for conservative economic policies are utilitarian ones that they foster economic growth, create jobs, and make people wealthier.
Those are empirical claims, and Republicans ought to change their policy prescriptions if they turn out to be false. And my finding is that they have. The economic shock of the last five years showed several ways in which conservative economic policies fail to uplift the middle class. An improperly regulated banking sector leveraged up irresponsibly and then crashed, causing a mini-depression. People can’t find jobs. Their wages are not rising robustly.
The conservative prescription of tax cuts and regulation cuts does not address these problems. But that is the only conservative prescription. This is why Mitt Romney was in the awkward position last year of needing to talk about “jobs jobs jobs” while having only one policy increased fossil-fuel extraction that was likely to do anything to create them.
Conservatives have two options here. One is that they can admit that they don’t care about uplifting the middle class; that their first principles are not utilitarian and not aimed at benefitting the broad public. That would be principled, but I don’t think it would be good, and most voters would agree with me.
The other is that they can come up with a new agenda that aims at today’s middle class economic concerns. This agenda would have to accept greater fiscal progressivity in response to economic changes that have raised pre-tax income inequality. It would have to accept that we have not defeated the business cycle, and deep recessions like the one in 2009 make a stronger safety net morally necessary. It would have to address the question of how the government should best interfere in markets like health care and banking, rather than repeating mindlessly that it must get out of the way.
Conservatives will protest that this would make Republicans a lot more like Democrats. That’s true. In most advanced countries, right- and left-of-center political parties accept the basic shape of the tax system, the safety net, and the role of government, and they fight over design matters at the margin. Despite the conservative tendency to talk about other advanced countries like they are some sort of hellscape, this system works well and we would do well to emulate it.
The role of Republicans in this system would be to provide a healthy, needed skepticism about the role and [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/Forum/]capabilities[image]http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png[/image][/link] of government. But the key there, [link=http://www.businessinsider.com/nihilist-gop-ruins-our-policy-debates-2013-6]as I discussed yesterday[/link], is “healthy.” Conservatism has committed them to an unhealthy level of objection to the government, forcing them to push policies that harm the public and costing them credibility in the cases when their cautions are actually correct.[link=http://www.businessinsider.com/conservatism-is-the-problem-2013-6#ixzz2VczgVsfv]http://www.businessinsider.com/conservatism-is-the-problem-2013-6#ixzz2VczgVsfv[/link]
-
Ain’t gonna happen, dergon, the religious orthodoxy of the republicans is that there should be no addressing of problems by government, especially since it’s always incompetent, requires taxation aka “redistribution” to pay for and generally the sole function of the Federal govt is defense, nothing else. As in nothing else. Did I mention government is always incompetent anyway?
Besides those who would be helped would be de-incentivized by help, as in the 47% being bought off or just too damned lazy or stupid or dysfunctional anyway
-
Quote from dergon
A republican moderate reformer on the need for the GOP to leave conservatism behind
Democrats need to move back from their religious belief in liberalism to revive the economy and protect us abroad and at home. Bill Clintons moderation couldnt get past Iowa in today’s democrat party. Name me the moderate planks held widely in the democrat party?
-
Quote from RVU
Democrats need to move back from their religious belief in liberalism to revive the economy and protect us abroad and at home.
I am genuinely surprised to hear you acknowledge that Democrats adhere to any religious belief at all.
But I still have no idea about which you speak. What religious belief do you suggest Democrats “move back from”?
And you suggest that Democrats can revive the economy? Seems to me that the Democrats are trying earnestly to revive the economy and even in spite of incessant Republican intervention and paralysis, the Democrats’ plan is suceeding.
Rather, the question among most rational people these days is “What are REPUBLICANS doing to revive the economy?
-
Here dergon, something to read that relates to what I said & why the GOP won’t change in the short term.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-jr-libertarianisms-achilles-heel/2013/06/09/4dfd3c9c-cf8c-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…7f40e176f03_story.html[/link] -
Quote from Frumious
Here dergon, something to read that relates to what I said & why the GOP won’t change in the short term.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-jr-libertarianisms-achilles-heel/2013/06/09/4dfd3c9c-cf8c-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…7f40e176f03_story.html[/link]From the WP article:
[blockquote] [i]”Note that Rothbard freely acknowledges that liberty has never been fully tried, at least by the libertarians exacting definition.”[/i]
[/blockquote] I respectfully disagree. The USA did indeed try that for a time. It was called “The Wild West”, and it proved itself to be rather unsustainable. And the fact that the Tea Partiers, themselves, feel compelled to lump Medicare and Social Security as “exceptions” to the libertarian doctrine shows how flimsy such an idealistic ideology becomes when it’s applied to the real world.
[blockquote] “‘Libertarians,’ he writes, ‘seem to have persuaded themselves that there is no significant trade-off between less government and more national insecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality … .'”
[/blockquote] Politics would be so easy if it wasn’t for the real world.
[blockquote] “This matters to our current politics because too many politicians are making decisions on the basis of a grand, utopian theory that they never can or will put into practice. They then use this theory to avoid a candid conversation about the messy choices governance requires. And this is why we have gridlock.”
[/blockquote] That’s more like it. -
The “Wild West” was hardly a Libertarian utopia except in the imagination. “Free Land” given away, land that had prior owners that government helped give to the new owners, white settlers. That’s “just enough government?” For whom? Then there were land and range wars. Racism on a national scale, not “just” limited to blacks. And people murdered based on what side of any issue they believed in, like freedom, just not freedom from slavery for instance. How about land grants given to railroads?
If you deliberately leave out a lot of things you can get to the Libertarian Paradise of mythology. Just make it up. Much like the apologists for Communism, it just that it was never implemented correctly or it never had good leaders and any number of excuses.
No government never works, there are too many strongmen waiting in the wings for naive true believers.
Also funny who are Libertarians. The affluent or the Tea Partiers who get government subsidies like Social Security and Medicare. Including some affluent health care providers who get government subsidies and government regulation setting reimbursement levels providing incomes at very comfortable levels to providers.
-
-
Quote from Raddocmed
…If the standard barer of the GOP (Reagan) was running today he couldn’t win in the GOP as it now stands.
Neither would Nixon or Bush 1, or arguably even Dubya.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think the scandals are slowing hurting the administration too. But without a tie in to the white house they end up being just more GOP ranting when it’s all said and done.
And, while these scandals hurt for now, the long term problems for the GOP in policy, tone, and demographics outweigh the short temr hit to the Obama approval. Not to mention the fact that the GOP has played the scandals with such obvious partisan vigor that many voters are jsut as turned off by the republicans atacking as are to Obama.
However, ask yourself this: with this left leaning and ideologically pure democratic base, how many recent democratic president would have been elected? Would they have elected JFK today, a foreign policy hawk and tax cutter? Would democrats elect Bill Clinton, who ushered in modern American free-trade, cut capital gains for those ‘fat cats wall-streeters’ by 30%, workfare instead of welfare, and pronounced before getting re-elected that the era of big govt is over?! Would the democrats have elected a religiously conservative Southerner like Jimmy Carter? Would they have elected an young Al Gore, war-hawk and ‘raging’ moderate?
Yeah. I read that piece too. Another common false equivalency claiming “both parties have become more extreme.” While that is true, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
[link=http://grist.org/politics/asymmetrical-polarization-the-lefts-gone-left-but-the-rights-gone-nuts/]http://grist.org/politics/asymmetrical-polarization-the-lefts-gone-left-but-the-rights-gone-nuts/[/link]
The rightward shift by the GOP has been much more dramatic than the left shift of the democrats.
the process of polarization is[i] not symmetrical[/i]. The parties have not become equally ideologically homogenous or moved equally far toward their extremes. They do not behave in the same way or share the same attitude toward established social and political norms. Republicans have moved farther right than Democrats have left.
That’s one of the reasons the College republican “autopsy” was such bad news. GOP is losing youth bably.
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/gop-youth-vote-report-92119_Page3.html]http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/gop-youth-vote-report-92119_Page3.html[/link]
Part of the report addresses one of the hottest and most contentious social issues of 2013: gay marriage. As increasing numbers of young people [link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/republicans-gay-marriage-stances-youth-89310.html] including[/link] Republicans voice support for same-sex marriage, the CRNC tested the extent to which the issue is a deal-breaker for young voters. It found about a quarter of those surveyed said they couldnt vote for someone who opposes gay marriage a finding the report characterized as neither a hopeless situation for the GOP nor a great one. But it does pose problems if the party wants to be perceived as more tolerant, the report noted.
