Republicans no longer a viable party?

[ThomasT]

Personally I think not doing what people think is one of the positive benefits of placing term limits. Our republic is looking more and more like a democracy.

I don't think it looks much like a democracy at all. But then, it's not supposed to.

What does "not doing what people think" refer to? mege said that term limits entail that Congressmen wouldn't have worry about what people think, which I disagreed with. Just because they can't be elected to another term doesn't mean that they can't be voted out of office before their term expires.

 

[SixNein]

I don't think it looks much like a democracy at all. But then, it's not supposed to.

What does "not doing what people think" refer to? mege said that term limits entail that Congressmen wouldn't have worry about what people think, which I disagreed with. Just because they can't be elected to another term doesn't mean that they can't be voted out of office before their term expires.

Politicians are currently running a continuous never ending campaign. They are scared of sound bytes and other media hurting their re-election chances. In addition, they must almost always keep up a fanatical stance to appeal to their particular bases, or they may destroy their re-election chances. So by placing limits, politicians could have more open and honest discussions, and they could tackle the hard problems facing the nation. A democrat and republican could sit down and think and exchange ideas without worry about what the base thinks about it.

 

[SixNein]

Politicians are currently running a continuous never ending campaign. They are scared of sound bytes and other media hurting their re-election chances. In addition, they must almost always keep up a fanatical stance to appeal to their particular bases, or they may destroy their re-election chances. So by placing limits, politicians could have more open and honest discussions, and they could tackle the hard problems facing the nation. A democrat and republican could sit down and think and exchange ideas without worry about what the base thinks about it.

The debt limit discussion is a textbook example of this problem. First and foremost, I highly doubt there would be any political theatre over the debt limit if congress was not worried about the next election. In addition, the debt limit would have been raised a long time ago if it would even need to be raised at all. A great deal of our spending and tax problems are a direct result of congress worried about elections. The downside to having a republic is accountability. Blame is very difficult to assign in a republic. So members can give tax cuts and create spending programs without so much worry about the consequences of those actions. If negative consequences occur, politicians can just point fingers at each other. And most likely, the public will be unable to assign blame, so it will rely on those narratives fed to it by the parties and ideologies.

 

[russ_watters]

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

Agreed...

Try doing a forum search for "impeach Obama", then another for "impeach Bush" and let me know if you still think that.

Also, I had trouble finding the original quote - did more than one person say it or is "you guys" just one person?

 

[mege]

There is also a concept called the judicial branch of the United States government. If the president declares the debt limit unconstitutional, the question will go before the supreme court, and the supreme court will decide if the president is correct or incorrect. The supreme court will have the final decision on the issue.

I disagree with you that Obama is doing something unconstitutional.

Right. Courts hear cases, not just make random decisions at the bequest of a government official. For the SCOTUS to evaluate a case, it needs to have merit and be wrung through the lower courts. Is the President going to sue the federal government to get his case heard? The President mandating a fiscal matter seems crazy to me. talk2glenn's run down in post #90 is put more eloquently than how I would describe how 'declaring the debt celing unconstitutional' would neccessarilly have to go - if done legally.

While I'm pretty neutral on the law myself, the President just declaring 'DADT unenforcable' seems like an abuse of power as well. There's proper channels to evaluate and dismantle policy if that is what he wants to do. The President is not King, he's one cog in a machine. Unfortunately, the Presidental importaince is fed to him by an overzealous media for the last few decades looking for stories. (one of my biggest gripes about ESPN is their focus on the superstars, I see this as an alegory to how the media handles many of the political storys)

Are any of these things impeachable? I doubt they're extreme enough to warrant the strain on the American people, but according to rule of law and the structure of our government it seems to me like President Obama tries daily to tug at his Constitutional chains (Libya without congressional consent, declaring laws unenforcable, appointing cabinet-level 'czars' without congress, etc - basically ignoring congress as much as possible). It will take something more obviously egregious for it to be possible, politically, for the President to be impeached. But let me emphasise that I'm not advocating for Presidental impeachment because the case would be a little weak and cause more harm than good.

