Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11407 posts, RR: 24 Posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4078 times:
For those who don't know Paul Krugman, he's a Nobel Laureate in Economics, NY Times op-ed columnist, and self-labelled liberal. I found his column The G.O.P.'s Existential Crisis to be quite thought provoking.
He makes the points that since the 70s the main thrust of the GOP has been to get rid of the welfare state, which sounds like a popular plan until you start saying what you would cut, namely Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are all popular programs. To do this, the GOP approach has been to try to use tax cuts to force cuts in social spending, or to get so much political strength that they could just force cuts through.
O.K., you see the problem: Democrats didn't go along with the program, and refused to give up. Worse, from the Republican point of view, all of their party's sources of strength have turned into weaknesses. Democratic dominance among Hispanics has overshadowed Republican dominance among southern whites; women's rights have trumped the politics of abortion and antigay sentiment; and guess who finally did get Osama bin Laden.
And look at where we are now in terms of the welfare state: far from killing it, Republicans now have to watch as Mr. Obama implements the biggest expansion of social insurance since the creation of Medicare.
So Republicans have suffered more than an election defeat, they've seen the collapse of a decades-long project. And with their grandiose goals now out of reach, they literally have no idea what they want, hence their inability to make specific demands.
It's a dangerous situation. The G.O.P. is lost and rudderless, bitter and angry, but it still controls the House and, therefore, retains the ability to do a lot of harm, as it lashes out in the death throes of the conservative dream.
Our best hope is that business interests will use their influence to limit the damage. But the odds are that the next few years will be very, very ugly.
I see his points.
The GOP has been going down the same road a long time now, and is at a decision point: (a) do we do more of the same, or (b) do we do something different?
Doing more of the same is a bad idea. They've lost the last Presidential election, and demographics are working against them, and what they have been suggesting (trickle down economics) clearly is only working for those at the top. Also their stance on gun control seems to be more and more unpopular.
Doing something different is difficult. First of all, the obstructionist policies of the last few years has chased away many of the people on their side capable of leadership. Secondly they are a diverse mashup of (alleged) fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, religious people and radicals.
I wouldn't want to be in Boehner's shoes right now. He seems the be the one who is at most risk of being labelled the person who took us over the fiscal cliff.
The fiscal cliff is a creation of Congress and one way to overt that would be to undo it as fast as it was done, but that'd be almost as bad to Boehner as going over the cliff would be. My bet is that someone else will end up doing that dirty work so that Boehner can save face.
If they are smart, they will kick out the fringe. But, they are not smart like that. The fringe uses snappy catch phrases to gin up the base. Which, in a way, is smart. It alienates a lot of voters, but, on paper, it sounds good.
Not really. And not only was it a very decisive loss for them, they gave up a lot of seats in the house, and managed to lose horribly in every large MSA to boot.
The damage done to them is more than just a presidential election per se, it's watching "reliable" strongholds go from red to blue and not winning (or even coming meaningfully close) a single "battleground" region. This year's loss was about 6%. Next time will be closer to 20, barring a major and credible overhaul.
Why is this different than 2004... 2004 was indeed a narrower race for starters, and the Dems also didn't sustain likewise losses in contentious states, or lose as many seats in the house and senate. In fact, IIRC, they held onto their majority there. FOX will try to tell you that 2012 & 2004 are similar, but the truth is they're really not. In 2004, the Dems couldn't field a viable candidate, and did not posses the ability to get folks excited about their vision. In 2012, the Republicans were simply found to be peddling useless schlock nobody wants. This isn't a product that can be sold better with just a new salesman.
Libertarians... The problem with these guys is the same problem with Communists. Their vision works well on paper, but in real life requires a damned specific set of parameters to somehow naturally materialize in order to work. They sound innovative, but the truth is that it's basically churched-up anarchy. I will agree though, that it is indeed superior to the baptist taliban dream the GOP seems to be captivated by.
Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16555 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4017 times:
Quote: I don't really get most of these articles... The GOP was only a few percentage points away from winning. If they drop/change a bit of their platform, I can see them winning 2016.
The bigger picture should be more worrying for Republicans, they've lost the popular vote in 5 out of the past six Presidential elections. The country is progressing, the Republican party is regressing. I've voted twice for Republican Presidential candidates since I've turned 18, the last time was G.W Bush in 2000. He was a tremendous let down to say the least, I liked his "compassionate conservative" platform he had I'm 2000. Suffice to say it never materialized. The platform for the Republicans is more and more outdated and out of touch with each election.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7849 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3998 times:
The first Presidential election I can remember was when Ike ran in '52. He was the one person who motivated me to register Republican when I was old enough to register. The GOP has, unfortunately, changed since then. I have this feeling that cash is not more important to them than country. That makes it easy to understand why they prefer tax cuts over feeding the hungry or treating the sick. Why should they worry as long as they can keep taxes low?
BTW, over the years I have normally voted for the Democrat when the GOP President really turned me off. Bush I - great guy stuck with a Sanunu based Presidency. That got me voting for Wild Bill twice. Bush II? Gave the Family another shot - what an embarrassment. After his two terms there was no way I could vote for McCain and Bambi.
At my age I don't have too many elections left, but I find it hard to see how I can support the GOP. It is so far away from the party I joined so many years ago - nothing but a money grab these days.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 1): If they are smart, they will kick out the fringe.
Maybe the fringe will take over their party. Look at the power the Tea Party held when they went to DC. There is sufficient money behind them to keep going for a long time. Just look at how many highly regarded moderate Republicans that were kicked out by the Tea Party this past Election Primary.
These days it's important to look at the shifts in our population. People of color (any color but white) are increasing as a percentage of the population and the old white men with the $2 haircut address these future voters in a manner that brings in votes. The GOP has relied too long on being against these groups to bring in the white vote. How are they going to bring them to the GOP side?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11407 posts, RR: 24 Reply 6, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3979 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 1): Can we, as a nation, stop calling it the "Fiscal Cliff"? Please and thank you. It is not a cliff. It is a back up plan. They said "If A does not happen, then B will without question."
You are arguing that we shouldn't use the word "cliff", Krugman's article is saying instead of "fiscal" we should use the word "political". We don't have a fiscal cliff, we have a political cliff. Our fiscal issue has a simple solution: borrow more money. Our political issue is that no one wants to keep borrowing money, but our politicians cannot work out how to stop borrowing more money.
I see three main options:
(A) Congress negotiates a settlement
(B) Mandatory across the board cuts kick in
(C) We kick the can down the road yet again
(a) With both sides doing their best to save face
(b) With both sides blaming the other
(c) Permutations of (a) and (b)
I'm not sure if these map to your A and B, but I see A above as very unlikely, B as somewhat likely and C very likely.
Krugman can say why I find A so unlikely better than I can:
Quote: ...these aren’t normal negotiations in which each side presents specific proposals, and horse-trading proceeds until the two sides converge. By all accounts, Republicans have, so far, offered almost no specifics. They claim that they’re willing to raise $800 billion in revenue by closing loopholes, but they refuse to specify which loopholes they would close; they are demanding large cuts in spending, but the specific cuts they have been willing to lay out wouldn’t come close to delivering the savings they demand.
It’s a very peculiar situation. In effect, Republicans are saying to President Obama, “Come up with something that will make us happy.” He is, understandably, not willing to play that game. And so the talks are stuck.
I agree with the column as it goes on to say that the GOP has been so focused on tax cuts being the answer that they don't know what to do when it's clear the President will block anything that doesn't repeal the cuts on the upper two tax brackets.