On the open-minded issue, yes, we will face serious difficulty so long as the issue of gay marriage remains on the table, the authors wrote. In the short term, the party ought to promote the diversity of thought within its ranks and make clear that we welcome healthy debate on the policy topic at hand.
On immigration, the young Republicans called on the GOP to more clearly recognize the difference between legal and illegal immigrants and to also differentiate illegal immigrants from the children of illegal immigrants.
Concerning reproductive issues that have tripped up GOP candidates, the Republican Party has been painted both by Democrats and by unhelpful voices in our own ranks in holding the most extreme anti-abortion positions, the report said. Republicans need to avoid allowing the abortion debate to be conflated with debates over contraception, rape and Planned Parenthood, the report recommended, though the party neednt alter its stance on the issue of abortion itself.
…even though only 22 percent of Millennials thought Obamas policies had made it easier for young people to get a job and only 29 percent thought they were better off as a result of the stimulus package … Democrats held a 16-point advantage over the Republican Party among young voters on handling of the economy and jobs (chosen as the top issue by 37 percent of respondents).
Thats because young voters are turned off by the GOPs emphasis on tax cuts [i]über alles[/i] and habit of embracing big businesses rather than scrappy entrepreneurs. -
Why is it that the GOP is the party of limited government except on social issues. There they want a very invasive government. The reality isn’t that they want limited government but they just don’t want to be taxed. I have no problem with somebody saying that they aren’t interested any anything that costs money, but just admit it. This comes to the very basic divide between GOP and Dems. What is the function of government? Is government there only to provide protection for the public with no social basis or is the government there to provide for the general welfare at the cost of taking from the haves to help the havenots.
-
Quote from Raddocmed
What is the function of government?
Well, last time I checked, the government claims to provide a home for Americans to enjoy [b]life[/b], [b]liberty[/b], and the pursuit of [b]happiness[/b]. But it’s hard to pursue [b]life[/b] when the GOP repeatedly tried to cut off healthcare for about 40 million Americans (and they tried at least 47 times at last count). And it’s hard to pursue [b]liberty[/b] when the GOP would tell us that no gays can marry, that no woman may control her own body, and that their economic policies are necessary even though they are strangling our liberty to pursue gainful employment as they stalemate every economic plan that would improve the economy.
From my perspective, it’s hard to imagine how the GOP can think it is helping us pursue [b]happiness[/b].
-
Lux, again your argument falls flat. How can an unborn child enjoy [b]LIFE[/b] when the Dems are doing everything they can to ensure that no limits are placed on abortion? How can I enjoy [b]LIBERTY[/b] when I am a slave to the government via increasing taxes promulgated by the Dems? How can [b]PURSUE HAPPINESS[/b] when I am regulated and micromanaged and spied upon?
-
The taxes are much lower than they were in 1960. Or 1970. Or 1980. Or 1990. Or 2000. Or even 2008 for most people.
If the facts don’t fit, just make them up?
-
And if zero taxes are the only measure of freedom for you, why are you here? There must be dozens of places with zero taxes you could move to and be free there.
-
-
Quote from radmike
Lux, again your argument falls flat. How can an unborn child enjoy [b]LIFE[/b] when the Dems are doing everything they can to ensure that no limits are placed on abortion? How can I enjoy [b]LIBERTY[/b] when I am a slave to the government via increasing taxes promulgated by the Dems? How can [b]PURSUE HAPPINESS[/b] when I am regulated and micromanaged and spied upon?
An early stage embryo/fetus is not an unborn child because it is not yet alive according to all objective, scientific, and legal metrics.
Taxes is what buys you freedom. Lack of taxes buys you the Wild West where the bullies reign.
You are not being spied upon any more than a security camera at a bank is “spying” upon you.
Get your head out of your Disney fantasy world and grow up.
-
Lux, read the news sometime. Cataloging my phone calls and emails is much more than a security camera at a bank. Get a clue. You are wrong again regarding your definition of life. But you won’t listen because it goes against your dogma. Taxes don’t buy me freedom. The constitution guarantees my freedom. Taxes do not. Again, strawmen arguments from Lux and Frumi.
-
There is no definiton of life except a legal one as set forth in Roe v Wade. That defined life as when fetus could live on it’s own outside uterus at about 24 weeks. You can define life at any other point you want, but that is a philosophical discussion with no right or wrong. That is why some say it starts at the egg and sperm level and others at fertilization. Others choose other arbitrary lines. None is any better or worse than another.
The problem of using life, liberty, and the persuit of happines is that all three are in the eye of the beholder. Everybody has their own definition of each. Also it doesn’t answer the basic question of does each individual have an obligation to society at large or is it strictly a what is best for each personally. -
Quote from radmike
The constitution guarantees my freedom. Taxes do not.
And you obviously feel no obligation to guarantee anything back in consideration of such freedom, you freeloader. So be it.
-
Quote from radmike
Taxes don’t buy me freedom. The constitution guarantees my freedom. Taxes do not. Again, strawmen arguments from Lux and Frumi.
Your quote, your idea linking taxes and freedom:
[i]”How can I enjoy [b]LIBERTY[/b] when I am a slave to the government via increasing taxes promulgated by the Dems? “[/i]
And how does the Constitution guarantee freedom when you are anti-government? That’s an oxymoron. Like saying the 2nd Amendment was deliberately placed there by the Founders & the government to “legalize” armed opposition to the government.
DUH
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lux, I am no freeloader. I am probably paying for your Obamaphone. I pay taxes. More than most. I hire people, more than most. I contribute to society. More than the takers. So don’t tell me that I need to pay more. You have no idea and your ignorance is deafening.
And Frumi, nice strawman argument AGAIN. Can you do a little better than hyperbole? It’s getting old.-
You not telling the truth about taxes is hardly a strawman. A lie is a lie. Taxes are historically low.
-
Again you misrepresent what I said. Habits are hard for you to break?
-
QUOTE: [i]”How can I en[/i][i]joy [b]LIBERTY[/b] when I am a slave to the government via increasing taxes promulgated by the Dems? “[/i]
Your quote, I did not misrepresent. You are not telling the truth.-
Where is the lie? Are my taxes not increasing? Yes they are, at least for me. True, the takers’ taxes are not going up. When you live in your mom’s basement and surf the internet for a living your taxes don’t go up. Face it.
-
Ah, now THAT’S a strawman argument.
-
Lowest taxes since the 1950’s:
[link=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-tax-rates-are-lowest-1950s-ceos-/]http://www.politifact.com…re-lowest-1950s-ceos-/[/link]-
You lose again Frumi. If my taxes go from 10 to 11% then they went up, right? If the new number is larger than the prior number then that indicates an increase. My nine-year-old apparently has mastered math that you fail to understand. I don’t care about what the tax rate was in the 50’s, 20’s, middle ages, or Jurassic periods. My taxes have just gone up. Eat some crow, learn some math.
-
So your taxes went up 1% and you are whining? Or are your just making stuff up as usual? You always make outrageous claims and then never, but never back it up with actual facts.
I’ll bet really your taxes have gone down over the years like everyone else’s & remain the lowest they’ve ever been. But you’re not happy unless you’re not happy.-
Can you do math better than my daughter? Is 11 greater than 10? Is 41 greater than 40?
I gave an example and used the word “IF”. You need to work on math and reading comprehension now.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from radmike
Lux, I am no freeloader. I am probably paying for your Obamaphone. I pay taxes. More than most. I hire people, more than most. I contribute to society. More than the takers. So don’t tell me that I need to pay more. You have no idea and your ignorance is deafening.
And Frumi, nice strawman argument AGAIN. Can you do a little better than hyperbole? It’s getting old.“Obamaphone”. You’re such a blast.
I just love the way non-thinkers feel the need to attach ideological labels to imply sinister activity where none has been shown to exist. Go ahead and keep trying to draw blood from the stone. Next you’ll be calling the cameras at pedestrian intersections “Spybama”.
