GOP: Autopsy Time

[EasyEd]

POD, you'd better hope the whole country gets more conservative, otherwise our entire financial system will implode from the enormous debt we are passing onto our children and grandchildren. Do I think the country will respond to a more conservative direction? No. I think the people of this country are too selfish to face what needs to be done and there are too many leaders in both parties who are only concerned about their near-term reelection prospects.

[TC]

Every time I hear conservatives talk about the debt, I laugh because they are lying to themselves. We're not going to pay it down, and when conservatism was given a chance to, it chose not to pay it down but to take giant tax cuts. Conservatism will never pay down the debt one penny. We might be able to grow our way to where it's not such a great percentage of GDP, but it won't happen with the way the parties currently operate.

Balanced budgets are a different issue, and conservatives don't believe fiscally conservative means balanced budgets - in their world it means low taxes. If we want balanced budgets, we'll need to be less conservative and more pragmatic. Does anyone think these House Majority is getting anything done? Is their firm ideological stance, brinksmanship, and their confrontational and alienating tactics actually accomplishing anything? Pragmatism gets things done, not ideological rigor.

If conservatives truly cared about the debt, they would not have rung it up, and they would have fought for us to just go over the cliff. None of them took that stand. They wanted lower taxes, that will always be their priority over the debt, and listening to the various things they tried to get passed in the fiscal cliff (Medicare doc fixes to unroll the Medicare reform "conservatives" passed, expempting defense cuts, etc) they only care about the budget deficit if they can gut entitlements to balance it.

[hoyainspirit]

Jan 2, 2013 22:19:06 GMT -5 Problem of Dog said:

I love when I hear conservatives say that the Republican party needs to get MORE conservative. When that happens, the party will really cease to be relevant.

+1 POD

Good Riddance to Rottenest Congress in History

QUOTE:
The 112th didn’t even achieve the narrow political objective that Republican leaders sought. Insofar as there was a theory behind their effort to grind the U.S. government to a halt by making Congress a destructive force, it was that American voters would blame the failures of Washington on the party in charge of the White House, leading to President Barack Obama’s defeat. Yet Republicans were so mistrusted that, despite the previous two years of ineffectual governance and a weak economy, Obama was re-elected by a margin of five million votes, and Democrats won more votes than Republicans for House and Senate seats, as well.

The source of the 112th’s dismal performance is easy enough to diagnose. According to political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, who’ve developed a highly respected gauge of political polarization, the 112th was the most polarized Congress in U.S. history, with House Republicans exhibiting a particular leap in partisanship. Moreover, the results of the 2010 election divided power among House Republicans, Senate Democrats and a Democratic president, ensuring that party polarization would lead to political paralysis.

[EasyEd]

Jan 3, 2013 10:28:11 GMT -5 TC said:

Every time I hear conservatives talk about the debt, I laugh because they are lying to themselves. We're not going to pay it down, and when conservatism was given a chance to, it chose not to pay it down but to take giant tax cuts. Conservatism will never pay down the debt one penny. We might be able to grow our way to where it's not such a great percentage of GDP, but it won't happen with the way the parties currently operate.

Balanced budgets are a different issue, and conservatives don't believe fiscally conservative means balanced budgets - in their world it means low taxes. If we want balanced budgets, we'll need to be less conservative and more pragmatic. Does anyone think these House Majority is getting anything done? Is their firm ideological stance, brinksmanship, and their confrontational and alienating tactics actually accomplishing anything? Pragmatism gets things done, not ideological rigor.

If conservatives truly cared about the debt, they would not have rung it up, and they would have fought for us to just go over the cliff. None of them took that stand. They wanted lower taxes, that will always be their priority over the debt, and listening to the various things they tried to get passed in the fiscal cliff (Medicare doc fixes to unroll the Medicare reform "conservatives" passed, expempting defense cuts, etc) they only care about the budget deficit if they can gut entitlements to balance it.

