Republicans no longer a viable party?

[daveb]

So you're essentially agreeing that Congress should only enact spending cuts and no tax increases. How is that a compromise?

 

[Char. Limit]

The Dems spent more than our credit line allows. We have 2 choices - ask for more credit or cut spending back to pre-Obama/Reid/Pelosi levels.

Orrrrrrr cut spending and increase taxes. Funny how NO ONE EVER THINKS OF THAT.

 

[daveb]

Back to the point of the OP, I don't think the republican party will go the way of the dodo. It may be set back several decades, as the dems were after civil rights, or their gambit may work and the democrats might get blamed if things tank even further, regardless of which budget bill passess. But with our two party system, I don't think any other party will become competitive enough to challenge the dominance of the two major parties.

 

[WhoWee]

Orrrrrrr cut spending and increase taxes. Funny how NO ONE EVER THINKS OF THAT.

I'm in favor of cutting EITC, make work pay, and child credits. These redistribution programs are an expense. By increasing the number of actual tax payers - tax revenues would increase drastically. Raising tax rates on higher income individuals might not increase tax revenues.

 

[WhoWee]

So you're essentially agreeing that Congress should only enact spending cuts and no tax increases. How is that a compromise?

We need solutions - not more compromises - IMO

 

[daveb]

I'm in favor of cutting EITC, make work pay, and child credits. These redistribution programs are an expense. By increasing the number of actual tax payers - tax revenues would increase drastically. Raising tax rates on higher income individuals might not increase tax revenues.

By that same logic, then loopholes which allow corporations and the wealthiest to pay little to no taxes should also be abolished.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm"
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/high-income-no-tax-returns-almost-doubled-in-2008-irs-says.html"
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/"

 

[daveb]

We need solutions - not more compromises - IMO

You do realize compromises can be solutions as well? That both sides get a little of what they want, but both sides also don't get a little of what they want?

 

[WhoWee]

You do realize compromises can be solutions as well? That both sides get a little of what they want, but both sides also don't get a little of what they want?

When was the last time a Washington compromise solved a problem without some kind of unintended consequence - or more specifically a pork insert?

 

[daveb]

When was the last time a Washington compromise solved a problem without some kind of unintended consequence - or more specifically a pork insert?

OK, you may have a point there, but that's only because I share your cynicism.

 

[WhoWee]

By that same logic, then loopholes which allow corporations and the wealthiest to pay little to no taxes should also be abolished.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm"
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/high-income-no-tax-returns-almost-doubled-in-2008-irs-says.html"
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/"

How many accountants and IRS agents do you want to put out of business?

 

[WhoWee]

OK, you may have a point there, but that's only because I share your cynicism.

The President worried me a few days ago when he said he wanted a "big deal". Are there any Congressional hearings underway (now) regarding specific budget cut options (actual numbers) - or are they 100% focused on the politics?

 

[SixNein]

Back to the point of the OP, I don't think the republican party will go the way of the dodo. It may be set back several decades, as the dems were after civil rights, or their gambit may work and the democrats might get blamed if things tank even further, regardless of which budget bill passess. But with our two party system, I don't think any other party will become competitive enough to challenge the dominance of the two major parties.

The structure of our government encourages a two party system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

I think a better question is if the United States is becoming ungovernable. This tax issue is a good example. I don't see a bridge anywhere in sight to build an agreement on taxes or spending for that matter. Many matters of state have left the realm of reason and entered the realm of religion. In my opinion, the foxification of news combined with a lack of critical thinking has been very damaging to our political system. Can our political system survive the information era?

 

[Proton Soup]

Threaten? He didn't threaten. He merely stated that a consequence is that he cannot guarantee checks will go out. That's a far cry from threatening. If nothing happens, he can't send out checks, since that would be tantamount to forcefully usurping Congressional power, an (IMO) impeachable offense.

Basically, if nothing happens, his hands are tied.

OK, so the question is this. supposing that the government does not have the funds to pay for ALL financial obligations Congressional power has mandated, can ANY financial obligations be met? or, is there a predetermined order in which checks are written? if not, who has the authority to decide which Congressional mandates get met first, Congress, the Courts, or the Executive?

 

[daveb]

OK, so the question is this. supposing that the government does not have the funds to pay for ALL financial obligations Congressional power has mandated, can ANY financial obligations be met? or, is there a predetermined order in which checks are written? if not, who has the authority to decide which Congressional mandates get met first, Congress, the Courts, or the Executive?

WOW! Excellent question! I hadn't thought of that, and I have no idea. I'll investigate, but I can't guarantee I'll find anything.

 

[SixNein]

WOW! Excellent question! I hadn't thought of that, and I have no idea. I'll investigate, but I can't guarantee I'll find anything.