Is your insane vitriol for the guy who has managed to turn our economy into the plus column really that boundless?
-
-
So the increase of taxes by any amount on any citizen makes it impossible to enjoy Liberty? Were we slaves before year end 2012? We were slaves in the Clinton era, relatively freed by a few % in the Bush era and now enslaved again?
__
Radmike, it is not your statement that your taxes are going up that is being challenged. It is that you link your increase in taxation, in any amount apparantly and from any baseline, to be a direct restriction on your Liberty.
-
Wrong. My honesty was being challenged. Look at the posts before you jump in. I was accused of not telling the truth. That accusation has now been completely debunked.
There is an argument, which I make and you have the right to disagree with, that increases in taxation with the same amount of work being provided is the same as being forced to work without pay for that extra time allotment or at a diminished hourly rate. It is simple math.
An extreme example would be slavery where work is required without any pay at all. This is a much lesser example but along the same continuum. If I was getting something for the extra work then that would be different. If it was voluntary then that would be pro-bono work. Again, a different animal.
If I now have to spend an extra 5 hours per week at work to make ends meet then I have lost 5 hours of liberty. Not due to any error on my part. Usually due to politicians and their greed for power.
I am not advocating no taxes, so please don’t misquote me again. My view is we should all be in this together and any increase in taxation should be for the common good and for a good reason, not to buy votes.-
Plus column? Look at the real unemployment levels. Look at workforce participation. Look at debt. I am not the one with my head stuck in the sand.
-
Quote from radmike
Plus column? Look at the real unemployment levels. Look at workforce participation. Look at debt. I am not the one with my head stuck in the sand.
Correct, your head is stuck in a cave.
Anyone who claims to know the “real” unemployment level is full of hokum, and you know that. The only objective numbers come from BLS, and you know that too. As more people re-enter the workplace the unemployment rate and so-called workforce participation go into flux during the transition. The debt is irrelevent in this economy, but of course you wouldn’t know that.
In the Spring time when the buds just begin to blossom, you are the one complaining that it’s taking way too long for the tree to bear fruit, as if you had any idea what it takes to grow fruit.
And you have the nerve to tell ME to read more?
-
Yes, get out more. Stop watching MSNBC, there are only 3 of you left anyway.
Please call me a liar again so I can show you where you are wrong, again.
I don’t know why I waste so much time trying to educate the low-information voters. They still believe in Obama. Despite facts to the contrary. Maybe it’s just me being charitable.-
Quote from radmike
Yes, get out more. Stop watching MSNBC, there are only 3 of you left anyway.
Please call me a liar again so I can show you where you are wrong, again.
I don’t know why I waste so much time trying to educate the low-information voters. They still believe in Obama. Despite facts to the contrary. Maybe it’s just me being charitable.I never watch MSNBC, and I never called you a liar, so who’s the liar here?
You’ve never shown me where I’m wrong, let alone “again”. I have no idea what “facts” you think you’re citing, but none of them are relevant to our current economy. It’s not a matter of believing in Obama, it’s a matter of steering clear of the catastrophic policies that the Republican Congress has been trying to destroy this country with, just for the sake of desperately trying to make Obama look bad. History will show clearly that the Republican Party in the Obama Congress served disgracefully and let Americans down. But I’m sure your “facts” say otherwise. Good thing you are in the minority at this point.
And “charitable” is not the word I would choose to describe you.
-
I was responding to Frumi who did accuse me of lying.
And you have no idea how charitable I am.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Back to the theme of the original thread. Another insider piece (Ramesh Ponnuru) on republicans and young amercian voters:
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-10/the-real-reason-young-people-don-t-like-republicans.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-10/the-real-reason-young-people-don-t-like-republicans.html[/link]
[b]The Real Reason Young People Dont Like Republicans[/b]
They are deeply concerned, on the other hand, about economic issues. And Republicans have a lot of work to do on them. A majority of young voters think the partys economic policies played a big role in the recession. They dont follow Republican politicians in thinking that higher taxes on the rich are higher taxes on small business. Although they tend to agree with Republicans about the future of entitlement programs for the elderly, they are much more worried about the here-and-now. (The report cites a survey showing 20 percent of young people had delayed marriage because of the economy.) They consider student-loan debt a major obstacle to their goals.
And they give President [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/]Barack Obama[/link] credit for trying to help the economy, reduce their debt burden, and fix health care. Among those young voters who approve of Obamas job performance,trying was the No. 1 word they used about him — as in, he has been trying to improve things.
They think that public spending should be cut and that government is too big. Fighting big government is, however, a much lower priority for them than expanding the economy, reforming the safety net and controlling the national debt.
To my eye, these findings suggest there is an opening among young people for Republicans who advance credible plans to reduce the cost of health care and college, to foster job growth, to control the national debt and to address the other issues they consider important.
Republicans will want those plans to involve shrinking the government, but that shouldnt be their chief selling point. If they can do that — a big if, for many reasons — Republicans will also get credit from young voters for trying, whereas they now seem reflexively anti-Obama. It will also make them seem more intelligent, which is a quality that young people, according to the report, prize more than coolness.
One question the report doesnt directly address is how much age and generation influence voting. Young voters are less likely than older voters to be married, white or Christian, all of which would make them less likely to be Republicans even if they were older. The partys poor performance among young voters is partly a sign that they do badly with nonwhites and that nonwhites are a growing share of voters.
It is probably a mistake for Republicans to spend a lot of time targeting young voters. They should concentrate more, for example, on doing better among nonwhite voters, which would improve their numbers among the young, too. And above all, they ought to have something more compelling to say about votersdaily economic concerns. Young voters are just like their elders in wanting that.
-
A reason to oppose abortion is that fetuses feel pain. The proof is that male fetuses masturbate in the womb. So says a congressional OB-GYN, Michael Burgess.
Wow! Female fetuses don’t?-
The veils fall from their eyes. When even George Will recognizes that upward mobility in America has fallen behind and inequality has been growing…
Of course his reasoning is up side down.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-upward-mobility-has-become-tougher-to-achieve/2013/06/19/90365d52-d83b-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…2547bf094cc_story.html[/link]
-
-
-
More of a better analysis nature:
[link=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/our-broken-social-contract]http://opinionator.blogs….broken-social-contract[/link]
But he make two points that directly undermine the economic inevitability argument, which is often used to justify the declining share of income going to labor and the sharp rise in income inequality that followed this decline.
First, if corporations are coerced by competition to slash spending, including labor costs, Krueger asks why corporate profits as a share of the economy are near their all-time high. Such profits make it particularly hard to argue that companies do not have the ability to support higher wages.
Kruegers second point is that rising inequality has not achieved improved productivity:
[blockquote]Productivity growth has not accelerated over the past 30 years; in fact, except for the late 1990s (when inequality narrowed) productivity growth has slowed. If the rise in inequality had improved incentives, one would have expected productivity growth to rise even more quickly, not slow down. Indeed, it is hard to see what the macroeconomy has gained from the enormous shift in the income distribution.
[/blockquote] Before the 1980s, C.E.O. pay, according to Kruger, was set with close attention to norms of fairness, so that the range of compensation between janitors and top executives was kept within limits. This social compact began to fray in the 1980s, Krueger argued in his Cleveland speech. He provides a chart, Figure 2, showing how labor compensation has failed to keep pace with productivity growth.[attachment=0]
-
Reading a favorable review of a book about the history of a fictional Texas family, “The Son,” by Philipp Meyer, I looked the book up in Amazon & the blurb about the author. Seems he worked on Wall Street for a time & left with a bad taste in his mouth. As he says:
Many years later, after a long and roundabout route to get into and eventually graduate from college, I ended up taking a job on Wall Street. I was proud of my new job, proud Id gone from high school dropout to Cornell University graduate to Wall Street trader. Naturally, complications soon arose.
[b]One surprising thing was that while in most of the country the closing of a factory was seen as tragic, [i][u]on Wall Street it was nearly a cause for celebration. Whatever the company in question, closing an American factory caused their stock price to go up. The more jobs were outsourced, the more the company executives made on their stock options, the more investment bankers racked up multi-million dollar bonuses.[/u][/i][/b] Meanwhile, a short distance away, thousands of families were being devastated.