The GOP has been so good at pushing out moderates that they seem to be lost right now. They seem to find themselves in a position where they have to chose between their base blaming them for caving in on tax cuts versus the whole country blaming them for tanking the economy.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2): The GOP was only a few percentage points away from winning. If they drop/change a bit of their platform, I can see them winning 2016.
I think a lot of presidential politics depends on exactly who the candidate is, but it's also true that demographics is working against the GOP.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 10719 posts, RR: 16 Reply 7, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3926 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 6): You are arguing that we shouldn't use the word "cliff", Krugman's article is saying instead of "fiscal" we should use the word "political".
I was actually speaking to Americans in general, not Krugman. It is not a cliff. There is an alternative if the obstructionists decide not to pass anything or compromise with Democrats.
I have a feeling that, in 2014, the right-wing fringe will double down on the one-issue voters. I have a feeling they will be right back to trying to throw just a single percieved divicive issue out and seeing what sticks. Not actually dealing with the real problems of the country that real Republicans want to deal with.
Also, I fear, they will try to get long, long lines at urban voting stations again and blame the Democrats. They will try to take away precincts and voting machines and say "Look at what your party did! Look at what Democrats did to you!!" hoping no one did any research.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8369 posts, RR: 24 Reply 8, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3926 times:
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
For those who don't know Paul Krugman, he's a Nobel Laureate in Economics, NY Times op-ed columnist, and self-labelled liberal. I found his column The G.O.P.'s Existential Crisis to be quite thought provoking.
I'm sorry, but anyone who who considers Krugman as anything but a blowhard, old-school Keynsian with little if anything worthwhile to say is sick. Sure, you may wave the Nobel prize, but Nobel also gave the Peace prize to the likes of Arafat and Obama (not to compare Obama with Arafat, simply that Obama hadn't done jack-shit to get the award). Nobel has become a political statement rewarding people who think like the PC movement of the time.
I stopped reading the thread at the first paragraph when I saw Krugman mentioned.
I have suspected that one reason Reagan and GWBush embraced large deficits is because they felt it would pay off their short term constitutency (defense spending hawks) but in the long term actually force the reduction of government programs since they presumed spending cuts and a shrinking govt would be chosen to address the debt they created.
Were it not for the crime of Watergate and the rudeness of Ross Perot running in 1992, I feel the Republicans could have held the presidency from 1968 - 1990s or 2000s.. The country was default on their side as winning white males meant winning the White House.
Don't underestimate the ability of Democrats to become so focused on their leftist agenda that they forget to keep the country's economy running smoothly, just like Bush became so dominated by foreign wars that the stateside economy was just left to crash until it was too late to stop.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 10719 posts, RR: 16 Reply 11, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3850 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 10): The country was default on their side as winning white males meant winning the White House.
And that's their problem: they are running out of angry white men to keep in power. Their "white men only" stance alienates a lot of people. They, somehow, make their positions sound appealing to a few "minority" voters, but, when all is said and done, they are just a bunch of angry white men.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11407 posts, RR: 24 Reply 13, posted (11 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3772 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5): That makes it easy to understand why they prefer tax cuts over feeding the hungry or treating the sick. Why should they worry as long as they can keep taxes low?
I truly hope a "balanced approach" is taken. Revenue has to be addressed. Spending has to be addressed.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 7): It is not a cliff. There is an alternative if the obstructionists decide not to pass anything or compromise with Democrats.
Ok, I see your point.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 7): I have a feeling that, in 2014, the right-wing fringe will double down on the one-issue voters. I have a feeling they will be right back to trying to throw just a single percieved divicive issue out and seeing what sticks. Not actually dealing with the real problems of the country that real Republicans want to deal with.
What single issue for them can be a winner?
> Gun Rights
> Every (Hetro) Sperm is Sacred
> Defense of Marriage
> Denial of Global Warming
> Defend our Borders
It kind of makes it clear why they stuck with "Read My Lips No New Taxes" for the last few decades, and why they're willing to go over the cliff for it today, because outside of that, there's not much that unifies the GOP.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8): I'm sorry, but anyone who who considers Krugman as anything but a blowhard, old-school Keynsian with little if anything worthwhile to say is sick
I'm no disciple of the man, but sick? Oh my...