I'm not sure what you mean by not having to worry about what people think. They wouldn't have to spend time schmoozing for bucks and campaigning and that sort of thing. But they would still be accountable for their actions insofar as any improprieties might be concerned. Outside of clear cut corruption, which would hopefully be dealt with by their peers, isn't there a mechanism for initiating referenda to vote an elected official out of office if people think that he's doing a bad job?

By the way, I also don't think it's a good idea to allow any individual to hold more than one national public office.

And I'm not worried about there being a shortage of intellectually qualified candidates. It's a really big country.

Yes, there are lots of idealogues in the US, but I don't see how term limits would entail them having any more of a voice in the way things are actually run than they have now.

The recall system I feel is flawed in a fundamental way. To all of the whiners in MI and WI - suck it up. They were elected fairly to start and did nothing illegal. Basically unions campaigned and these are special interest driven recalls and special elections. How much government money is being wasted because the biggest special interest in the country got crapped on? (if you want to attack corruption, look there) That's the problem with recalls - the time and effort of government gets wasted on it. The same applys to single term limits in your situation - don't like someone, recall them as enforcement! So you've effectively made that individual campaign again in the middle of the session because of a recall vote. It doesn't seem efficient and any waste that would be saved from eliminating corruption would just be reinjected as waste because we'd need an IRS-sized election comission to deal with all of the petty recalls. Our elections are often already only won by a few percentage points, is the disruption caused to government worth the popularity change of 2%? Lastly, I think term limits would also encourage popularity contests more than actual policy decisions. When there's little legislative history to go on, all there will be is name dropping and mud slinging. Who's going to have the well known names? Likely a business leader or someone without the public interest in mind. They'll already be 'corrupt' (maybe not in an evil sense), and be working towards their own goals without any recourse.

Like I've said before - the face value idea of term limits is great, but I think it introduces many more problems than it attempts to solve.

 

[mege]

The debt limit discussion is a textbook example of this problem. First and foremost, I highly doubt there would be any political theatre over the debt limit if congress was not worried about the next election. In addition, the debt limit would have been raised a long time ago if it would even need to be raised at all. A great deal of our spending and tax problems are a direct result of congress worried about elections. The downside to having a republic is accountability. Blame is very difficult to assign in a republic. So members can give tax cuts and create spending programs without so much worry about the consequences of those actions. If negative consequences occur, politicians can just point fingers at each other. And most likely, the public will be unable to assign blame, so it will rely on those narratives fed to it by the parties and ideologies.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6442231815463502.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Good opinion piece on how the politics are aligning for the debt celing discussion. "Watch the other hand..."

 

[WhoWee]

There is also a concept called the judicial branch of the United States government. If the president declares the debt limit unconstitutional, the question will go before the supreme court, and the supreme court will decide if the president is correct or incorrect. The supreme court will have the final decision on the issue.

I disagree with you that Obama is doing something unconstitutional.

It was a response to your post that led to the impeachment quip.

"Originally Posted by SixNein
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 responded:
" I wonder if that would be an impeachable offense - hmmmm?"

My point was a power grab of this magnitude - and yes, combined with all of his other stretches - might be enough to trigger the impeachment process in the House. There are limits to the Presidents power for good reason.

 

[WhoWee]

The debt limit discussion is a textbook example of this problem. First and foremost, I highly doubt there would be any political theatre over the debt limit if congress was not worried about the next election. In addition, the debt limit would have been raised a long time ago if it would even need to be raised at all. A great deal of our spending and tax problems are a direct result of congress worried about elections. The downside to having a republic is accountability. Blame is very difficult to assign in a republic. So members can give tax cuts and create spending programs without so much worry about the consequences of those actions. If negative consequences occur, politicians can just point fingers at each other. And most likely, the public will be unable to assign blame, so it will rely on those narratives fed to it by the parties and ideologies.

As you are probably aware, then Senator Obama had plenty to say about the debt limit - before it was his problem.
http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.""

Then Senator Obama complained the national debt would reach $12Trillion (with a "T") by 2011 - he's now managed to push it over $14T (with a "T") and now wants to raise it enough to get to the other side of the 2012 election - correct?

 

[daveb]

A bit off topic, but I'll chance this short reply. I don't want Representatives to be concerned with power. I want them to be concerned with what's good for the county rather than politiking and raising money, etc.