While I still have many close friends on Wall Street, after a few years there I knew it was the wrong path. I cared about people, I cared about their stories, Id stopped caring about money.
Just have to add, anyone remember the truth of this reading articles in FORBES and WALL STREET JOURNAL in the 1980’s?
America’s detritus, the working people.
-
Quote from Frumious
More of a better analysis nature:
[link=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/our-broken-social-contract]http://opinionator.blogs….broken-social-contract[/link]
But he make two points that directly undermine the economic inevitability argument, which is often used to justify the declining share of income going to labor and the sharp rise in income inequality that followed this decline.
First, if corporations are coerced by competition to slash spending, including labor costs, Krueger asks why corporate profits as a share of the economy are near their all-time high. Such profits make it particularly hard to argue that companies do not have the ability to support higher wages.
Kruegers second point is that rising inequality has not achieved improved productivity:
[blockquote]Productivity growth has not accelerated over the past 30 years; in fact, except for the late 1990s (when inequality narrowed) productivity growth has slowed. If the rise in inequality had improved incentives, one would have expected productivity growth to rise even more quickly, not slow down. Indeed, it is hard to see what the macroeconomy has gained from the enormous shift in the income distribution.
[/blockquote] Before the 1980s, C.E.O. pay, according to Kruger, was set with close attention to norms of fairness, so that the range of compensation between janitors and top executives was kept within limits. This social compact began to fray in the 1980s, Krueger argued in his Cleveland speech. He provides a chart, Figure 2, showing how labor compensation has failed to keep pace with productivity growth.[attachment=0]
That chart is so telling comrade!! The people should be working 1/2 as less for the wealth already garnered by the richest. That’s why smart liberals are pressing for a ‘wealth tax’ to confiscate property and give it to everybody in the states who have every worked including anybody without documents. You know, they count as well no matter what the evil republican party says or does. Its not just the efficient or ‘hard working’ who should get the spoils from society. It should be work release prisoners or moms who are overwhelmed with 6 children needing that assistance!
The real future is Nancy Pelosi-the best political leader of this generation, holding a permanent chair over the house. Taxes should be greater than 70% to get everybody working again. Everybody should want to work for the government and not malevolent private industry. Ms. Pelosi has the opportunity to permanently make government crowd out private anything ..down the last evil lemonade stand run by brainwashed children.-
Instead of listing silly right-wing fantasy scenarios, why not institute minimum wages & minimum benefits for workers instead of maintaining stagnant or deperssed wages compared to earnings in 1980.
But then that would be good for the majority not the tight little minority the GOP represents so it’s not acceptable. Better to talk paranoid fantasy.-
An interesting article from the perspective of a christian conservative.
[link=http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/08/our-challenges]http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/08/our-challenges[/link]
[b]Changing political culture[/b]
First Things is associated with an optimistic phase of American conservatism. The Reagan coalition affirmed American exceptionalism, sought to unleash the creative potential of capitalism, and was influenced by a can-do, problem-solving neoconservatism.
The Reagan coalition has run its course.
Today, American conservatism is often angry or despondent rather than optimistic. A McCarthyite mentality has emerged that insists the progressive tradition is alien and un-American. A hard-hearted libertarianism is replacing the warmth of Reagan-era patriotism and its affirmations of national solidarity. An apocalyptic mentality (national bankruptcy, demographic decline) promotes policies less as opportunities for renewal than as bitter necessities that follow from this or that collapse. More broadly, as the Reagan coalition has unraveled, the Republican party has become undisciplined and its political culture exotic, often to the point of embarrassment.
The consequences? First, a new conservative consensus will form to replace the superannuated Reagan coalition. This represents an opportunity for First Things and the movement it represents to shape American conservatism. Second, American conservatism has always had an ambivalent relation to the Catholic hierarchy, which has a native sympathy for social democracy. While the current secular challenges may bring the two closer together, the current trends in the conservative movement may make that relation even more troubled.
Indeed, if libertarian themes become increasingly prominent, religious people in general may find themselves at once more dependent on and alienated from American conservatism.
-
Not so fast Kimosabe, polls are showing a conservative resurgence after the las 5 years of worthless and corrupt government:
[link=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/top_stories/trust_on_issues]http://www.rasmussenrepor…tories/trust_on_issues[/link]-
Ok
You posted this poll
Tell me What you see in it that made you post it? And exactly what Point you are trying to make?
I Kinda get the feelin lately that you are just randomly and erratically posting links based upon what you think they say without reading them or understanding them because nothing of what you cite supports your claims in fact many time your citations are counterituitive to your claims.
Its downright bizzare
Are you OK?-
Didn’t Rasmussen also predict a Romney landslide, Alda?
PEW recently surveyed that conservatives think the GOP has compromised too much already & has to get more conservative.
Is a resurgence or is it an echo chamber?
-
Like I said, aldadoc is getting “foggy” and so perhaps we should start cutting the geezer a little slack.
-
Lux the Scarecrow in search of a brain makes another brillianly vacuoust post!
It is interesting to see how interested the libs are in selecting the next Republican candidate.
Here’s what’s going to happen: The Republican primary will be hard fought. The wobbly conservatives and RINOS will be defeated early. The Romney experience showed us that being accommodating and reasonable gets you defeated.
Christie and Rubio willl be knocked out early. Paul, Santorum and Cruz will drive the enthusiasm. Job Bush is a big question mark, because the libs will go to town with his name and because he is viewed as soft on immigration. Ryan will be pushed to assert his conservative credentials. If he passes this test, he will be the GOP candidate and the next president. If he fails, then Santorum or Paul will get the nod.
Either way, Hilllary wil get eviscerated. Much like the French, the country is tired of socialist/progressive failures, scandals, high taxes and joblessness. Three sequential liberal/ progressive terms is a bridge too far.
-
[b] Ryan will be pushed to assert his conservative credentials. If he passes this test, he will be the GOP candidate and the next president. If he fails, then Santorum or Paul will get the nod. [/b]
Boy I hope You are correct…………………………..But since you never have been right about anything I guess its me hoping a blind squirrel finds a nut -
Quote from aldadoc
Lux the Scarecrow in search of a brain makes another brillianly vacuoust post!
It is interesting to see how interested the libs are in selecting the next Republican candidate.
Here’s what’s going to happen: The Republican primary will be hard fought. The wobbly conservatives and RINOS will be defeated early. The Romney experience showed us that being accommodating and reasonable gets you defeated.
Christie and Rubio willl be knocked out early. Paul, Santorum and Cruz will drive the enthusiasm. Job Bush is a big question mark, because the libs will go to town with his name and because he is viewed as soft on immigration. Ryan will be pushed to assert his conservative credentials. If he passes this test, he will be the GOP candidate and the next president. If he fails, then Santorum or Paul will get the nod.
Either way, Hilllary wil get eviscerated. Much like the French, the country is tired of socialist/progressive failures, scandals, high taxes and joblessness. Three sequential liberal/ progressive terms is a bridge too far.
Candidates matter.
To just blithely state that regardless of who wins the GOP nomination they will trounce Hillary shows political ignorance, blind partisanship, or both. -
Quote from aldadoc
The Romney experience showed us that being accommodating and reasonable gets you defeated.
Christie and Rubio willl be knocked out early. Paul, Santorum and Cruz will drive the enthusiasm. Job Bush is a big question mark, because the libs will go to town with his name and because he is viewed as soft on immigration. Ryan will be pushed to assert his conservative credentials. If he passes this test, he will be the GOP candidate and the next president. If he fails, then Santorum or Paul will get the nod.
Either way, Hilllary wil get eviscerated. Much like the French, the country is tired of socialist/progressive failures, scandals, high taxes and joblessness. Three sequential liberal/ progressive terms is a bridge too far.
The fact that you totally misinterpreted what happened to Romney shows that you can’t even tell what happened in the PAST let alone predict the future! You don’t by any chance also think we found WMD and Iraq, do you?
And Dergon is correct about how irrationally flippant you are regarding Hillary.
If the GOP does what you predict they will do in the primaries, they will lose by an even larger margin the next time around.