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8): I stopped reading the thread at the first paragraph when I saw Krugman mentioned.
As is your right.
On the other hand, you might just want to participate in a discussion of what direction the GOP should take, regardless of the initiation.
Quoting Pu (Reply 10): I have suspected that one reason Reagan and GWBush embraced large deficits is because they felt it would pay off their short term constitutency (defense spending hawks) but in the long term actually force the reduction of government programs since they presumed spending cuts and a shrinking govt would be chosen to address the debt they created.
Interesting point, which points out another shift the GOP has to deal with. The Cold War is over and the War on Terror is winding down and the public appetite for massive defense spending is winding down too.
Quoting Pu (Reply 10): Don't underestimate the ability of Democrats to become so focused on their leftist agenda that they forget to keep the country's economy running smoothly, just like Bush became so dominated by foreign wars that the stateside economy was just left to crash until it was too late to stop.
Indeed, and as above, that's why I hope we see the balanced approach. Hopefully that will give the markets some confidence that the government is capable of rational decisions.
Very true. And Romney had nothing like that level of "scandal" (for lack of better term), and still lost by a greater margin.
In fact his campaign, aside from Ryan's perpetual moronship and the 47% remark, was largely trouble free, and not very controversial. He lost because he ran as a Republican more than for any other reason, and I think that's a huge part of what differentiates this from 2004.
Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
Ryan is an unfortunate example of what happens when you actually spell out the things you would cut. Seems his party members have taken that to heart by doing their damnedest to not spell out the things they would cut.
Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 14): He lost because he ran as a Republican more than for any other reason, and I think that's a huge part of what differentiates this from 2004.
He ran to the right through the primaries, but then had to tack to the center to have any chance at winning the big prize. That's the problem for the GOP. They're this coalition of single issue voters, whose single issues on their own might win enough support, but when you lump them together you get a single party who has the opposition of all those who disagree on those single issues, and ends up coming across as regressive rather than progressive.
I suppose their best play would be to truly be the fiscally conservative party, but from this recent election we see the voters don't trust them to run the economy any more so than they do the Dems, so the GOP would have to find a way to change people's minds on this.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3292 posts, RR: 9 Reply 16, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3668 times:
Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 14): In fact his campaign, aside from Ryan's perpetual moronship and the 47% remark, was largely trouble free, and not very controversial. He lost because he ran as a Republican more than for any other reason, and I think that's a huge part of what differentiates this from 2004.
Outside of the obvious issues with GOP positions that are just not in line with the changing demographics in the US that may have been a problem. The saying is that any publicity is good publicity and had Romney/Ryan made more of a stir then they may have had a better chance, or they would have lost by more.
Quoting zippyjet (Reply 12): Yes and no. Kerry was actually quite close but the clever folks at the GOP and their media arm Fox News stoked up the divide conquer and fear factors by:
1. The Swift Boat bashing of Kerry
2. The eviness of Gays being able to walk down the aisle and say I Do to each other
Those democrats were pussies and now they are a lot more aggressive and the GOP can't stand it .
Had that election taken place now the democrats would have nominated Howard Dean, the person they should have in 2004.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 13): What single issue for them can be a winner?
> Gun Rights
> Every (Hetro) Sperm is Sacred
> Defense of Marriage
> Denial of Global Warming
> Defend our Borders
None of those, demographics and attitudes are changing and many of those issues the majority of the population is on one side ot them. Not necessarily the position that the democrats own either.
The talk of guns rights being changed isn't a serious issue that the democrats at large are going to get behind.
Yes. It is hate. Hate is the unifying thing for the GOP. Hate of gays. Hate of abortion. Hate of anyone not white voting. Hate of anything non-Christian. Hate unifies the GOP. They will simply cry about hate and hope they get enough people under their tent to win a majority.
