Home > Community Lounge > Politics > The Republicans are the problem

The Republicans are the problem

  1. "Fear fueling Republican extremism

    "Editor's note: David Frum is a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Daily Beast and a CNN contributor. He is the author of seven books, including a new novel, "Patriots."

    "(CNN) -- Last month, two political scientists published one of those rare op-eds that gets the political community talking.

    "The thesis of the piece was contained in the title: "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem."

    "In case that was not clear enough, the authors elaborated: "We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional.

    "In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

    "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

    "When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."

    "The piece drew its authority from the authors' identity: Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, two of Washington's most veteran watchers of Congress. Both men have hard-earned reputations for nonideological independence of mind despite their institutional affiliations: Mann works at the liberal Brookings Institution, Ornstein at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. (Ornstein is a friend of mine, and was a colleague until I was given the heave-ho from AEI in March 2010.)

    "Now they have backed their provocative op-ed with a new book, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism."

    "The book backs the arresting op-ed with a battery of depressing research, substantiating their charge that congressional Republicans now act in a uniquely irresponsible way.

    "The debt showdown last summer was the ultimate case: congressional Republicans nearly forcing a default on the obligations of the United States to get their way on a budget agreement.

    "But the pattern manifests itself in almost all the business of government, down to the most mundane.

    "For example: Because Senate rules often require unanimous consent to move to the next order of business, a determined minority can force delay on almost any action it opposes.

    "Since 2009, Republicans have used this power of delay hyper-aggressively. Compare and contrast the treatment of executive-branch nominees.

    "Sixteen months into the George W. Bush administration, Memorial Day 2002, only 13 executive-branch nominations awaited confirmation by the Senate. At the corresponding moment in the Obama administration, Memorial Day 2010, 108 nominees were awaiting action by the Senate.

    "This comparison is supported by another academic study. The confirmation process got gradually slower between the 1960s and the 1990s. Then, suddenly, in the second Clinton administration, the confirmation process seized up.

    "Under the elder Bush, a Republican president facing a Democratic Senate, 92% of nominees were confirmed within an average of 57 days. In the second Clinton administration, facing a Republican Senate, only 74% of nominees were confirmed, taking an average of 110 days.

    "Ornstein and Mann offer a convincing array of explanations for the trend toward radicalism within the GOP, including changes in campaign finance and in the electorate itself. They offer too a range of proposals to work around GOP radicalism and restore the effective functioning of Congress. If those proposals have a faint wistful air to them, blame the inherent difficulty of the problem, not Mann and Ornstein.

    "But one thing is missing from their powerful and important book, and it's a thought I'd like to enter here into the record: The radicalization of the GOP is a function of changes, not only in U.S. politics, but also in the U.S. economy.

    "Americans are living through an era of disappointment. It's becoming obvious that the U.S. government cannot meet all the expectations that built up in better times.

    "The tax status quo, the Medicare status quo, the social safety net status quo, the defense status quo -- they can't all be sustained. Something must give, and almost everybody senses it.

    "In good times, we debate whether government should expand programs or cut taxes -- new benefits in either case.

    "In these times, we are debating whether government should impose large reductions in programs or impose big increases in taxes -- taking from people benefits that they now enjoy.

    "Human beings will typically fight much more ferociously to keep what they possess than to gain something new. And the constituencies that vote Republican happen to possess the most and thus to be exposed to the worst risks of loss.

    "The Republican voting base includes not only the wealthy with the most to fear from tax increases, but also the elderly and the rural, the two constituencies that benefit the most from federal spending and thus have the most to lose from spending cuts.

    "All those constituencies together fear that almost any conceivable change will be change for the worse from their point of view: higher taxes, less Medicare, or possibly both. Any attempt to do more for other constituencies -- the unemployed, the young -- represents an extra, urgent threat to them.

    "That sense of threat radicalizes voters and donors -- and has built a huge reservoir of votes and money for politicians and activists who speak as radically as the donors and voters feel.

    "Which means the solution to the problems so astutely diagnosed by Mann and Ornstein must ultimately be found outside the American political system -- and will not be solved until America's rich and America's elderly become either less fearful or more generous."

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinion/frum-mann-ornstein/index.html

    The op-ed piece:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
     
  2. we see evidence of this on et every day by the usual suspects.
     
  3. All of this will be solved with time. In 20 years, the Lucrum's and 377's of this country will be in nursing homes, swinging at their caregivers, getting shots of Haldol, and believing that it is the RN who wipes their ass.