-
Opinion on heroes on the Right coming and going, mostly going and how facile the Right’s arguments always are. The Right has been enamored with Hayek for some time but don’t do more than scratch the surface of Hayek’s positions finding dangerous beliefs below the surface. Then there is that other great economic thinker, Ayn Rand. Great so long as you stay in the realm of fiction. The Right likes her 47% ideas best of all.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/opinion/krugman-milton-friedman-unperson.html?ref=opinion&_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/opinion/krugman-milton-friedman-unperson.html[/link]
-
I predict that will go down like other great Alda predictions including the finding of WMD’s, the genius of Palin as VP candidate and the more recent Romney landslide. He is the Jennifer Rubin of Aunt Minnie
[link=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-rights-jennifer-rubin-problem-a-case-study-in-info-disadvantage/264942/]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-rights-jennifer-rubin-problem-a-case-study-in-info-disadvantage/264942/[/link]
[link=http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/jennifer-rubins-infantile-conservatism/]http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/jennifer-rubins-infantile-conservatism/[/link]
-
-
-
-
Quote from RVU
Gay marriage and abortion rights are at the lowest of the low end of interests of voters. In other words, it’s a non-issue except to rally a few at the conservative base. Even then a fair majority of republicans tend to speak in tangents rather than pit-bull Falwell-like attacks. Even Rick Santorum loses big when speaking about them. Next issue(s) please…
[h1][b]Gay marriage to test 2016 GOP candidates[/b][/h1]
pposition to same-sex marriage, which has seen barriers drop in several states in the past year, will be a [link=http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/04/gay-marriage-test-gop/7289199/]litmus test for Republican candidates[/link] running in Iowa’s 2016 presidential caucuses, political observers say.
Support for same-sex marriage routinely exceeds 50% in national polls and Democrats have fully embraced what advocates call marriage equality. However, opposition among Republicans remains high.
“It’s a part of our platform, and it is a very important issue. So candidates that want to go forward out of Iowa need to take a strong position on that,” said Steve Scheffler, Iowa Republican national committeeman.
While about a third of respondents in a February Iowa Poll said they were disappointed that the state allows same-sex marriage, Chuck Hurley, vice president of the conservative Iowa Family Leader, said a disproportionate number of those are conservative Republicans.
“There will be candidates who want to push that issue in large part to appease some of the (socially conservative) organizations in Iowa,” Kochel said. “But that’s not the entire party. … You’re going to have candidates who don’t want to bet their candidacy on that issue.”
Given the present makeup of the party, Kochel said he foresees two separate contests taking place within the 2016 GOP caucuses: one among socially conservative “Old Testament” Republicans in which opposition to same-sex marriage is mandatory, and another among “New Testament” candidates with broader national appeal in which marriage is minimized or ignored.
A similar situation occurred in 2012, when social conservative Rick Santorum and establishment candidate Romney each secured about 25% of the caucus vote. Santorum ultimately won by a mere 34 votes.
Democrats have sought to highlight Republicans’ ongoing emphasis on same-sex marriage as an example of the party’s failure to keep up with the broader culture.
“We’re quickly coming to a point where any candidate, whether Democrat or Republican, will have no choice but to be pro-marriage equality if they want to be successful,” said Troy Price, Iowa Democratic Party executive director.
Kochel, the Republican strategist, believes that the ongoing emphasis on marriage is unhealthy although he lays blame on single-issue advocacy groups rather than the party itself.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Kpack, if you could see past your brown nose, you would see a big shift in attitudes. The poll shows a slow, but deliberate shift away from support of the Democrat agenda, in favor of a more conservative agenda. Political shifts occur slowly, but carry enormous inertia. That’s how the Bammer got in, and was able to hold on to power. The shift is now in the other direction, after all of the scandals and liberal failures have come to light. Hang on for some fun in the 2014 and 2016 elections.
When Reagan appeared on the political scene people were predicting the death of the GOP. It was a similar dynamic as today. The surrender monkeys in the party were calling for more compromise and were inseparable from many Democrats. Reagan hung on to his guns and showed everyone the power of free markets and low tax rates.
In today’s GOP, there are those in the GOP, like Ted Cruz who is making a call for bold conservatism and a return to constitutional principles. He’s getting a lot of traction. I’m seeing this in the polls.-
[b]The poll shows a slow, but deliberate shift away from support of the Democrat agenda, in favor of a more conservative agenda[/b]
No it doesn’t
It is a rassmussen poll which is a conservative poll
It shows essentially all polled questions not only within the margin error but nothing even really close to 50%
You should know about these types of polls……………You fell victim to them this fall when you were convinced Romney ewas going to win and he basically got Blown out just like Nate Silver predicted.
You may not like things
You may not agree
But sometimes man you have to be right -
Interesting stats….City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level (pop. 250,000+)
Detroit , MI 32.5%………..In Democrat control since 1961
Buffalo , NY 29.9%………In Democrat control since 1954
Cincinnati , OH 27.8%….In Democrat control since 1984
Cleveland , OH 27.0%….In Democrat control since 1989
Miami , FL 26.9%………..Has never had a Republican Mayor
St. Louis , MO 26.8%…..In Democrat control since 1949
El Paso , TX 26.4%……..Has never had a Republican Mayor
Milwaukee , WI 26.2%….In Democrat control since 1908
Philadelphia, PA 25.1%..In Democrat control since 1952
Newark , NJ 24.2%………In Democrat control since 1907
These cities are a few of the long-term effects of Democrat policies..
-
Why not look at Food Stamp use by State where people can’t even afford to buy food for their families without Federal assistance? Most are in the Republican States.
[attachment=0]
-
basically the right wingers have nothing but straws to grasp at and a few random meaningless stats an innuendos to throw against the wall and see if they stick
There is no more intelligent debate from the other side off the aisle just a few random shots barbs and name calls-
The concentration of the urban poor dates to well before even the Johnson administration (The war on poverty was largely aimed at the urban center as well as rural poverty.)
However, today there are actually more people living in poverty in American suburbs than in the big cities.
[link=http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/2013/confrontingsuburbanpovertyinamerica]http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/2013/confrontingsuburbanpovertyinamerica[/link]
-
-
-
One more thing, RVU, do States with Republican Governors do better in economic performance than Democrats?
No.
[link=http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/mar/12/bob-mcdonnell/mcdonnell-says-7-10-states-lowest-unemployment-rat/]http://www.politifact.com…west-unemployment-rat/[/link]
We found that the Top 10 list includes three states where the GOP tenure has been fairly short. In Iowa, a Republican governor took office in January 2011 after 12 years of Democratic governorships. In Wyoming, a GOP governor took office in January 2011 after eight years of a Democratic governorship. Both states were also on the list of 10 lowest unemployment rates in December 2010, when a Democrat was governor.
And in Virginia, McDonnell came to office in January 2010 after eight years of Democratic governors. Virginia had the nations 10th lowest unemployment rate in December 2009, its last full month under Gov. Tim Kaine. Virginia still ranks 10th today.
Conversely, we looked at the 10 states that had the worst unemployment rates in December 2011. Under McDonnells logic, there should be few Republicans and many Democrats in this tier.
[b]Six states in the Bottom 10 have Republican governors: Michigan, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, and Nevada.[/b] Three have Democratic governors: Illinois, North Carolina and California. One state, Rhode Island, has an an independent governor.
Economists have told us time and again that governors have marginal effects on economies of their states.
[b]Anne Alexander, an economist at the University of Wyoming, largely credited her states 5.6 percent unemployment rate to oil and natural gas exploration and tourists visiting Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Tetons. And because more than half of the land in Wyoming is owned by the federal or state government, she said there are many public jobs managing the land and wildlife. [/b]
[i][b]The fact that seven of the 10 states with the lowest unemployment rates are led by Republicans is hardly evidence that GOP governors trump Democrats in creating jobs. Three of those seven states, including Virginia, were also in the Top 10 when they were were headed by Democrats a year or two ago.[/b] [/i]
-
-
-
Issue
Democrats
Republicans
Economy
40%
44%
Nat’l Security & War on Terror
40%
43%
Job Creation
38%
46%
Energy Policy
44%
39%
Afghanistan
39%
36%
Immigration
40%
39%
Gov’t Ethics & Corruption
39%
38%
Taxes
39%
44%
Health Care
44%
42%
Social Security
41%
40%
Education
43%
37%
Environment
50%
32%
Gov’t Spending
34%
47%
Issues Affecting Small Business
36%
46%
Gun Control
41%
43%
That’s the Rasmussen poll. That looks like toss up to me. It certainly isn’t a rejection of the democratic party by any stretch.