The executive branch would dictate who gets paid.

 

[WhoWee]

The executive branch would dictate who gets paid.

Does that mean President Obama would have to call his own bluff?

 

[SixNein]

Does that mean President Obama would have to call his own bluff?

The executive branch would only have the funds to pay for about 56% of its obligations. My guess is that Obama would declare the debt limit unconstitutional and ignore the limit. At such time, the debt limit would be decided by the courts.

Personally, I don't see anything remotely funny about the possibility of the debt limit not being raised. It's economic suicide. Which brings me back to the point of governance. Is America governable today?

 

[WhoWee]

The executive branch would only have the funds to pay for about 56% of its obligations. My guess is that Obama would declare the debt limit unconstitutional and ignore the limit. At such time, the debt limit would be decided by the courts.

I wonder if that would be an impeachable offense - hmmmm?

 

[Char. Limit]

I wonder if that would be an impeachable offense - hmmmm?

Under what crime? Being wrong about constitutionality? (That's assuming he IS wrong, which is for the courts to decide)

You guys seem REALLY into the whole "impeach Obama" thing.

 

[talk2glenn]

Under what crime?

Err...ignoring the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling is a legal limit. If the President instructs the Treasury to ignore the law, he can (and probably would) be impeached. As part of the article, the House would probably toss on a whole pile of added offenses, including the stimulus and bailouts, and the war in Libya, etcetera. It'd get ugly for the President, indeed.

The courts have no independent standing to decide anything, including the consitutionality of a debt ceiling. To weigh, an independent party with standing but bring suit. In the case of impeachment, the President would have standing to appeal the constitutionality of his impeachment, on the basis that the underlying law itself was unconstitutional.

To reverse the order, a party would have to show direct harm as a result of the presidents decision to break the law in order to sue. With the debt ceiling, this would be very difficult to do; the most likely candidate would be a group of lawmakers (whose authority has been circumscribed), but here the courts have historically been skeptical. Lawmakers are encouraged to manage their disputes internally using their existing constitutional powers, through legislative or impeachment means. It would probably take a majority of even supermajority of lawmakers to make "standing", and if such a majority exists, why not impeach rather than bring suit?

As an aside, there is not a chance in hell that the courts would agree with an interpretation of the 14th Amendment which authorizes the President to ignore congressional spending power (specifically, the 14th amendment says debt authorized in article 1, which gives congress the authority to borrow, shall not be questioned - it doesn't give the president the authority to issue new debt unilaterally). It won't matter, though; the Senate would almost certainly fail to follow the House in formally impeaching the president. The damage would be entirely political, but it would be severe. The president is much too politically aware to ever go this route.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Orrrrrrr cut spending and increase taxes. Funny how NO ONE EVER THINKS OF THAT.

Yay!

Finally one thought in the right direction! THANKS!


(... and of course cuts should not mean the poor will be left without food ...)

 

[KingNothing]

I have read this thread and I must say, I am not the least bit shocked by the responses in it!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Yes the Congress writes the budget law, specifically the House does, and only the House.

Ah, of course you’re right, I’d forgotten about Richard Nixon’s dictatorial tendencies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

Prior to 1974, Congress had no formal process for establishing a coherent budget. When newly-elected President Richard Nixon began to refuse to spend funds that the Congress had allocated, Congress needed a more formal means by which to challenge him. The Congressional Budget Act created the Congressional Budget Office and directed more control of the budget to CBO and away from the President's Office of Management and the Budget. The Act passed easily as the administration was embroiled in the Watergate scandal and unwilling to provoke Congress.

Of course the President, Senate Chairmen, and my granny are free to write up their own ideas on the subject and frequently do, but have only political significance, not legal.

Seems consistent with other expert opinions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process#Overview_of_the_budget_process

The President, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February.
...
Each year in March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals. CBO budget report and other publications can be found at the CBO's website. CBO computes a current law baseline projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming 10 fiscal years.
...
The President's budget request constitutes an extensive proposal of the administration's intended spending and revenue plans for the following fiscal year. The budget proposal includes volumes of supporting information intended to persuade Congress of the necessity and value of the budget provisions. In addition, each federal executive department and independent agency provides additional detail and supporting documentation to Congress on its own funding requests.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... You can believe whatever you want

Thanks, the choice between believing in a PF user, or the printed words from the President of the United States, is a no-brainer.

The only way to find any logic in some of the arguments in this thread, is to assume that President Obama have a "top-secret & vicious" goal to completely ruin the U.S. economy, by running the public debt to $20 trillion??

But, the "clever & evil" President Obama says something completely different the budget, just to trick the whole world...

Come on guys, what’s next?? He’s working for Al-Qaeda?