While I agree that I want representatives concerned with what's good for the country, they don't represent the country, they represent their constituents. While I disagree with pork and earmarks for certain districts, I also understand that this is what the representatives are for. To get things for their constituents. Much as I despise the woman, Michelle Bachman taking taxpayer dollars for spending in her district means she's doing her job. I don't expect her to refuse the money. So, even though it may have been better for the country for certain reps to refuse some or all of the money from the federal government (by reducing spending), they still did their jobs - I can't fault them for that.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... and now wants to raise it enough to get to the other side of the 2012 election - correct?

Well, that’s one way of looking at it.

A slightly more 'comprehensive' analyze might be to realize that the deep global financial crisis is not over, by no means. It’s extremely shaky in Europe right now, some financial analyst’s talks about a "European-Lehman-Brothers-Situation". Greece is on the edge of bankruptcy, Italy’s economy is in 'free fall', Moody's has delivered another negative verdict on Ireland which hits the value of the euro, Spain and Portugal are in deep trouble... etc, etc.

You don’t need to be an expert to figure out what the ridiculous chicken race in Washington could do, in the worst scenario, to the already heavily wobbling world economy.

Time to wake up!

 

[SixNein]

Right. Courts hear cases, not just make random decisions at the bequest of a government official. For the SCOTUS to evaluate a case, it needs to have merit and be wrung through the lower courts. Is the President going to sue the federal government to get his case heard? The President mandating a fiscal matter seems crazy to me. talk2glenn's run down in post #90 is put more eloquently than how I would describe how 'declaring the debt celing unconstitutional' would neccessarilly have to go - if done legally.

While I'm pretty neutral on the law myself, the President just declaring 'DADT unenforcable' seems like an abuse of power as well. There's proper channels to evaluate and dismantle policy if that is what he wants to do. The President is not King, he's one cog in a machine. Unfortunately, the Presidental importaince is fed to him by an overzealous media for the last few decades looking for stories. (one of my biggest gripes about ESPN is their focus on the superstars, I see this as an alegory to how the media handles many of the political storys)

The president would have to draw upon the 14th amendment in order to declare the law unconstitutional. And without a doubt this would make its way to the courts. Now this is a measure that everyone would like to avoid; however, it may become necessary if congress collapses. At that point, the president will need to do everything possible to avoid a major economic disaster.

If all else fails, this option absolutely must be taken.

 

[SixNein]

It was a response to your post that led to the impeachment quip.

"Originally Posted by SixNein
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 responded:
" I wonder if that would be an impeachable offense - hmmmm?"

My point was a power grab of this magnitude - and yes, combined with all of his other stretches - might be enough to trigger the impeachment process in the House. There are limits to the Presidents power for good reason.

But there are also limits to congressional powers. The courts can trump anything congress does short of an amendment.

But I think you are missing the big picture. Congress is the problem here, in particular, the house. This is a suggestion as a last resort option.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... How do you feel about Congress telling us we can't buy incandescent light bulbs?

I think this is not an American problem; it’s the "Global Light Bulb Conspiracy" raging in Europe, Brazil and many other countries. Personally I think it is pure madness, because the replacement doesn’t work...

A German entrepreneur, Siegfried Rotthaeuser, was so pissed over this that he http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/15/us-germany-heatballs-idUSTRE69E3FS20101015" and imported them from China as "small heating devices", to outwit EU light bulb ban!

 

[SixNein]

Well, that’s one way of looking at it.

A slightly more 'comprehensive' analyze might be to realize that the deep global financial crisis is not over, by no means. It’s extremely shaky in Europe right now, some financial analyst’s talks about a "European-Lehman-Brothers-Situation". Greece is on the edge of bankruptcy, Italy’s economy is in 'free fall', Moody's has delivered another negative verdict on Ireland which hits the value of the euro, Spain and Portugal are in deep trouble... etc, etc.

You don’t need to be an expert to figure out what the ridiculous chicken race in Washington could do, in the worst scenario, to the already heavily wobbling world economy.

Time to wake up!

I just hope this lesson doesn't get learned the hard way.

Moody's rated Greece debt as junk.

 

[WhoWee]

The president would have to draw upon the 14th amendment in order to declare the law unconstitutional. And without a doubt this would make its way to the courts. Now this is a measure that everyone would like to avoid; however, it may become necessary if congress collapses. At that point, the president will need to do everything possible to avoid a major economic disaster.

