David Brooks says it all; The Republican party has gone off the deep end

• Footwedge

  majorspark;825325 wrote:Last I heard Ronald Reagan is dead. He has been dead for seven years. Foot he has been out of power since you and I were chasing high school girls in short skirts. His individual impact on our current economic situation this country faces in 2011 amounts to nothing more than a gnat on a hippos ass.

  What does that have to do with it? I am out of line in stating on a political board that there are direct parallels in what Obama is doing in comparison to his GOP predecessors? It's no secret that the OC poli board is infested with grossly misinformed hacks from the right.
  
  No matter how many facts are posted.....the hypocracy of the right regarding fiscal restraints will never, ever be acknowledged. That's what partisan blinders will do to you.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;825337 wrote:What Reagan did largely worked. Remember we had the gas crisis/recession around '82(?), double-digit inflation and then Black Friday in '87. There's nothing wrong with a LITTLE deficit spending and it does temporarily prop up the economy...BUT you have to eventually pay it back.
  
  I also don't think FDR's approach was terrible...We continue to enjoy benefits from many of those infrastructure projects. My main beef with the stimulus is that it funded crap boondoggle projects, practically flushing money down the drain.

  Not that I need to validate anyone's opinion. But I do think this is one of the more valid disagreements with the stimulous. I wish we would have used it for more direct impact type things, like overhauling roads, bridges, hell even giving money to telecoms with the directive to spend it on infrastructure improvements would have yielded a very measureable benefit for us.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;825515 wrote:What does that have to do with it? I am out of line in stating on a political board that there are direct parallels in what Obama is doing in comparison to his GOP predecessors? It's no secret that the OC poli board is infested with grossly misinformed hacks from the right.
  
  No matter how many facts are posted.....the hypocracy of the right regarding fiscal restraints will never, ever be acknowledged. That's what partisan blinders will do to you.

  This partisan right wing hack can say with 100% confidence that Reagan would never have created anything like ObamaKare, asked Congress for $787 Billion of pure Porkulus Spending design largely to appease his benefactors, conduct a government takeover of General Motors to prop up his union base, etc., etc., etc.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Gee, Believer. I was just starting to learn about how King Reagan spent more money than Barry, there was no Congress apparently in the 80's, the stimulus was wonderful, and Barry is a cost-cutting conservative hawk. I also learned that Reagan's $200 billion is MORE than Barry's $1.5 trillion. I thought I knew integers, but apparently I need more liberal re-education classes.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;825547 wrote:Gee, Believer. I was just starting to learn about how King Reagan spent more money than Barry, there was no Congress apparently in the 80's, the stimulus was wonderful, and Barry is a cost-cutting conservative hawk. I also learned that Reagan's $200 billion is MORE than Barry's $1.5 trillion. I thought I knew integers, but apparently I need more liberal re-education classes.

  You won't need any re-education classes. It's simple. Clinton and Obama were simply victims of policies implemented by Reagan and Bush. All you need to remember are Ronnie Ray Gun and Bush lied - people died.
• I Wear Pants

  It's funny/depressing that you guys take that attitude when people criticize Bush/Reagan/whoever and then do exactly the same for Obama/Clinton/whoever.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;825585 wrote:It's funny/depressing that you guys take that attitude when people criticize Bush/Reagan/whoever and then do exactly the same for Obama/Clinton/whoever.

  It's interesting/perplexing that you lefties cannot recognize sarcasm meant to drive home a valid viewpoint.
• I Wear Pants

  Yeah, it's all sarcasm...
  
  Anyway back on topic:
  

  IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.
  
  There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion. Back in May the government bumped up against that limit, but various accounting dodges have been used to keep funds flowing. It is now reckoned that these wheezes will be exhausted by August 2nd.
  
  The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink.
  
  Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.
  
  The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.
  
  A gamble where you bet your country’s good name
  
  This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.
  
  And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.
  
  Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.

  http://www.economist.com/node/18928600?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/shameonthem
• believer

  

  Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.

  Both parties are guilty of fiscal recklessness. Far be it for the Republicans to take a stand, live up to their 2010 campaign promises, and - YES INDEED- say "no more" to the insanity. Independent voters should take note.
  
  I just hope the Republicans have the courage to follow through....but they'll capitulate as usual.
• I Wear Pants

  Letting us default is not taking a stand.
• BGFalcons82

  

  IWP -
  
  Believer is right. The R's have capitulated EVERY time when this debate comes up. Why? I know you don't want to read this, but the media controls the message and if they can ONCE AGAIN portray the R's as mean old white racist homophobe fat cat greedy nutjobs, then America will side with those that have spent spent spent spent us into near-oblivion. Now, thanks to the TEA Party, the internet, and today's electronic know-it-all-instantly age, the R's can no longer live in the back room. We've kicked the can down the road for so long the can is worn out. There's virtually nothing left to kick.
  