When it comes to draw conclusions on what the worst recession since the Great Depression do to the U.S. and world economy, that’s worse than a no-brainer, all you have to do is open your eyes.

GDP real growth rates for 2007

GDP real growth rates for 2009

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Lastly, Just because the President says something doesn't mean it's true.

Cool! I should trust an anonymous PF user instead?

His entire campaign for 2012 is going to be 'well it's not really my fault' and unfortunately many seem to believe him.

I think you’ve got a point there. Personally, I think it might be superfluous to spend money on a campaign... where are the (liable) alternatives...??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich"

[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Jimmy_McMillan_Blue_2_2011_Shankbone.jpg/100px-Jimmy_McMillan_Blue_2_2011_Shankbone.jpg[/URL] [URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Sharkey.JPG/116px-Sharkey.JPG[/URL]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_McMillan"

Quoting political speeches isn't really good sourcing for any information IMO.

It was a reply to the political graph from Republican Paul Ryan.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

IMO - the people who protested outside the Democrat Convention in 68 are now the core of the Party.
http://www.google.com/search?q=demo...MEJGEsALcqISxCA&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1216&bih=780

Isn't the President's re-election campaign based in Chicago?

Interesting link, but maybe you should try http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1968+-+1961+=" first... Obama was 7 years old in 1968... and the Yippies in the '68 protest activity would be around 70 today (use the calculator).

It looks like your "Chicago Conspiracy Theory" needs some 'rethinking'...

 

[WhoWee]

Interesting link, but maybe you should try http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1968+-+1961+=" first... Obama was 7 years old in 1968... and the Yippies in the '68 protest activity would be around 70 today (use the calculator).

It looks like your "Chicago Conspiracy Theory" needs some 'rethinking'...

It was a joke - (lame) - but a joke.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

It was a joke - (lame) - but a joke.

Thank god WhoWee! I was real worried there for awhile...

 

[OmCheeto]

Is America governable today?

I don't know about America, but we just re-elected an ex-governor that said we weren't.

There was a time when Oregon’s then-and-future governor, John Kitzhaber, famously declared the state ungovernable.

But Kitzhaber learned from that experience. Come 2011, he not only showed Oregon is governable but also that it can be a model for the nation.

I think we admired his honesty. Oregoonians are a bit like other Americans. Governing us is like herding cats; It's simply impossible. But all you have to do is open a can of tuna in front of us, and we will follow.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

At the top of the forum, you'll find a stickey titled "Tutorial On Argument and Fallacy". Click it, and review the links provided. When you're done, if you have any substantive critiques of the data - sourced from the CBO and independently verifiable - look me up.

I think misleading information is a violation of the PF rules. You better check that out before further accusations.

Here is the http://budget.house.gov/GraphsandCharts/fy2012charts.htm" graph from Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan (Republican).

Are you trying to tell me that all this labeling "Democrats Take Control Of Congress", now 'updated' with "OBAMA TAKES OFFICE" is nonpartisan "data" from CBO??

I’ve seen some real bad arguments on PF, but this must be one of the worst.

They graph you provided is Republican political rhetoric, period.

At least, Paul Ryan had the decency to stamp the graph "REPUBLICAN STAFF", to avoid this kind of mishmash, which you seem to have 'missed' completely.

 

[mheslep]

Thanks, the choice between believing in a PF user, or the printed words from the President of the United States, is a no-brainer...

So you pretty much closed the book after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal" ?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

 

[ThomasT]

... Governing us is like herding cats; It's simply impossible. But all you have to do is open a can of tuna in front of us, and we will follow.

Excellent analogy.

Wrt the OP, I don't see how the Republican party could actually become nonviable. I think of the Republican party as representing the more libertarian leanings of big money, big corporate interests, with the Democratic partiy representing the more egalitarian leanings of big money, big corporate interests.

 

[lisab]

Excellent analogy.

Wrt the OP, I don't see how the Republican party could actually become nonviable. I think of the Republican party as representing the more libertarian leanings of big money, big corporate interests, with the Democratic partiy representing the more egalitarian leanings of big money, big corporate interests.

I agree, but it seems now the R's are in a weird place. I know both parties have to go to the fringes in the early part of a campaign, then veer to the center hopefully in time to capture independents and win the election. But it seems to me, the R's are going far too right and I don't see how independents are going to buy in.

 

[WhoWee]

I agree, but it seems now the R's are in a weird place. I know both parties have to go to the fringes in the early part of a campaign, then veer to the center hopefully in time to capture independents and win the election. But it seems to me, the R's are going far too right and I don't see how independents are going to buy in.

I don't think the Republicans are that far right - they want Government to learn the lesson that millions of Americans have learned - to live within your budget. You really can't borrow yourself out of debt.