And Nate Silver tends to call Rasmussen as generally being 1-2% right leaning. Not a huge margin, but statistically significant.
edit: bah! in the preview it looked like it would post in chart form.
-
Not real Sure where Alda is coming from these days
Like I said he posts all these links as if they support what he is talking about and when yo actually read them there is really little in the body of the article that supports what he is saying.
Grasping-
Quote from kpack123
…Not real Sure where Alda is coming from these days
…GraspingIn the past few weeks there’s been a subtle but (imho) revealing shift in aldadoc’s replies.
If you read aldadoc’s more recent comments in aggregate, it’s becoming clear that this is someone in the golden years entering that “foggy” phase of life. I think we should give the geezer a wide berth and cut that particular extremist some slack at this point.
Seriously.
-
Actually Alda has been very consistent with his positions since the early days of Off-Topic. His arguments might seem more angry these days but then so are the views of the other Right posters on AM.
As for “foggy phase,” that is a dated view and “ageism.” Sorry Lux. I almost never agree with Alda but the age of the average Fox News viewer notwithstanding, age also brings experience in some cases. “Been there, done that!” and what benefits has 30 years of Republican “thinking” in politics and American investment brought us is in my case is the argument against Republicans.
Since politics is so often rooted for like sports teams, Republican politics has brought a lot of wealth for the owners and players, not so much for the fans.-
Irony is that the RED States ARE the Takers!
Even Chris Christie noted that!
-
[b]Actually Alda has been very consistent with his positions since the early days of Off-Topic. His arguments might seem more angry these days but then so are the views of the other Right posters on AM. [/b]
I use to put him a 2 shades below Mistrad and Dalai who IMHO are 2 pretty reasonable republicans that actually made valid arguments even though at times I disagreed
He was always conviction oriented…..even before Obama got elected he became a little deluded, but lattely this stuff he is posting makes about as much sense as gibberish
lately he is just downright bizarrre, tainted wingnut and angry like Pointman and RVU-
Quote from kpack123
[b]Actually Alda has been very consistent with his positions since the early days of Off-Topic. His arguments might seem more angry these days but then so are the views of the other Right posters on AM. [/b]
I use to put him a 2 shades below Mistrad and Dalai who IMHO are 2 pretty reasonable republicans that actually made valid arguments even though at times I disagreed
He was always conviction oriented…..even before Obama got elected he became a little deluded, but lattely this stuff he is posting makes about as much sense as gibberish
lately he is just downright bizarrre, tainted wingnut and angry like Pointman and RVU
Just the other day, aldadoc accused someone of being a “Rumpel Stiltskin” (sp. Rumpelstiltskin) for living in the past, then in the next breath he is reminiscing about he longs for the wonderful economy during WWII. And he’s certainly drifting off road more often these days with more nonfactual rants that we’ve come to know as rightwing extremism.
Not consistent.
Foggy.
-
Alda is not inconsistent. If memory is correct, he accused Democrats & those of us who did not support Bush’s adventure into Iraq as going so far as to cheering Osama & ‘the terrorists” and the deaths of US soldiers. Alda is a true cheerleader and believer.
I also don’t quite agree with the positive assessment of Dalai or Mistrad. Dalai often got very heated (posts in Feb 2009 for example, “Regret voting for Obama yet?” due to his long list of failures as President presumably at the time) accusing we who did not agree with him of bizarre positions & as a result he self-censored himself from Off-Topics with occasional guest appearances. Out of politics he is more measured but he has had some colorful clashes with NYC for example. Mistrad started more reasonable but starting before & especially around Barely-Passed tenure, became strident IMO. He left when Barely got suspended, also making a rare guest appearance. Like Dalai, out of politics he can be measured but his laments & reasons about threatening to leave radiology leave me cold.
You see conviction, I see sports cheerleading “The other team always sucks & cheats, my team is always great.” Although that could be merely an artifact of a binary world as there is no viable 3rd team or position in reality.-
I see it more as having the dual role of psychotherapy and social duty.
Psychotherapy from the point of view that after listening to liberal lies go un-rebutted and hypocrisy go un-noted it serves as a good forum to vent some truth. Sometimes after watching or listening to Obama or his fawning press spew lies and false promises, a person just has to let off a little steam.
Social duty from the perspective of educating a sector of the populus that is self insulated from opposing viewpoints, intolerant, unaware of the laws of unintended consequences and sometimes delusional. Consider my input to be part of your diversity training.
If you look at the treatment of conservative viewpoints on this forum you have to conclude that it is an intolerable irritant to the regular posters. Just the other day, I saw a new poster make a simple posting with a conservative view. He was immediately attacked by four or five of the Stasi liberals. He left the forum and stated that he would never return. We have seen reasonable posters such as Dalai, Mistrad and others leave the forum, because they got tired of being attacked by irrational Alinskyites.-
As a tangentially medically related forum, there should be a vigorous debate here on Obamacare. This is the place where lies, misdirection and misconception should be exposed. ACA cheerleaders such as Thor need to be challenged.
Now, back to the original thread: Ted Cruz for president!-
[b]As a tangentially medically related forum, there should be a vigorous debate here on Obamacare. [/b]
Vigorous debate is good
But when you post ludicrous examples like
…wanting and cheering for the ACA to be delayed and/or repealed and advocating all methods to do so…..then in the same breath criticizing the cost of delaying it!!!!!!
Then you are insane
Or….posting articles that don’t support your claim because you either fail to read the entire article or just too blinded by the title
Then you are desperate. -
And by the way
By far the biggest name callers on this forum are the right wingers So please spare us all the self-persecution game
Some of your fellow wing nuts can’t form a sentence without a slur or insult in it………………….yet when I do it …The right wing police cry to board monitors about it.
So spare me the self-persecution gig
-
-
-
[b]I also don’t quite agree with the positive assessment of Dalai or Mistrad. Dalai [/b]
I don’t Mind heated debates. I actualy respect people who can dish it out as well as take it. Its my personality
I appreciate peoples opinions even those I don’t agree with I think With Some you can at least reason and come to understand even though you don’t agree.
But when they start throwing out this ridiculous data or blog article as some sort of gospel is just a weird and desperate act-
Quote from kpack123
[b]I also don’t quite agree with the positive assessment of Dalai or Mistrad. Dalai [/b]
I don’t Mind heated debates. I actualy respect people who can dish it out as well as take it. Its my personality
I appreciate peoples opinions even those I don’t agree with I think With Some you can at least reason and come to understand even though you don’t agree.
But when they start throwing out this ridiculous data or blog article as some sort of gospel is just a weird and desperate act
I, too, have no problem with opposition, but the arguments must be fact-based. What’s been going on here, however, is a trend in which one group presents fact after fact while the other group simply sits back complacently and discredits it either by cherry picking half-truths in a poor attempt at rebuttal (e.g., city economies vs. states), or, in far more cases, simply without presenting any facts at all but rather resorts to subjective criticism and name calling without any fact-based substance behind their claims.
You can’t be objective with someone who insists on hiding behind ideological subjectivity. Like denying evolution or calling Trayvon Martin “vicious” when there are no facts to substantiate the claim.
Or like tying to claim “Obama hates America” without presenting a single compelling fact to support that hairbrain nonsense while, at the same time, completely ignoring the obvious fact that Obama is unable to carry out most of his plans to grow the economy because of the House GOP terrorists holding our country hostage.
The facts show pretty clearly (and most economists seem to agree) that the level of recovery we’re seeing in the past few years is the result of the few economy policies that Obama was able to squeeze through before the GOP realizes that plan was actually working, and in response to which they desperately clamped down the implementation of any further economic recovery legislation without offering any equal or better counter proposals of their own.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Frumious, that food stamps map is magnificent proof of where the real “takers” are and is the poster child exhibit of people who vote against their best interest. We saw that in video after video of Romney giving speeches to low income areas of the deep South, where the people receiving the most entitlements from the federal government were so ignorant that they were actually cheering him on as he decried entitlement programs!
