Republicans no longer a viable party?

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary: Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don't take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.Yes, this is a very real possibility. I think it's safe to say that the Democratic party doesn't want to see this happen, either.In summary, Republicans are being asked to do something that is a no-brainer, and if they don't do it, the consequences could be disastrous.
  • #176
OmCheeto said:
:smile:

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:



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. :biggrin:

I assume you're proposing to raise your own personal taxes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #177
Ivan Seeking said:
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?

Absolutely not, Michele Bachman is a danger for herself and the surroundings*.


*global economy
 
  • #178
russ_watters said:
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?

There is a fallacy here, but I can't figure out what it is. Basically, I never said that Democrats weren't really into impeaching Bush. And how many Democrats believe in impeaching Bush is irrelevant to the fact that a lot of Republicans still really want to impeach Obama.

Also, I meant "you guys" as in "all of the people who want to impeach Obama". And I've personally seen quite a few.
 
  • #179
Char. Limit said:
There is a fallacy here, but I can't figure out what it is. Basically, I never said that Democrats weren't really into impeaching Bush. And how many Democrats believe in impeaching Bush is irrelevant to the fact that a lot of Republicans still really want to impeach Obama.

Also, I meant "you guys" as in "all of the people who want to impeach Obama". And I've personally seen quite a few.

Perhaps we can move this to a new thread - actions of President Obama - discuss what might be impeachable on their own merits (things like the level of our involvement in Libya, our relationship in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, our energy policy, czars, EPA administrative actions, expansion of the IRS to enforce health insurance) and collectively?
 
  • #180
WhoWee said:
It's doubtful she believes default would be "no problem".

Oh yeah!? So why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqjqDV4fxLY", i.e. default is NOT a problem, according to the financial oracle Michele Bachman!
"We cannot go on scaeerrrring the American people!" ​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #181
OmCheeto said:
:smile:

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:



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. :biggrin:

The ultimate problem with this, and something Republicans worry about with any tax increase, is that it won't fix anything because spending will just increase as well. The country's total revenue has stayed fairly stable as a fraction of GDP over a few decades, it's our spending which has spiked in the last few years and is only projected to go up. The 'starve the beast' mantra is meant to not push the government into default, but to really find out what is necessary for the government/country to function at a globally competitive level and what is not.

Unfortunately, the politically correct thing to do for the left is to tax the wealthy because it appeals to the masses with their hands held out. There is no other justifiable reason to do so, other than jealousy and greed. However, I am 100% in agreeance that our tax system is flawed. I think any tax increases need to be evaluated with a fundamental restructuring which eliminates much of the hand outs and levels out (proportionately, of course) the amount of income taxes each pay. I think that exceptions in our tax code are part of what cause this perception of inequality more than the actual tax structure. The top marginal rate should top out at the 50k/100k range, not in the millions.
 
  • #182
WhoWee said:
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.

Isn’t this just a 'wet dream'? That works only in theory, but not in practice??

If you look at the chart below, it’s quite easy to see a clear trend, that after WWII every "Blue President" has lowered the debt and 4 "Red Presidents" has increased the debt.

700px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

From Wikipedia

The ONLY exception to this is President Obama, and it’s not because "the first lady needs 80 staffers", it’s because of THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, caused by the wrong decisions of George W. Bush, whom worldwide and by Americans, is considered the worst President in modern times.

I think you, and some others, need to get out of the "kindergarten analysis", and realize that you are in deep trouble. This is not a game; the wrong decisions now could tip the global economy over that steep cliff that will make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like Holiday on Ice.

I agree that the current debt of $14 trillion, in growth, is not something 'desirable' – it’s a FREAKING CATASTROPHE. But still, it’s a 'warm summer breeze' compared to the ICE STORM that will be an irreversible fact, once the financial market loses the confidence in dollars, and start pushing those buttons in panic.

A large public debt can always be handled in 'civilized manners', one way or another. A deep GLOBAL DEPRESSION won’t go away that easy, and could take decades to recover, and in the worst scenario – lead to devastating wars (as was the case for WWII).

The choice is yours, buddy!