Here is the difference between the right-wing and the Democrats: Democrats understand and accept that people are not single-issue voters. Democrats understand that not everyone is against guns. Not everyone is against abortion or gay rights or redistricting or unions or whatever. Democrats understand there are 100,000 shades of grey. Not everything is aboslute. I think that is the main difference. The right-wing needs to get over it.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8369 posts, RR: 24 Reply 18, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3616 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Yes. It is hate. Hate is the unifying thing for the GOP. Hate of gays. Hate of abortion. Hate of anyone not white voting. Hate of anything non-Christian. Hate unifies the GOP.
Holy crap. I think it is YOU who has the hate problem Seb. I see this a lot with liberals - they work themselves up into a lather, convincing themselves and each other that Conservatives/Republicans hate them, I suppose to be able to feel better about themselves hating them back.
Psychologically it makes sense that liberals hate more than conservatives. Liberals (in their own mind) are out to accomplish something - to improve the world via the power of government, to right wrongs and avenge the downtrodden. They feel morally superior to anyone who stands in their way. The language used says it all - "Progressives" want to advance - move forward, ergo anyone who is against them must in turn be backwards and anti-progress. Don't you just hate them? To a liberal's way of thinking, opposing progressivism is like a Pratt & Whitney engineer being told to use pig-iron for engine internals instead of titanium.
Conservatives on the other hand are not being prevented from doing something. They want small government that generally stays out of our way and allows us to live our lives as best we can, and we don't like being told that we are being backward because we don't buy into all the wonderful ideas you libs have. We have the sense (shared by our country's founders), that the more a centralized government tries to do, the more unintended consequences come up to bite you in the ass, so we want it only to do what is strictly necessary, things that nobody else can do. So the feeling from conservatives is not so much hatred, but exasperation.
History is full of examples of societies where a highly motivated segment of the population want to take over and push the country in a certain direction, pitted against the conservative part that says, "No, we don't want to go there", and that history also shows that the bulk of the hatred tends to come from the former group. Russian revolution, Nazi Germany, 1950s China, and so forth, all pitting the Statists against people who basically want to be left alone.
The wildcard is the the evangelical segment of society - the bible thumpers. Only 10-20% of the population, but enough of a swing for votes, and they cost Romney the election, I think. I've talked with many of them who, while being traditionally Republican and fiscally conservative, voted for Obama this time around purely because Romney was a Mormon, and "I just can't vote for someone who is a member of a Cult". I'm sure some of them have said prayers for my soul after I gave them my invective-laced opinions of their priorities.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3598 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 6): Our fiscal issue has a simple solution: borrow more money.
I don't have an axe to grind in this holy war, but I do wonder how long the borrow more money solution can last. I won't buy into "debates" between libertarians, liberals and conservatives because those terms have completely different meanings in the rest of the world. My question is, in the medium to long term, how does the US see itself addressing both mounting debt and increasing problems of international competitiveness?
As long as the US is able to maintain its position of providing a reserve currency internationally, printing money to pay debts may work, But what if a point is reached when foreign creditors say "enough is enough, we don't want to be repaid in devalued dollars"?
It seems to me that their are two things holding that off at the moment. The cost of losing potential exports to the US if a basket of currencies repayment scheme was adopted and the military power of the US that leads many investors to see the US as a safe refuge. But how long will that remain true?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 6567 posts, RR: 51 Reply 20, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3593 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 17): Yes. It is hate. Hate is the unifying thing for the GOP. Hate of gays. Hate of abortion. Hate of anyone not white voting. Hate of anything non-Christian. Hate unifies the GOP. They will simply cry about hate and hope they get enough people under their tent to win a majority.