And of course it’s no surprise that we find RVU so backed into the ideological corner that he’s now resorting to cherry picking individual cities!
Well done, Frumious.
-
Quote from aldadoc
As a tangentially medically related forum, there should be a vigorous debate here on Obamacare.
It would be great to have a debate over health care policy here on AM. We could compare and contrast the democrat plan (the ACA) and the GOP plan …….. oh….. but there is no GOP health care plan.
So if I am left with “is the ACA better than having done nothing at all?” Easy answer …. yes. Is it “Is the ACA better than what the Ryan budget does for health care?” H*llz yes!
When the republican party reveals its health care plan we can debate it vigorously in contrast to Obamacare.-
Quote from dergon
It would be great to have a debate over health care policy here on AM. We could compare and contrast the democrat plan (the ACA) and the GOP plan …….. oh….. but there is no GOP health care plan.So if I am left with “is the ACA better than having done nothing at all?” Easy answer …. yes. Is it “Is the ACA better than what the Ryan budget does for health care?” H*llz yes!
When the republican party reveals its health care plan we can debate it vigorously in contrast to Obamacare.
Dergon is setting up a logical fallacy trap. His unstated premise implies that the Republicans need to have an alternate government controlled 10,000 page health care plan, so that we can go line by line and contrast one socialist plan against the other. Good try at circular logic.
The fact of the matter is that there are solutions that can be applied within the current health care system that would address issues without a government takeover of health care. The GOP would support many measures, including portability, cross state line plans and solutions to the pre-existing condition issue. What Obamacare does, is to give government the power to control 17% of the GDP and to create a whole new class of dependency. This is problematic from several perspectives:
1. It was sold under false pretenses.
2.It was passed without broad bipartisan support. Not a single Republican voted for this. Transformational legislation must have broad bipartisan support in order to be successful.
3. Cost estimates were at best manipulated and at worst falsified. The initial CBO cost estimates were $900 Billion. The latest CBO estimates are $2.7 Trillion and rising.
4. The claim that people would on the average save $2,500/yr. was blatantly false. In fact, costs will go up for most, especially for the young.
5. The claim that no one would go uninsured was false. In fact, 30 milion people will be uninsured, after implementation. Same as before.
6. The claim that if you like your plan, you will be able to keep it was false. Many plans will not be allowed. Furthermore, private insurance companies are withdrawing from providing coverage, because they will not be able to generate a profit. In fact, the inevitable result of the way Obamacare is structured is to eventually force private insurance out and defaulting all plans into a government run plan.
7. The effect of Obamacare on employment cannot be understated. Small companies cannot afford the mandates and are either not hiring, or shifting their employees into part-time status.
8. Utilization panels (death panels) are in fact part of the plan. We all know how these things become politicized. I wonder if Tea Party members will be denied care?
9. Obamacare is creating a huge bureauocracy. Thousands of IRS agents will be hired to run this. Do you really want the IRS further insinuated into your life and health care?
10. As the costs spiral, physicians will be replaced by ancillary extenders.
11. The regulatory system in health care will become even more burdensome. ACO’s will be forced on everyone and we will be further forced into a payment system that discounts the amount of work or complexity and will reimbursed based on some socialist bureaucrat’s concept of what your duty to the cause should be priced at.
12. Employer mandates and individual mandates are unconstitutional, despite Roberts’ cowardly SCOTUS decision.
13. Democrats know deep in their bones that this is a huge debacle that will probably eventually destroy the economy and if left without the propaganda and $700 million ad campaign, it would collapse on its own weight. They are defending it based on ideology and for protecting Obama.
14. Obamacare usurps personal choice and freedoms. No matter how you cut it, you will be further taxed and controlled under this plan.
15. The solution to this problem is to defund and repeal.-
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from dergon
It would be great to have a debate over health care policy here on AM. We could compare and contrast the democrat plan (the ACA) and the GOP plan …….. oh….. but there is no GOP health care plan.
So if I am left with “is the ACA better than having done nothing at all?” Easy answer …. yes. Is it “Is the ACA better than what the Ryan budget does for health care?” H*llz yes!
When the republican party reveals its health care plan we can debate it vigorously in contrast to Obamacare.
Dergon is setting up a logical fallacy trap. His unstated premise implies that the Republicans need to have an alternate government controlled 10,000 page health care plan, so that we can go line by line and contrast one socialist plan against the other. Good try at circular logic.
The fact of the matter is that there are solutions that can be applied within the current health care system that would address issues without a government takeover of health care. The GOP would support many measures, including portability, cross state line plans and solutions to the pre-existing condition issue. What Obamacare does, is to give government the power to control 17% of the GDP and to create a whole new class of dependency. This is problematic from several perspectives:
1. It was sold under false pretenses.
2.It was passed without broad bipartisan support. Not a single Republican voted for this. Transformational legislation must have broad bipartisan support in order to be successful.
3. Cost estimates were at best manipulated and at worst falsified. The initial CBO cost estimates were $900 Billion. The latest CBO estimates are $2.7 Trillion and rising.
4. The claim that people would on the average save $2,500/yr. was blatantly false. In fact, costs will go up for most, especially for the young.
5. The claim that no one would go uninsured was false. In fact, 30 milion people will be uninsured, after implementation. Same as before.
6. The claim that if you like your plan, you will be able to keep it was false. Many plans will not be allowed. Furthermore, private insurance companies are withdrawing from providing coverage, because they will not be able to generate a profit. In fact, the inevitable result of the way Obamacare is structured is to eventually force private insurance out and defaulting all plans into a government run plan.
7. The effect of Obamacare on employment cannot be understated. Small companies cannot afford the mandates and are either not hiring, or shifting their employees into part-time status.
8. Utilization panels (death panels) are in fact part of the plan. We all know how these things become politicized. I wonder if Tea Party members will be denied care?
9. Obamacare is creating a huge bureauocracy. Thousands of IRS agents will be hired to run this. Do you really want the IRS further insinuated into your life and health care?
10. As the costs spiral, physicians will be replaced by ancillary extenders.
11. The regulatory system in health care will become even more burdensome. ACO’s will be forced on everyone and we will be further forced into a payment system that discounts the amount of work or complexity and will reimbursed based on some socialist bureaucrat’s concept of what your duty to the cause should be priced at.
12. Employer mandates and individual mandates are unconstitutional, despite Roberts’ cowardly SCOTUS decision.
13. Democrats know deep in their bones that this is a huge debacle that will probably eventually destroy the economy and if left without the propaganda and $700 million ad campaign, it would collapse on its own weight. They are defending it based on ideology and for protecting Obama.
14. Obamacare usurps personal choice and freedoms. No matter how you cut it, you will be further taxed and controlled under this plan.
15. The solution to this problem is to defund and repeal.Point by point:
1. I missed the part about Dergon asking the Republicans for a 10,000 page proposal. I only caught the part where Dergon asked what the Republicans’ plan was to fix the problem with healthcare in the USA.2. You mean the way the bipartisan support of the Iraq war lead to its transformational success?
3. Cost estimates changed because the more recent terrorism by the House GOP complicated the ACA’s economic structure. The CBO still projects a positive economic outcome of ACA including a faster than predicted decrease in the deficit.
4. There is virtually no non-partisan evidence that the cost of healthcare will “go up for most”. That myth is being promoted by bullying the ignorant public with improbable scenarios based on anecdotal, cherry-picked circumstances, like citing corporations that were on the verge of bankruptcy anyway and are looking for a scapegoat to divert analysts from claiming that the CEO is simply incompetent to run a solvent business. We’ve heard many of those anecdotes in the news and it’s clear what’s going on. The economic indicators flatly disprove such ploys.
5. I respectfully challenge your claim about 30 million people remaining uninsured. Where are you getting that information?
6. The only plans that will not be allowed are those that SHOULD NOT be allowed, like those which deny pre-ex conditions, those in which insurance companies traditionally raped subscribers pocketbooks, etc. All of my employees will be able to keep their current plan. We just received a 10% REFUND check as the result of the MLR regs, and we’re lovin’ it.
7. Small business is far less imposed upon by ACA than you are implying.
8. Regarding “death panels”, nonsense. What you’re calling “death panels” is already all around us today in the form of gatekeepers, which only is a component of a fraction of healthcare plans today, and nothing more severe than that is called for in ACA.