600px-Migrant_agricultural_worker%27s_family%2C_Nipomo%2C_California_ppmsca03054u.jpg

California 1936
 
  • #183
Char. Limit said:
There is a fallacy here, but I can't figure out what it is. Basically, I never said that Democrats weren't really into impeaching Bush. And how many Democrats believe in impeaching Bush is irrelevant to the fact that a lot of Republicans still really want to impeach Obama.

Also, I meant "you guys" as in "all of the people who want to impeach Obama". And I've personally seen quite a few.

As a frequent listener/watcher of both Beck and Limbaugh - I can say that I've heard Rush call for the impeachment of President Obama exactly twice. Once when he mandated that the justice system ignore DOMA and once after the 60days of the Presidental war powers act expired. Beck never actually called for impeachment, but often questioned why President Obama was ignoring the constitution - esspecially for being a 'constitutional scholar'.

President Bush had 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_George_W._Bush" ' levied against him. Lead by the former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's left hand man Rep. John Conyers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #184
lisab said:
I think it's going too far right to ask candidates to sign a pledge against gay marriage (something most people don't give a rat sass about), against sharia law (oh pander, baby, pander!), and against porn (that's government sticking its head waaaay too far into people's...private lives).

Holy cow, an early version of the pledge actually stated that black children born during slavery were better off than those born today...wow, you can't make this stuff up! (That statement was removed from the pledge. Not sure if Bachmann or Santorum signed it before or after it was removed.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/...out-slavery-from-pledge-against-gay-marriage/
wowawow... I thought this was a sick joke at first... but apparently not...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9bvreW08X0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #185
DevilsAvocado said:
Oh yeah!? So why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqjqDV4fxLY", i.e. default is NOT a problem, according to the financial oracle Michele Bachman!
"We cannot go on scaeerrrring the American people!" ​

The President does need to tell the truth - as for Bachmann - do you have a direct quote?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #186
DevilsAvocado said:
Isn’t this just a 'wet dream'? That works only in theory, but not in practice??

If you look at the chart below, it’s quite easy to see a clear trend, that after WWII every "Blue President" has lowered the debt and 4 "Red Presidents" has increased the debt.

700px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

From Wikipedia

The ONLY exception to this is President Obama, and it’s not because "the first lady needs 80 staffers", it’s because of THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, caused by the wrong decisions of George W. Bush, whom worldwide and by Americans, is considered the worst President in modern times.

I think you, and some others, need to get out of the "kindergarten analysis", and realize that you are in deep trouble. This is not a game; the wrong decisions now could tip the global economy over that steep cliff that will make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like Holiday on Ice.

I agree that the current debt of $14 trillion, in growth, is not something 'desirable' – it’s a FREAKING CATASTROPHE. But still, it’s a 'warm summer breeze' compared to the ICE STORM that will be an irreversible fact, once the financial market loses the confidence in dollars, and start pushing those buttons in panic.

A large public debt can always be handled in 'civilized manners', one way or another. A deep GLOBAL DEPRESSION won’t go away that easy, and could take decades to recover, and in the worst scenario – lead to devastating wars (as was the case for WWII).

The choice is yours, buddy!

600px-Migrant_agricultural_worker%27s_family%2C_Nipomo%2C_California_ppmsca03054u.jpg

California 1936
Didn't you just post something about scare tactics?:rolleyes:
 
  • #187
russ_watters said:
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?

The one about debt.
 
  • #189
From Wikipedia:
Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. From the founding of the United States through 1917 Congress authorized each individual debt issuance separately. In order to provide more flexibility to finance the United States' involvement in World War I, Congress modified the method by which it authorizes debt in the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917,[30] Under this act Congress established an aggregate limit, or "ceiling", on the total amount of bonds that could be issued.

The modern debt limit, in which an aggregate limit was applied to nearly all federal debt, was established in 1939. The Treasury has been authorized by Congress to issue such debt as was needed to fund government operations as long as the total debt (excepting some small special classes) does not exceed a stated ceiling.

Therefore, the Treasury cannot issue additional debt on its own. The fact that the US might default if the Treasury does not act is irrelevant (from a Constitutional perspective). However:
Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in the context of the Civil War Reconstruction, prohibits questioning the validity of all lawfully authorized United States public debt.
It seems that the Treasury in this instance is obligated to at least pay that debt, regardless of what happens. So in answer to what things get paid first, I would assume that payments on the debt must be paid first, but beyond that, the Treasury can't pay anything. So it's a case of, which one takes precedence?