If all else fails, this option absolutely must be taken.

If Congress collapses?

I expect the House to generate a sensible piece of legislation - that Harry Reid will choke on and the President will hold multiple press conferences over - then sign because he has no choice (it's not his fault that spending is cut) - IMO.

 

[SixNein]

If Congress collapses?

I expect the House to generate a sensible piece of legislation - that Harry Reid will choke on and the President will hold multiple press conferences over - then sign because he has no choice (it's not his fault that spending is cut) - IMO.

Many members of the house have pledged to not vote for a debt limit increase.

Something must be done in 8 days. If it is not done, the US goes over the cliff into the abyss.

So let me ask you a question, do you understand that not raising the debt limit causes a major financial crisis?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I just hope this lesson doesn't get learned the hard way.

Agree...

... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqjqDV4fxLY" about "tell the truth" really bothers me ... she has obviously no clue …

 

[russ_watters]

Six: Wait, hold on - it sounds like you're suggesting that Obama should seize dictatorial power, taking over some of the the key functions of both congress and the ussc. Am I reading that right?

 

[WhoWee]

Many members of the house have pledged to not vote for a debt limit increase.

Something must be done in 8 days. If it is not done, the US goes over the cliff into the abyss.

So let me ask you a question, do you understand that not raising the debt limit causes a major financial crisis?

Do you understand the US borrows 40% of it's "budget" - and actually - we don't even have a budget? It's time for the adults (Republicans) to bring the kids (Democrats) back to reality.

 

[WhoWee]

Six: Wait, hold on - it sounds like you're suggesting that Obama should seize dictatorial power, taking over some of the the key functions of both congress and the ussc. Am I reading that right?

Like I said - an impeachable offense.

 

[SixNein]

Do you understand the US borrows 40% of it's "budget" - and actually - we don't even have a budget? It's time for the adults (Republicans) to bring the kids (Democrats) back to reality.

You are avoiding my question about the debt limit. Do you understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

To answer your question, default is not a resolution for budget issues.

 

[SixNein]

Six: Wait, hold on - it sounds like you're suggesting that Obama should seize dictatorial power, taking over some of the the key functions of both congress and the ussc. Am I reading that right?

The executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and the 14 amendment may be used to challenge the debt limit.

This is a last resort option, but preferable to an economic disaster.

 

[WhoWee]

You are avoiding my question about the debt limit. Do you understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

To answer your question, default is not a resolution for budget issues.

I fully understand the consequences - that's why I've been beating the drum to reverse the spending and the ever expanding debt for the past several years. The President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrat leaders have put (spent) us into a very dangerous place!

 

[mege]

Maybe we should stop thinking about the raising debt celing and raising taxes as a 'path to recovery' and start thinking more long term. Maybe this is all the recovery we are going to get so the CBO estimates for tax income will be even smaller over the next 10 years.

 

[mege]

You are avoiding my question about the debt limit. Do you understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

To answer your question, default is not a resolution for budget issues.

Not raising the debt limit means that the first lady has to fire one of her 80 staffers? or less West Coast golf trips for the President? Or does it mean we have to start taxing unions?

Raising the debt limit is going to be neccessary, but only because we're in a corner. The sticking point for both parties is the resolution beyond raising the debt celing. I don't think there's really serious policy debate, at this point, about NOT raising the debt celing beyond hyperbole.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe we should stop thinking about the raising debt celing and raising taxes as a 'path to recovery' and start thinking more long term. Maybe this is all the recovery we are going to get so the CBO estimates for tax income will be even smaller over the next 10 years.

I agree - the Democrats have made spending commitments that require either raising the debt limit and/or tax hikes - that might not increase revenues.

It's funny we aren't hearing how much money Obamacare is going to save us - as it was presented previously - where are those arguments?

 

[WhoWee]

Not raising the debt limit means that the first lady has to fire one of her 80 staffers? or less West Coast golf trips for the President? Or does it mean we have to start taxing unions?

Raising the debt limit is going to be neccessary, but only because we're in a corner. The sticking point for both parties is the resolution beyond raising the debt celing. I don't think there's really serious policy debate, at this point, about NOT raising the debt celing beyond hyperbole.