    Give it time Ricter, give it time.
     
  4. LMAO, RCG!
     
  5. Yes, it's outrageous of those ungrateful people to be expected to take home maybe 50% of what they earned or to make use of government programs they paid into to support their entire lives.

    They are greedy bastards for not going along with helping the millions of needy illegal immigrants, the rapidly growing urban underclass of single mothers, gang members, pimps, drug dealers and violent criminals, not to mention the urgent need to subsidize the vast occupying army of government workers with their early retirements and lavish benefits.

    Got to spread that wealth around.
     
  6. BTW it's articles like this that confirm what some of the posters here routinely proclaim: there's no real difference in the parties, at least in the establishment segments of both. Both want bigger and bigger government. They differ at the margins only.

    Now we have people who claim to be republicans actually attacking the republican House for not going along with more spending. And just to set the record straight, there was no risk of default in not raising the debt ceiling. There was a risk the government would have had to prioritize spending, which of course is anathema to them because it would destroy the myth that all spending is absolutely essential.
     
  7. Excellent thread, Ricter.

    Not unexpectedly, AAA sent another drone post without bothering to even aim it in the general direction of the subject matter.
     
  8. Frum is a neo con who loudly supported the Iraq war as a speechwriter for Bush. He supports gay marriage, thinks the republican should have compromised with obama on obamacare and , as a yale and Harvard law grad and rich jew,detests the participation of the great unwashed masses represented by the Tea Party and Evangelical base of the party. In short, he has been dead wrong on pretty much every major issue.

    But he is the guy the liberals want to quote to "prove" that republicans are evil.
     
  9. The hypocrisy of the leftist knows no bounds.
     
  10. what might of happened if republicans had sat down and said lets build a healthcare system that works for all? wouldnt it be nice to have leaders that work to solve problems. but then again, republicans are the problem.
     
  11. He's about the same age as we are, he doesn't have that long to wait.
     
  12. "Sixteen months into the George W. Bush administration, Memorial Day 2002, only 13 executive-branch nominations awaited confirmation by the Senate. At the corresponding moment in the Obama administration, Memorial Day 2010, 108 nominees were awaiting action by the Senate."





    Well maybe the nominees are 108/13.................8.3 times worse ? That seems logical,

    if you're one of the resident right-wing nut-jobs.
     
  13. They were shut out by Pelosi and Reid. How do you negotiate on a bill when you don't even get to see it before voting on it?

    Republicans traditionally made the mistake of trying to trim the rough edges off radical democrat propsoals in the interests of going along. Then they turned to Bob Dole to raise taxes to pay for them. No more.

    Voters want a choice, not an echo.
     
  14. So RCG wants to talk about the gene lottery, longevity and nursing homes? Fine :D

    My great-uncle (my grandfathers brother) just died at 101 years old. He had one of those golf driving nets in his front year and liked to hit a bucket of balls each morning. Every winter he drove his cadillac CTS down from Gig Harbor to Palm Springs where he rented a condo. Everytime I saw him he had a different girlfriend on his arm. He had been on retirement for 43 years.

    My dad is fit, rides his mountain bike and crews on various racing boats. He had to give up skiing and now just snowboards. They spent a couple of weeks at Park City this winter. Now he and his young wife have rented a villa in Tuscany for the spring and he shipped his mountain bike over. His wife says they open a bottle of local wine every afternoon. My dad was shot in Korea so he has metal parts in his left leg (artificial femur) and his left ankle is fused but he stays very fit and looks great.

    In 20 years I'll have been retired 20 years. I haven't been shot so I don't have limitations on my workouts and I probably eat healthier than my dad too. My 50 year old ex-girlfriends say I look great and simply haven't aged except that my goatee has turned white. I seem to attract younger women but I prefer them in the 30-40 year old range.

    My current "girlfriend" overseas is 33, gorgeous and rides a Honda cafe racer to her job as a chef in Chiang Mai. She is tall, dark and frighteningly uninhibited. There is a fair chance that I will build her a house up in her village and live up there but its hard to predict. I keep swapping for younger ones but I really like this one. :D

    The gene lottery is cruel RCG. I don't think I need to say more.

    I've pointed out that living in Peoria is like being dead so you've got a leg up on that experience. Just get out of there RCG while you still can. If you can administer an enema in Peoria then you could do the same on Oahu. I cannot understand why you would spend your life in the most boring city in North America with your hand in someones ass. I would be really happy to see you escape. Got family there? Well they'll be fine, you can visit them. You can thank me later.