SCOTUS has consistently held that Articles outweigh Amendments (which is why if an Amendment contradicts an Article, that portion of the Article must be stricken within the text of the Amendment) which likewise outweigh Congressional Acts, and therefore, if the debt ceiling is reached, ONLY Congress has the power to issue additional debt since it has sole authority to regulate money in the Articles, which takes precedence over the 14th Amendment).

In other words, Obama might try to invoke the 14th Amendment, but Article 1, Section 8 trumps Amendment 14.
 
  • #191
daveb said:
From Wikipedia:


Therefore, the Treasury cannot issue additional debt on its own. The fact that the US might default if the Treasury does not act is irrelevant (from a Constitutional perspective). However:

It seems that the Treasury in this instance is obligated to at least pay that debt, regardless of what happens. So in answer to what things get paid first, I would assume that payments on the debt must be paid first, but beyond that, the Treasury can't pay anything. So it's a case of, which one takes precedence?

SCOTUS has consistently held that Articles outweigh Amendments (which is why if an Amendment contradicts an Article, that portion of the Article must be stricken within the text of the Amendment) which likewise outweigh Congressional Acts, and therefore, if the debt ceiling is reached, ONLY Congress has the power to issue additional debt since it has sole authority to regulate money in the Articles, which takes precedence over the 14th Amendment).

In other words, Obama might try to invoke the 14th Amendment, but Article 1, Section 8 trumps Amendment 14.

Even if the courts would agree with you, the review in courts would buy more time for congress. This of course being used as a last resort.
 
  • #192
SixNein said:
Crazy talk is the president doing nothing in the case of a congressional failure.

Would you rather see default?

The President along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done plenty - they've pushed us to the brink with irresponsible spending - shall I post his quip about "shovel ready" - not as shovel ready as thought? Harry Reid just spoke in advance of Tim Geithner - more scare tactics - no solutions presented.

btw - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/geithner-said-to-weigh-leaving-treasury-after-debt-ceiling-debate-resolved.html
"Geithner Said to Consider Leaving Treasury After Debt Debate".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #193
WhoWee said:
The President along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done plenty - they've pushed us to the brink with irresponsible spending - shall I post his quip about "shovel ready" - not as shovel ready as thought? Harry Reid just spoke in advance of Tim Geithner - more scare tactics - no solutions presented.

btw - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/geithner-said-to-weigh-leaving-treasury-after-debt-ceiling-debate-resolved.html
"Geithner Said to Consider Leaving Treasury After Debt Debate".

Scare tactics? Every credit agency from here to China is putting United States credit rating under review. If the US defaults for just 1 second, we will lose our credit rating in addition to causing the bond market to haemorrhage. And we will end up spending a great deal more than the debt to climb out from under the mess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #194
WhoWee said:
The President along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done plenty - they've pushed us to the brink with irresponsible spending - shall I post his quip about "shovel ready" - not as shovel ready as thought? Harry Reid just spoke in advance of Tim Geithner - more scare tactics - no solutions presented.

btw - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/geithner-said-to-weigh-leaving-treasury-after-debt-ceiling-debate-resolved.html
"Geithner Said to Consider Leaving Treasury After Debt Debate".

The republicans are just as guilty as the democrats when it comes to spending. Perhaps you should give your ideological narrative a reality check.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #195
SixNein said:
Scare tactics? Every credit agency from here to China is putting United States credit rating under review. If the US defaults for just 1 second, we will lose our credit rating in addition to causing the bond market to haemorrhage. And we will end up spending a great deal more than the debt to climb out from under the mess.

And asking China to loan us more money without addressing over spending habit will not yield negative consequences? When do you expect interest rates to rise (don't forget the printing press has been running non-stop and there's talk of QE-3)?
 
  • #196
SixNein said:
The republicans are just as guilty as the democrats when it comes to spending. Perhaps you should give your ideological narrative a reality check.

Why don't you support that - the Democrats have had control of Congress and the Presidency for 2 years - only now can the Republicans begin to slow down the Democrat spending habit.
 