Correct again - the limit will have to increase - but the Republicans will get spending rollbacks whether the President or Harry Reid like it (IMO).

 

[russ_watters]

The executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and the 14 amendment may be used to challenge the debt limit.

This is a last resort option, but preferable to an economic disaster.

Challengingthe law is not enforcing the law. In fact its pretty much the opposite.

In any case, which clause of the 14th amendment are you invoking and why?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Raising the debt limit is going to be neccessary, but only because we're in a corner. The sticking point for both parties is the resolution beyond raising the debt celing. I don't think there's really serious policy debate, at this point, about NOT raising the debt celing beyond hyperbole.

According to Michele Bachman who is tied for the lead for the Republicans, a default would be no problem.

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe we should stop thinking about the raising debt celing and raising taxes as a 'path to recovery' and start thinking more long term. Maybe this is all the recovery we are going to get so the CBO estimates for tax income will be even smaller over the next 10 years.

I think regardless of if it is all we're going to get it is all we have now, so our budgets should be dealing with that reality.

 

[russ_watters]

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?

Certainly not!

 

[daveb]

I have no respect for both parties. I respect individuals. I may be a left wing wacko, but I respect the likes of George Will and William F Buckley. I may disagree with them at times, but I cannot fault their opinions which I consider well informed and thoughtful (I just disagree with some of their conclusions). I also respect liberal intellectuals such as Chomsky, even though I also disagree with his conclusions at times.

 

[OmCheeto]

Do you understand the US borrows 40% of it's "budget" - and actually - we don't even have a budget? It's time for the adults (Republicans) to bring the kids (Democrats) back to reality.

Being a lifelong registered Democrat, I of course view the labels completely the opposite.

My solution to the whole deficit/debt thing is the following.

As long as we are running a deficit or are in debt:

Raise taxes each year by:

5% on the top 0.1% until they reach 70% (~5 years)
2.5% on the top 0.1-1% until they reach 60% (~10 years)
1% on the top 1-5% until they reach 50% (~15 years)
.5% on the top 5-10% until they reach 40%
.25% on the top 10-25% until they reach 30%
.125% on the top 25-50% until they read 20%

When we finally are out of this hole, we can of course lower the rates each year by the same amount, until we reach our happy, debt free equilibrium.

These rates are of course higher than what I posted in the other thread:

50% on the top 1% (currently $1,423,580 agi average)
40% on the top 1-5% (currently $227,950 agi average)
30% on the top 5-10% (currently $132,316 agi average)
20% on the top 10-25% (currently $85,891 agi average)
15% on the top 25-50% (currently $47,490 agi average)

Because those were the rates we would have needed over the past 20 years to have zero debt. So to get out of debt we need to be, what do the Greeks call it, austere? And how again did we get to where we are? Do I have to mention by name the two flimflam Republicans again who lowered the taxes on everyone that put us here in our current predicament?

I realize that the above scenario seems a bit simple, but being just off the top of my head, it should. But my point is that "we can not, and will not, raise taxes, on anyone" is about as childish a response to this whole mess as you can get.

I would do the mathematical analysis of how long it would take us to get out of debt with my revised plan, but I have a dental appointment to have my teeth cleaned in about an hour.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I realize that the above scenario seems a bit simple, but being just off the top of my head, it should. But my point is that "we can not, and will not, raise taxes, on anyone" is about as childish a response to this whole mess as you can get.

Agree! Kudos!

 

[WhoWee]

According to Michele Bachman who is tied for the lead for the Republicans, a default would be no problem.

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?

It's doubtful she believes default would be "no problem".

I also remember this:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=54464227&category=views&id=20110425205730

"Moreover, I am concerned that a second round of quantitative easing will further aggravate market participants’ uncertainty about near-term economic conditions. There can be little doubt that a second round of quantitative easing would represent a near-emergency intervention by the Federal Reserve and a signal of duress about the future of our economy. In addition, quantitative easing and the concomitant ex nihilo creation of money will undoubtedly impact the inflation rate. Unsettlingly, it remains to be seen where inflation would settle after the proposed implementation of a second quantitative easing."

I don't think the printing of money can be separated from the discussion of the national debt.