    How can you guys criticize republicans, they're about to save the country!
     
  15. I actually agree with your concern here, but not with your choice of targets. Most of these groups are symptoms, not causes.
     
  16. Oh, and I bet that when you're not modelling or starring in blockbuster movies you're performing pro bono neurosurgery and advising various international heads of state on policy issues and so on.
     
  17. Sounds like you got it going on. Tell you what's more cruel. The random selection of death by any number of ways other than old age. Best do that young girlfriend a couple times tonight cause a truck might have your name on it tomorrow.:eek:
     
  18. Wow!

    My last post got him between the eyes:D

    I will not post an essay, like you have.

    Congrats on your "overseas girlfriend". I hope you are not being scammed.:)

    Would it not be more practical to be able to have a gf without needing a passport if you get horny?

    Peoria, is one of the cheapest places in the US to live, and I am not constrained to traditional earning restraints. So my wage goes very, very far here. One reason why I never moved back home. I had to explain this to my parents as well.

    Sorry if I struck a nerve there 377. I only said that to say people with ideas do not change, people with those ideas die, and the new paradigm takes over.:cool:
     
  19. He can't. He has an incredible flight time to get there.
     
  20. :D
     
  21. That is exactly the attitude I have. I always joke about being run over by a bus because you can be here one second and gone the next. Its fairly amazing that anyone manages to live a long life, particularly in the city.

    Life is definitely too short to live in Peoria though.
     
  22. ... and Romney is leading in the polls...
     
  23. See how the left is rattling and its still a tie statistically. Wait until Romney opens up a large lead and we'll see all kinds of insanity manifest here in P&R. They are going to go berserk.

    What will AK say? :D
     
  24. according to the left and neo commies like frum, its now radical to be practical.
     
  25. Frum is reporting what two long-time, respected, and fair analysts have concluded about the state of affairs today. Examples are given, historical and current, to support their assertions.
     
  26. recently someone used the word tendentious on et. I like it.
    This is a tendentious thesis. Or if I recall the sample sentence in the example... this op was a tendentious read of history.

    after 40 years of tax and spend creep.. 70% of the country realizes it most stop.... unfortunately only about 50% of the politicians realize this.

    As I said... these jokers are now calling practical, extreme.

    Spending twice as much as you take in and expect to fix that problem with increased taxation is extreme. Extremely stupid and extremely political.

    To then have the balls to call practical side extreme is the big lie.
     
  27. Its still a crock of biased crap. The Daily Beast and Newsweek, that pretty much sums up David Frum.

    If that strikes you as fair and respected then I imagine your entire worldview has become warped.

    The whole world has seen the vision of society that the leftists work towards and, aside from France (lol), they are about to express their displeasure. It looks as though you will find yourself living in a world with which you disagree but most of the worlds population sees the American way as fundementally fair and rewarding to those who work hard and take risk.
     
  28. Their discussion is not about ends, but means.
     
  29. California is run entirely by democrats.

    Californians pay the 6th highest taxes per capita in the nation. Businesses pay the 4th highest taxes on a per employee basis. (Please don't give me grief about prop 13. Even with prop 13 Californian's pay higher per capita taxes than 44 other states.)

    California has the third highest unemployment rate in the country, the fastest rate of businesses exiting the state, and the slowest rate of job formation. Our bonds are rated second worst in the country.

    =========================

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7277242682364690.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    "From the mid-1980s to 2005, California's population grew by 10 million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000..."

    ======================

    "California is no longer an incubator of high-wage jobs. The state lost 370,000 jobs paying 25 percent or more of the average wage between 2000 and 2008. This compares to a 770,000 increase in the previous 8 years. California is trailing Texas badly and the nation overall in creating criticial STEM jobs and middle skills jobs (Figures 2 & 3) Only two states have higher unemployment rates than California (Nevada and Rhode Island) . California has the second highest underemployment rate (20.8 percent), which includes the number of unemployed, plus those who have given up looking for work ("discouraged" workers) and those who are working only part time because they cannot find full time work."

    http://www.newgeography.com/content...phic,+and+political+commentary+about+places%2
     

  30. Socialism Socialism ra ra ra
     
  31. Not so much a "life" as an existence. Such as it is.
     
  32. Is that because the ends show the means of spending more and taxing more do not work?
     
  33. Are you generally referring to the tax creep whereby the highest marginal income tax rate went from over 90% to its present 35%? Are you referring to the direction of that trend? Is that what you mean?