Hmm definitely gonna pull the BS card on that. I know dozens and dozens of right leaning folk, and while some of them do get pretty crazy (hateful) most of them don't. In fact, the majority are concerned with the economic aspect of it, and no, it's not as cut and dry as "they must be for big business' profits and throwing old people on the street and hate poor people."
Have some empathy... otherwise, when people say you hate "small businesses" and "freedoms" and "American security" and all the other stuff you get accused of, you have no right to say "hey, I don't hate _____, I just think __insert logical reason here____"
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): I see this a lot with liberals - they work themselves up into a lather, convincing themselves and each other that Conservatives/Republicans hate them, I suppose to be able to feel better about themselves hating them back.
Psychologically it makes sense that liberals hate more than conservatives.
Again, it goes both ways. I know more right leaning people than left leaning people, but I know them well and their reasons for things, while different than some of mine and most other friends I have, aren't carved out of irrationality and hatred. If you go looking, it's very easy to find hateful liberals (and conservatives) and often in the heat of the debate the argument does get intense, but that doesn't mean they don't have logical reasons for their positions
tl;dr you both are accusing each other of being hateful and doing the exact thing you hate being applied to you!
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8369 posts, RR: 24 Reply 21, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3590 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 19): My question is, in the medium to long term, how does the US see itself addressing both mounting debt and increasing problems of international competitiveness?
The traditional solution for an over-indebted country is to devalue the currency, which impacts everyone's living standards, but most especially those with positive net worth (i.e. those who own more assets than what they owe). Considering how much the current administration seems to despise those people, I don't think he'd have a problem doing it.
Devaluing the currency would be a great gift to those people who are upside down on their mortgages, unless they were foolish enough to take adjustable rate mortgages. But anyone with a fixed-rate note (and that includes the federal government - all T-Bills are effectively fixed rate) will find that their debt load is much easier to pay.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 19): But what if a point is reached when foreign creditors say "enough is enough, we don't want to be repaid in devalued dollars"?
I think that will happen in the next couple of years.
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16110 posts, RR: 57 Reply 24, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3559 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2): I don't really get most of these articles... The GOP was only a few percentage points away from winning. If they drop/change a bit of their platform, I can see them winning 2016.
You're right. Plus, the GOP had a particularly weak candidate in Mitt Romney up against a very telegenic Obama.
Demographics, though, are against the GOP. They need to reach out to Jews, Hispanics and Asians, show they are immigration friendly, and expunge the religious radicals.
ALL Conservative parties elsewhere in the Western world have bought into gay marriage and abortion. The GOP needs to adopt socially progressive policies as its own (while maintaining its fiscal and military hawk status) and it will do much better.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
25 Dreadnought: Respect is earned, not owed by default. Therein lies the problem. Conservatives do not like to talk to and treat people differently. White, black, wo
26 casinterest: Yes it is owed, especially in Congress where those viewpoints are represented. there are many subjective priorites for funding and spending that are
27 scbriml: Hmm, nice generalisation. However, idiocy is certainly bipartisan.
28 seb146: This is what I am talking about: There are many reasonable right-leaning folk in this country. Some of them have been conditioned to hate anything th
29 BMI727: Just because the Cold War is over does not absolve us of the need to maintain a modern and powerful conventional military. And the War on Terror is n
30 bhill: I think the GOP does not have a problem with us going over the "cliff" or whatever in the hell you call it. Here's why... waaay back in the day someon
31 casinterest: Recent polls point to the contrary. The President is asking for the tax rates on the top 2% to be raised, and the GOP has been balking on that point.
32 Revelation: As above, I think the GOP has its biggest problems due to its stands on society/culture/religion, because many of the stands they take are divisive a
33 BMI727: If defense spending is gutted for a number of years that's exactly what happens. Especially when the force is depleted after a decade of war. Reagan
34 casinterest: As opposed to the contractors for other portions of the federal budget?