9. The IRS is not going to determine anyone’s healthcare. They serve a logistic function. They will not set best practices, nor will they be intervening in a physician’s ability to practice best practices medicine.
10. Some physicians not only SHOULD be replaced by ancillary extenders, they WANT to be replaced by ancillary extenders because ACA will increase their patient load so much, they’ll welcome the economical relief to shed such extender tasks.
11. That comment is pure hyperbolic fear mongering with no objective basis in fact.
12. OK, so you’re actually saying that a SCOTUS ruling is unconstitutional? You’re over the top, aldadoc. Now you sound like Kentucky and their nullification lunacy.
13. Democrats know no such thing of a kind.
14. ACA affects your personal choice about as much as the price of an automobile affects your personal choice, except ACA offers MORE choice, not less. You’ve got it backwards.
15. The solution to the problem is to just sit back, plant some tomatoes, and let calm, caring people handle this.
I’m very sorry if ACA might mean lower reimbursement in some specialties, especially those that are running into utilization and Medicare fraud problems in the past. Just as speed limits caused maniac speed freaks to slow down, ACA will cause greedy-ass physicians to take a deep breath, be more prudent in their field of medicine, and understand that their monetary worth to society is not friggin’ infinite. It will offer the public more choices, not less. It will be a wake up call to the small number of resistant corporations to start taking care of their employees just as the vast majority of corporations ALREADY do their part to ensure they have a healthy workforce that isn’t spreading around staph infections to other employees simply because they refused to pay for, or weren’t able to afford, any healthcare. Just as our taxes pay for speed limit signs, we also must pay to keep society healthy, for OUR OWN protection.
As a side note, I, for one, resent the notion that members of an organized society in a superpower country should be allowed to walk around with a contagious disease in our cities, infecting anyone they come close to, simply because it was their right to be sick, not have health insurance, and risk spreading their disease to others.
-
-
Quote from dergon
It would be great to have a debate over health care policy here on AM. We could compare and contrast the democrat plan (the ACA) and the GOP plan …….. oh….. but there is no GOP health care plan.
The comedy is that the ACA [u][b]IS[/b][/u] and [u][b]always WAS[/b][/u] the Republican Plan! So just before Obama started touting it Romney was [u][b]PRAISED[/b][/u] by the GOP for implementing a conservative “market plan” in liberal Mass!
The joke was so funny Romney had to run against his own primary accomplishment.-
Alda,
Your whole list is an illogical fallacy even misstating historical events such as the bipartisan support crap. Crap because 100% opposition was the strategy & tactic engineered by Boehner & McConnell shortly after Obama got elected in 2008. Every point thereafter is in the same mode.
That is the GOP today.
-
Obama DerangementSyndrome
No position is too bizarre or contradictory. The ONLY rule is to oppose Obama. AM right-wing posters have shown that time and time again, whether it is Alda or RVU or Pointman or Dalai or Mistrad, etc.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-gop-flips-the-script-on-president-obama/2013/08/01/7c51a724-fafa-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…ddaa186b751_story.html[/link]The Republican lawmakers may be so muddled because their thought leaders cant agree on the proper line of attack. Karl Rove believes Obama is a political thug, Rush Limbaugh thinks the president is a street thug, and Grover Norquist concurs that Obama acts as if someone made him king. But Sean Hannity prefers to think of him as weak.
The confusion grew so intense during Obamas intervention in Libya that some Republicans contradicted their own critiques in the span of days. Gingrich, for example, demanded in early March 2011 that the United States should exercise a no-fly zone this evening. Two weeks later, after Obama took the action that would bring down Moammar Gaddafi, Gingrich said, I would not have intervened.
It was a brave stand against the cruel tyranny of consistency.-
One more on the Derangement Syndrome:
[link=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/everything-you-need-to-know-about-politics-today-in-2-paragraphs/278333/]http://www.theatlantic.co…n-2-paragraphs/278333/[/link]See, things that used to be “conservative” ideas, like cap and trade or Obamacare or monetary stimulus, have become “liberal” ones, all while conservatives themselves have moved further and further right. That’s what happens [b]when you view negotiation of any kind as an ideological betrayal — you abandon your ideology. You stop being the party of markets, and become the party of whatever-the-Democrats-are-against (and your donors are for). It’s why, as Ezra Klein points out, the idea of the political “center” is such a canard.[/b]
And it’s how Paul Krugman ends up sounding like a Republican. Or Republicans ended up sounding like Paul Krugman.Opposition for opposition’s sake. No meaning, no facts, no nothing – just opposition.
-
Quote from Frumious
Opposition for opposition’s sake. No meaning, no facts, no nothing – just opposition.
= “Bigotry”
Look it up, folks.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/31/whither-the-gop-republicans-want-change-but-split-over-partys-direction/]http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/31/whither-the-gop-republicans-want-change-but-split-over-partys-direction/[/link]
Interesting GOP poll from PEW. A bit of a split. 54% want the party to move [i]right[/i]. I find that amazing (and a bit terrifying).
[image]http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/07/2-GOP-Voters-Divided-over-Partys-Stances-on-Abortion-Gay-Marriage.png[/image]
The Pew Research Centers latest national survey, conducted July 17-21, 2013, among 1,480 adults, including 497 Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters, finds broad dissatisfaction among GOP voters with the partys positions on a number of issues. And while the general sentiment is that the party should commit to more conservative positions, two issues stand out. On abortion and gay marriage about as many Republicans want the party to move in a more moderate direction as support a more conservative stance.
Most Republicans also feel change is needed on two other issues immigration and government spending and on both the balance of opinion tilts toward taking a more conservative approach. On immigration, more Republicans say the party is not conservative enough than say it is too conservative, by roughly two-to-one. That margin is about four-to-one when it comes to the partys position on government spending.
Among five issues tested, on only one gun policy do a majority of voters say the partys position is about right.
[image]http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/07/8-Wide-Gaps-Within-GOP-over-Partys-Positions-on-Social-Issues.png[/image]
-
I wouldn’t worry about that. Such stats are its own check and balance. The fact that “only” 54% wants to move farther to the right means the rest of the GOP along with the Democrats don’t agree with them, leaving that minority drifting farther into unpopularity.
On the other hand, if [u]100[/u]% of the GOP [i][u]along with[/u] [/i]a few percent of [u]DEMOCRATS[/u] wanted us to go farther to the right, then [u]THAT[/u] would indeed be scary!
-
I wrote somewhere (this thread or another OT) that if the GOP went further to the right in 2016 they would be choosing their Goldwater.
I’m not the only guy seeing that similarity.
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-09/republican-divide-shows-moderates-scarce-in-echo-of-1964.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-09/republican-divide-shows-moderates-scarce-in-echo-of-1964.html[/link]
[h1]Republican Divide Shows Moderates Scarce in Echo of 1964
[/h1]
Republicans have decided now is a good time for a fight. Among themselves.
Arguments like the one between New Jersey Governor [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/chris-christie/]Chris Christie[/link] and U.S. Senator Rand Paul over national security are showdowns that Steve LaTourette, a former Ohio congressman, is glad are happening three years before the presidential election.
Otherwise, LaTourette said, you could be heading toward a 1964 cliff if you are not careful.
As Republicans continue to sort through their future, having lost the popular vote for president in five of the last six elections, they are having intramural battles with echoes of 1964, when [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/barry-goldwater/]Barry Goldwater[/link] won the nomination at a convention rife with division over the role of the U.S. in the world and civil rights at home. Derided as an extremist, he went on to lose to President [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/lyndon-johnson/]Lyndon Johnson[/link] in a landslide.
Now, Republicans are squabbling over the National Security Agency surveillance program, [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/quote/IMMIAPPR:IND]immigration[/link] and gay marriage. The Christie-Paul rift last week highlighted the divide, with the governor calling the senators criticism of the NSA program dangerous and the Kentuckian responding that his critic must have forgotten the Bill of Rights.
Its always healthy to have discussions from different wings of the party as the party works on its identity going into the midterms, said LaTourette, who chose not to seek re-election to Congress in 2012 citing the extreme positions among some of his Republican colleagues. It wouldnt be so healthy if this was next year or 2015 and the focus is on who the presidential nominee will be.
-
-