    [​IMG]

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

    Catch a clue, jem.
     
  34. He seems to have a vocation that is highly mobile. I can never understand it when guys that could enjoy that mobility don't take advantage of it.

    I always had to live where the work was so there were limited choices.

    Nurses are evidently in demand almost everywhere. His kids are grown, he isn't married if anything he says is to be believed. Why stay in a graveyard shift deadend in Boredom USA?
     
  35. No Brass, I am talking about the tax everything that has a dollar sign in front of it... and then spend twice as much. Which caused massive inflation... which is a massive tax which destroys peoples standard of living and jerks them up into higher tax rates.

    Why the hell are you asking questions about this... you live in canada on the dole --- don't you?

    Many people now have the govt taxing him for half his money and homes loans taking the other half. (or just about) People are not getting buy on two incomes. That is criminal.

    We need to eliminate the personal income tax and give people their lives back. That would be a real govt program.
     
  36. You mean one with no government?
     
  37. If you went to school in america, you would understand our country was formed as a revolt against taxes.

    You would understand that we had a great govt long before we had income taxes. I think you can argued that the income tax is a major part of the problem with govt.

    Additionally, you could say that our income taxes go to paying off our federal debt. Since the FED and income tax went together. I suspect we can drop them together.
     
  38. As I understand it, it was a revolt against taxation without representation. I think you'll find that to be different. In any event, does the government formed in 1776 represent the level and scope of government you now want to have, hopefully recognizing that it was then fully Third World by today's standards?
     
  39. are you living in Canada on the dole or not?
     
  40. Now for my plan.

    We do not have to end the fed... but we will end paying interest on debt.

    1. No more debt. If govt needs to spend... it just prints. No debt.
    2. Balanced budget... with option to spend more only during a war... if voted on my majority of congress for 4 years.. then by people after that.
    3. Payoff entire existing debt at once with one big print.
    4. eliminate personal income tax.

    No need for a vat.
    Set up flat tax for corps. No outs.
    Eliminate congressional lobbying.
    Provide for National single payer health care with tariff and tax or corporations who do not pay income tax.
     
  41. unless of course he doesn't have the vocation he claims to have

    Lets assume he is a nurse, add his dreadlocks, compulsive lying, self delusions of grandeur and the safe to assume accompanying personality faults. He's probably lucky to have ANY kind of job.

    Maybe he really works at a convenience store.
     
  42. Thread to thread, unable to function without this odd obsession with RCG, who is a veteran, and an actual functioning member of both society and a noble profession. Cyber stalking is so depraved. Are you both out of a job and broke? Why else are you so jealous?
     
  43. Try not to be absurd. In the meantime, see if you can actually answer my question:
     
  44. Answer mine first

    Do you live in Canada?
    Do you receive money from govt entities?
     
  45. I did. You didn't.
     
  46. I would have enjoyed answering your question... but you continue to show the integrity of a leftist. So I will not waste my time with you and your distorted world filled with bullshit and juvenile gotcha type games.

     
  47. That would be you.

    I asked you an obvious follow-up question to the inaccurate (or at the very least incomplete) comment you made about the reason your country "was formed." And your response to me is to ask if I'm on the dole? You want me to post an O'Donnell-type "I am not a witch" denial response, and you accuse ME of "juvenile gotcha games?" How about this: Did you engage in heavy petting with your family goat last Christmas? See how that works, jem? But what do these questions, being of fairly equal quality and relevance, have to do with the fact that the principal reason for dissent and subsequent US sovereignty was taxation without representation? And how does that answer my perfectly reasonable question as to whether, by implication of your sovereignty-due-to-taxation comment, you now want the level and scope of government that was in force at the time of US independence in 1776?

    Seriously, are you a performance artist with an affinity for the abstract?
     
  48. This is what it comes down to everytime with Thunderdog/Gabfly/Brass. He is simply incapable of being forthright or honest. I have never seen him deal squarely in any discussion he has been engaged in. He always responds with something pedantic or snarky and his central purpose is not to debate an issue. The guy thinks he is clever and is just looking an opportunity to say something snippy.

    He is the least contributive poster in this forum except for some of the learning disability types like Spiker.
     
  49. Why do you say "no government"?

    About 40% of federal revenues come from income taxes. If we cut defense and other wasteful spending and increased tariffs and excise taxes, then income taxes wouldn't be necessary.
     