  • #199
While it's true that the information shows downward trends during democratic presidents (except Obama), WhoWee's point is that it is democratic Congresses that increase the debt (well, specifically, the last two years - he made no claims about prior Congresses).
 
  • #200
WhoWee said:
And asking China to loan us more money without addressing over spending habit will not yield negative consequences? When do you expect interest rates to rise (don't forget the printing press has been running non-stop and there's talk of QE-3)?

Playing chicken with America's credit rating is not a reasonable way to deal with budget problems. If the debt limit does not get raised, America will spend more money through economic decline and higher costs of borrowing than would be spent by simply raising the limit. Even the cost of loans for individuals will increase. Playing chicken with the bond market is very dangerous even during a healthy economy.
 
  • #201
daveb said:
While it's true that the information shows downward trends during democratic presidents (except Obama), WhoWee's point is that it is democratic Congresses that increase the debt (well, specifically, the last two years - he made no claims about prior Congresses).

The republican party commanded majorities during most of Bush's term.
 
  • #202
WhoWee said:
Wikipedia - really?:rolleyes:

If you distrust the information, run the numbers yourself from government data.
 
Last edited:
  • #203
SixNein said:
Playing chicken with America's credit rating is not a reasonable way to deal with budget problems. If the debt limit does not get raised, America will spend more money through economic decline and higher costs of borrowing than would be spent by simply raising the limit. Even the cost of loans for individuals will increase. Playing chicken with the bond market is very dangerous even during a healthy economy.

Again, when do you expect interest rates to rise?
 
  • #204
SixNein said:
The republican party commanded majorities during most of Bush's term.

I think we need to once again re-visit Senator Obama's famous speech:
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."

Once again I need to remind everyone the President Obama has taken the Bush worst case scenario of a $12Trillion (with a "T") in 2011 and turned it into $14Trillion (with a "T") - what say you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #205
WhoWee said:
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.

yeah, we need to really think about not only what we're doing now, but what we've been doing. it's not as if the Fed hasn't been creating money ex-nihilo all along. only, the way money is usually created also creates debt that adds an additional "tax" that goes directly to bankers as interest.

this is before the bubble burst:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pEiLHnjAiw
 
  • #206
WhoWee said:
Again, when do you expect interest rates to rise?

Probably as late as next year unless default occurs.
 
  • #207
Proton Soup said:
yeah, we need to really think about not only what we're doing now, but what we've been doing. it's not as if the Fed hasn't been creating money ex-nihilo all along. only, the way money is usually created also creates debt that adds an additional "tax" that goes directly to bankers as interest.

this is before the bubble burst:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pEiLHnjAiw

Unfortunately, Ron Paul strays from topics like this and becomes a target of ridicule - IMO. Listen to Bernanke's response at 4:18 to 4:30 (and beyond). It angers me to hear him talking about money being chased out of bad investments into the banks - when previously downward pressure on interest rates chased a great many dollars out of the banks and into the market.
 
  • #208
WhoWee said:
Unfortunately, Ron Paul strays from topics like this and becomes a target of ridicule - IMO. Listen to Bernanke's response at 4:18 to 4:30 (and beyond). It angers me to hear him talking about money being chased out of bad investments into the banks - when previously downward pressure on interest rates chased a great many dollars out of the banks and into the market.

it angers me to hear bernanke with ridicule in his voice talking about the typical american keeping their wealth in dollars. those typical americans are bleeping idiots for believing that's a good investment, eh?
 
  • #209
WhoWee said:
I think we need to once again re-visit Senator Obama's famous speech:
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."

Once again I need to remind everyone the President Obama has taken the Bush worst case scenario of a $12Trillion (with a "T") in 2011 and turned it into $14Trillion (with a "T") - what say you?

The reason the deficit has grown so much over the last 2 years is because of the recession. Government revenues are much lower while unemployment has put pressure on safety nets. As a result, the government is taking in less money and spending more money. This has happened even in state governments: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/governments/cb11-03.html

A great majority of government spending is mandated spending from previous administrations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
9
Replies
293
Views
34K
News Paul Krugman Explains True Conservatism: Same Old Party
Replies
5
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top