35 DocLightning: But he has a very good point. While you are correct that the rank-and-file GOP constituency may not be made up of hatemongers who want to march every
36 Revelation: I think if you read up on 9/11 the issue was not the military, it was the FBI and CIA failing to do their jobs. I'm not sure how tons of defense spen
37 PSA53: The media has been calling the GOP dead since JFK victory over Nixon.Not to mention God.(lol) Time magazine.
38 BMI727: How many layoffs do you think Walmart will have because they sell fewer Cheetos and Kools? I don't care except in the aspect that it makes it harder
39 casinterest: Fairly negligent view of the federal budget.
40 seb146: Ah, but not all of them. Just a few of them. The ones the right-wing wants to obsess over. The ones the right-wing points to and says "AH-HAH!! ALL l
41 StarAC17: No one with sense is saying that shouldn't be the case but when you have a military that is bigger than the next 12 countries combined and have a bud
42 Dreadnought: They should not have to. By default, politicians should be talking to everyone with the same message. No one group should think that they are getting
43 BMI727: So you continue to make generalizations and then tell everyone that you aren't making generalizations and it's just what you see. You love those guys
44 DeltaMD90: Stepping back, I see quite a few on the left spew out talking points. Not gonna argue who is worse or has more of those people, but often the same pe
45 DocLightning: Part of that is because you are a heterosexual white man who is at least nominally Christian. Try being a Gay Jew for a day and they pop out of the w
46 DeltaMD90: I see what you did there... But that is true, although, I am talking about when I actually dig deeper to see what their political thoughts are. I kno
47 seb146: That is who I have to base my observations on. Further, those who get their information only from the right-wing media are nearly impossible to have
48 DocLightning: Was it that obvious? *cringe* That's what makes you different. You actually questioned a longstanding belief of yours and found that belief invalid,
49 DeltaMD90: Oh, no doubt it's wrong, but I think the difference is the way you approach them. Quite honestly, if you have hate (true hatred, in your heart) nothi
50 ltbewr: Let us not forget the huge margin of control the Republicans have across the country on the state level including legislatures and governorships over
51 seb146: There are those who just go with being against gay marriage "just because the party does" but really don't have strong feelings about it either way.
52 DeltaMD90: I will agree with this as I do see some of this. I've seen a lot of "hivemind" recently with them, but I am optimistic lately as I've been (personall
53 seb146: I think that is one problem with the Republican party: they still hold on to the thought that anyone deviating from the talking points is "liberal" a
54 DeltaMD90: That is my biggest problem with the party, and which is why they turned me off lately. We'll see how the future cliff negotiations go... I am seeing
55 StarAC17: The illegals aren't but there are Latino's in the US legally who vote and the rhetoric used affects their decision at the poll. Something the GOP thi
56 Revelation: The GOP seems to need such strident statements in both its official platform and in its day-to-day media networks to keep its base on-line and energi
57 Dreadnought: And who's fault is that? Every time someone says "control the border", and "put a stop to illegal immigration", the left starts screaming about you b
58 StarAC17: The main reason that nothing is done with illegal immigration is that liberals want them as potential voters because some illegals will have children
59 seb146: Because the right screams about building a 20 foot (or however high) wall is the only way to stop illegals and there is nothing more to talk about. E
60 DeltaMD90: I think the bigger issue is why is this random stuff on insurance. I don't think birth control should be on insurance, nor should Viagra or anything
61 Revelation: I think both sides want controlled immigration, but as below, I don't think it can be achieved. McCain, being from a border state, put out his own pr
62 mt99: I guess you would rather have more children on the governments dime. Because that is what happens. If you are going to be cold about it: the cost for
63 DeltaMD90: We can go down the road all day mentioning stuff that would save money down the line... as far as healthcare, keep people alive and free of disease.