  50. Jem is voting for Romney. Romney is a Republican. Republicans are not about cutting defense. Want to increase tariffs? That works both ways, right? Cause and effect. In any event, the taxes you propose would essentially and effectively translate to consumption tax at the end of the day. Proportionately, consumption tax hits lower income groups the hardest. Why am I not surprised?
     
  51. 1. The correct answer would have been..
    I didn't - you didn't. Instead you lied and said you answered. I dont even know why?


    2. When talking about tax policy whether you pay taxes, and whether you feel the tax bite is very relevant.

    When govt is taxing you all the time, everywhere you go... they not only decimate their people standard of living but they also create an antagonistic environment.

    As a kid when my family moved to Greenwich in the 70s, you could feel you were getting great value for your tax dollar.

    when I moved to San Diego in the 80s same thing.

    When I went skiing at mammoth before they were bought by intrawest same thing.


    Now.. everybody is in your pocket to their max all the time. I accept businesses feel the need to maximize revenue

    But, the Govt... should not be doing that to us. They should not be the financial enemy of those who work.

    I get notices about a property tax on my boat... ( they are taxing a boat on a trailer) a trailer and boat which are already licensed. I am not even sure they have the constitutional authority to do that.

    The city tries to hit me with a business tax on my business property... although I do not even live in the the city of San Diego.

    The states wants over 10% or more of reasonable incomes... and now is looking to increase to 13% for people making good income.
    The Feds take and self employment tax and fica tax.
    Property taxes are high.
    Gas, alcohol, jet fuel, hotel.

    Its all tax all the time.

    You do not live here... so I would to point out to you how you have no right to comment on whether the shit is being taxed out now or now. If you are also sucking off your govt... I understand why you so often distort reality.

    And it not just CA its everywhere.
     
  52. You still didn't answer my question. (Not the one about the family goat.)
     
  53. You've simply dismissed it without argument.

    First, I agree that tarfifs are a two-way street. But we can increase tariffs to the point that they're equivalent to what other countries charge us. That won't start a "trade war" despite the chicken-little hysteria that starts every time someone suggests raising tariffs. Second, there are many ways to protect the poor from the effects of consumption taxes, including a consumption tax "prefund."

    If we cut "net" defense spending (including chargebacks to countries where we have bases) by 50%, increased tarrifs and imposed a small consumption tax the gap would be closed and we could kiss personal income taxes goodbye.
     


  54. tomdavis for POTUS!
     
  55. Let's just raise it to $25 trillion.

    That'll last us a few years.


    :mad:
     
  56. you think. dont forget republicans have promised to increase defense spending:

    Defense & War Spending Equal 94% Of All Federal Income Tax Revenues
    http://dailybail.com/home/wake-up-america-the-real-us-budget-problem-defense-war-spend.html

    In 2010, the US government collected $898 billion in federal income tax revenues. The same year, we spent $847 billion on useless wars and national defense. That means that 94% of all federal income tax revenue is equivalent to what we spend on the Pentagon. Who out there thinks it was money well spent?

    Also, just to piss you off a little bit more - defense spending is equivalent to 443% of what we collect in total corporate taxes.
     
  57. Bullshit numbers and everyone here knows it.

    You and Chris Matthews have a lot in common.
     
  58. prove it.
     
  59. You.
     
  60. are you capable of any kind of rational debate? if not i wont waste much more time with you. one flush of the toilet and you are gone forever.
     
  61. What was the total revenue the gov brought in?
     





  62. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/romney-calls-for-more-defense-spending/



    Romney Calls for More Defense Spending



    MT. PLEASANT, S.C. — Standing among retired airplanes on the U.S.S. Yorktown, a decommissioned World War II aircraft carrier, Mitt Romney told a small group of veterans on Thursday that given the global threats to America’s interests, the nation’s defense spending should be increased instead of cut.

    Acknowledging that waste and excess spending exist within the Defense Department, Mr. Romney still called for increasing the Pentagon’s budget.






    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...romney-im-not-going-to-cut-the-defense-budget


    Romney: I won't cut defense budget




    Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said Monday he wouldn't cut the defense budget if he's elected president.

    Romney said he would be open to redirecting spending within the Pentagon's budget to ensure that it's more efficiently allocated and to eliminate waste, but he wouldn't cut the overall budget.

    "I'm not going to cut the defense budget," Romney said in a question-and-answer session on his Facebook page.
     
  63. "I don't care how much Romney is going to cut taxes and increase spending, the main thing is that he is NOT OBAMA! Obama is destroying our country with all his deficit spending!!"