  The article you posted is yet again another pre-attack on the fiscally responsible congresspeople. Nothing more. They ask, "why, oh why, won't they bend over again like their RINO-buddies and agree to more taxes, more government, more regulation, more control and less spending." HAHAHAHAAHAHahahahaha...less spending. Just like in 1990 when they bent Bush's daddy over the exact same barrell and made what....no cuts in the end? Cost Bush the election, didn't it and who won...that's right...the same folks that promised 3 to 1 spending cuts over tax increases. My point is not that this is political, it's that those who cook these deals have no integrity to follow through. They have NO INTENTION of making one hard cut. And here we are yet again....same debate with new players. Time for the spenders to buck-up and admit they can't tax and spend us into prosperity.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;825607 wrote:Time for the spenders to buck-up and admit they can't tax and spend us into prosperity.

  Boatshoes will try to tell you otherwise.
• gut

  That's exactly the problem - the $2 trillion in. "promised" cuts are soft targets and likely to be very fleeting. That is how we've gotten to today eith both repubs and dems passing the buck by pushing illusory cuts off into the future based either on unrealistic projetions/accounting hocus-locus or politically untenable cuts that future reps won't make.
  
  It's like saying we'll whack entitlements 50% in 10 years after we're retired and ignoring it will be political suicide for those after to enact those cuts. Long past due that Washington starts makin REAL cuts. Spending has been outgrowing revenues significantly for years and it's time to stop pretending like that trend will magically reverse in a few years to claim bogus budget cuts.
• believer

  

  gut;825614 wrote:Long past due that Washington starts makin REAL cuts. Spending has been outgrowing revenues significantly for years and it's time to stop pretending like that trend will magically reverse in a few years to claim bogus budget cuts.

  Won't happen. We have cowards and fools running the gubmint on both sides of the aisle.
• gut

  I think the repubs are missing a big opportunity to throw Obama and the Dems under the bus here. Since we can't and won't default, I'd just cave in and then throw up my arms and say "we thought we had the leverage, until it became clear they we're irrational enough to risk default just to push their agenda...they would just assume default before REAL cuts to spending and the only recourse is for America to kick those out of office whom are spending us into financial ruin"
• I Wear Pants

  That won't work, because the Dems have already agreed to lots of cuts (whether you find them worthy or not they have agreed to cuts) and as such if we default or get close it will be the Republicans who look like the assholes.
• gut

  believer;825617 wrote:Won't happen. We have cowards and fools running the gubmint on both sides of the aisle.

  
  Probably time for term limits in the House and Senate. Re-election is having too much negative influence over good policy and some reps have too much power and influence. Since the other 48 states can't get rid of Pelosi or Reid we should do it wit term limits.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;825621 wrote:That won't work, because the Dems have already agreed to lots of cuts (whether you find them worthy or not they have agreed to cuts) and as such if we default or get close it will be the Republicans who look like the ****s.

  
  That's kind of my point. They made little to no real or likely to be realized cuts, but it's hardly productive or feasible o point that finger after a default. With the media on their side, the Dems have played the game of chicken and liars poker better and the repubs need to move on and attack those soft cuts and future budgets before their credibility is further eroded "holding" America hostage.
• BGFalcons82

  

  You are right, gut. If the R's cave to tax increases...again...they will become irrelavent and become a 3rd party. This is indeed a line in the sand and written in stone. They cave...they're gone and we'll continue our search for candidates with balls.
• gut

  BGFalcons82;825626 wrote:You are right, gut. If the R's cave to tax increases...again...they will become irrelavent and become a 3rd party. This is indeed a line in the sand and written in stone. They cave...they're gone and we'll continue our search for candidates with balls.

  They won't win any votes by having the balls to default. My honest opinion is Obama and the leading Dems aren't afraid of default because they're too economically illiterate to know better. So the repubs have made their point and need to move on before it becomes more counterproductive. The liberal media isn't going to support their cause so point made, now it's time to shift tactics/focus a bit.
• gut

  I shudder to think that Obama secretly fantasizes about a default to wipe out the debt so he can start over with a $10 trillion blank check.
• believer

  

  gut;825622 wrote:Probably time for term limits in the House and Senate. Re-election is having too much negative influence over good policy and some reps have too much power and influence. Since the other 48 states can't get rid of Pelosi or Reid we should do it wit term limits.

  Sounds good but this too won't happen. The very people who can make this happen would be limiting their own power. Would you do it?
• fish82

  

  Footwedge;825515 wrote:What does that have to do with it? I am out of line in stating on a political board that there are direct parallels in what Obama is doing in comparison to his GOP predecessors? It's no secret that the OC poli board is infested with grossly misinformed hacks from the right.
  
  No matter how many facts are posted.....the hypocracy of the right regarding fiscal restraints will never, ever be acknowledged. That's what partisan blinders will do to you.

  1. Using percentage of increase in spending to bolster your argument is both disingenuous and pretty irrelevant, unless we only intend to pay back a "percentage" of the dollars we borrow.
  
  B. In terms of spending the most dollars, and adding the the most dollars to the ever growing stack of debt...there is a clear cut winner, and you know damn well who it is.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;825630 wrote:I shudder to think that Obama secretly fantasizes about a default to wipe out the debt so he can start over with a $10 trillion blank check.

  Your foil is showing.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;825640 wrote:Your foil is showing.

  
  
  Only to an extent. Default appears to be inevitable. The only flaw is that when the default happens, there won't be any blank checks to write in the end...the Chinese won't allow it.