64 seb146: These seem to be one-in-the-same, I think. I mean: the government wants us citizens to be healthy so we can contribute. Many of us want to contribute
65 DeltaMD90: I do see what you are saying... I really respect the view point... although, I am more small government... I am not one of those that are scared of t
66 BMI727: And you assume that's the whole of the story. You say you don't make generalizations but then you also assert that Republicans are angry, old white m
67 casinterest: But the problem is the hidden costs. you don't pay for condoms, plan b or contraceptions, then over time the hidden costs of more kids, more people i
68 DeltaMD90: Again, hidden costs are everywhere in life... every single thing anyone does can be broken down into cost analysis. You could even make the argument
69 Dreadnought: That's just government attempting social engineering, and that is not what it is supposed to do. For generally healthy people who are not elderly, ma
70 Revelation: And IMHO the more educated people are, the more likely they are to look at the support network we have for those bringing kids into this world, keepi
71 tugger: Actually Dread, you are wrong on this. To be quite honest the US Constitution was (and still is) one of the greatest "Social engineering" documents o
72 seb146: Because that is who they are putting out there as the face of the Republican party. I know that is not all there is with the Republicans. There are s
73 tugger: Probably the biggest "Existential Crisis" that Republican's must go through is to get rid of the "no new taxes" fear and mantra. Sure, keep "Low Taxes
74 HoMsaR: The constitution does not tell people they must allow freedom of religion/speech, etc. It tells the government that it must allow people freedom of r
75 tugger: So can people, as individuals, own other people? Do you remember this line: Government of the people, by the people and for the people? "We, the peop
76 Pu: Whether or not their conclusions are entirely their own or borrowed from the conservative media apostles, in my mind they all share a basic fear that
77 BMI727: In that case we should figure out a way to do things better if we're unwilling to do them cheaper. Maybe it is or maybe it just isn't a given anymore
78 Dreadnought: Tugger, I think your education missed out on a very key part of the foundation of this country. The Constitution does not grant freedoms to citizens.
79 tugger: But the quote you were referring to (Reply 67) has nothing to do with "natural law" and just because certain things are legislated against or in supp
80 Revelation: Nice to see an on-topic point being raised. Yep, but it's a habit that's hard to break. Just today Boehner was pounding his chest about offering up Pl
81 seb146: The Paul Ryan budget ADDS to the deficit. But, the right-wing wants to be the party of spending control? We need to cut spending. No one disagrees wi
82 casinterest: I agree with you on this, but for some things, such as seat belts, air bags and wipers, , they are a requirment on the part of the manufacturer. So t
83 HoMsaR: Who is the manufacturer in this case? The parents?
84 casinterest: Possibly, but when the parents don't care, society pays. So I would say Society itself is the manufacturer. Parents are the distributor.
85 seb146: I don't understand the whole "I refuse to pay for contraception but I refuse to pay for the kids" argument. Pick one side or the other. A couple that
86 BMI727: This is really quite simple: you are responsible for what you fuck. Whether that means paying for condoms, birth control, a vasectomy, or child suppo
87 Darksnowynight: No, you've met people who are polite about it. We may have differreing philosophies here, but I believe very strongly that you are what you do. You d
88 Revelation: What's ridiculous (cf: subject to ridicule) is the notion that your model of society depends on everyone having a strong sense of responsibility and
89 seb146: This brings up two other points, one I made in the gun hoarder thread. 1. Why does the right-wing have this notion of "love the fetus, hate the child
90 casinterest: This individualism is where the GOP fails. They make this utopian assumption that everyone does what they are supposed to. However their are countles
91 DeltaMD90: No. There are differences. I completely disagree with abortion, yet, I don't call them moral-less baby killers... I see that they see different about
92 BMI727: It is not the responsibility of government or employers to ensure that their people are either not having kids or paying for said kids. It's the left
93 casinterest: The island of you can be a very lonely place. I wonder how your parents feel about your job search?
94 Polot: And what if the parent can't pay? You want the kid to pay for his parents' lack of responsibility? In that case society still ends up paying- just la