I agree with almost everything you say, TC. The Republicans have not acted as conservatives for so long I can't remember. Too many Republicans are too concerned about getting reelected and too little concerned about balancing the budget and paying down the debt. Their cave-in on the fiscal cliff is just the latest example of selling out their supposed core values to try to take the heat off themselves. I'm still looking for some leadership out of either the Democrat or the Republican parties, willing to risk their careers to bring about fiscal sanity. It's not going to come from Obama, Reid, Pelosi, McConnell or Boehner.

[Boz]

Conservatives "rung up the debt"?

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that's what I'd -- generously -- call a partial truth.

I realize this is the GOP autopsy thread, but maybe someone can point out for me what kind of responsible leadership and long-term proposals we are getting from the other side of the aisle in congress and from the White House.

Not excusing the GOP, by any means, but as Keyshawn says so well, "Come on, man!"

[Problem of Dog]

Jan 3, 2013 10:09:58 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

POD, you'd better hope the whole country gets more conservative, otherwise our entire financial system will implode from the enormous debt we are passing onto our children and grandchildren. Do I think the country will respond to a more conservative direction? No. I think the people of this country are too selfish to face what needs to be done and there are too many leaders in both parties who are only concerned about their near-term reelection prospects.

Looking past all your hyperbole, which leaves almost nothing left of that post, do you really think a more conservative Republican party would ever be viable in the United States? It will never happen.

[bmartin]

2001. Balanced budget. Projected surpluses. Opportunity to finance Social Security and Medicare while the Baby Boomers were still in the workforce and at their earning and tax paying peak.

And as soon as the GOP had concurrent control of the White House, Senate, and House they blew the federal budget up forever with irresponsible tax cuts and plenty of increased spending on their preferred pork and patronage programs and did not even get any decent economic growth out of all that pandering.

So spare us the nonsense about Republican fiscal responsibility. Have you already forgotten that Romney/Ryan ran on more tax cuts and more defense spending and rescinding Obama's Medicare savings and not touching Social Security of current beneficiaries?

[hoyainspirit]

And let's not forget those two unfunded wars.

[rosslynhoya]

Jan 3, 2013 10:28:11 GMT -5 TC said:

We're not going to pay it down, and when conservatism was given a chance to, it chose not to pay it down but to take giant tax cuts.

I don't suppose you've had your TV on in the past two weeks, but those "giant tax cuts" were apparently the greatest thing ever enacted by the U.S. government. At least, the overwhelming majority of them were. If those tax cuts for ordinary non-wealthy Americans hadn't been preserved, we would have gone over this thing called "the fiscal cliff" and it would have completely obliterated our nation's economy on Wednesday morning.

Now granted, I had been led to believe over the last 10 years that these tax cuts only benefited the rich, but apparently over 80% of the cuts went directly to households earning less than $450,000 a year, which is honestly is barely enough to cover the average middle class Washington area family's spending on froyo and cupcakes.

There was no grand bargain on spending or entitlements. All the Congress and President did this week was save Dubya's massive tax cuts.

[Boz]

Did I just see "Obama's Medicare savings" written here somewhere?

That was pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh to start my morning.


I also seem to recall a certain Congressman who proposed reforming Medicare and Social Security. He was hailed as a visionary on both sides of the aisle and, though not everyone agreed with his specific prescriptions, there was general consensus that he was proposing steps that needed to be taken and his ideas could be used as a starting point for genuine negotiations.

No, wait, I'm sorry. Liberals portrayed him shoving an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff.


Once again, I do not coddle or excuse the Republican party for lacking the courage of their so-called convictions. I agree with most everything EasyEd has said.

However, for those living in the myopic fantasy world where everything is the Republicans' fault, I am still waiting for you to explain to me how the Democratic administration and the Democratic majority in the upper house of Congress are showing any leadership whatsoever.

I mean, congratulations on the most recent election and all, but what exactly are you doing with it? I mean, outside of demagoguing guns and immigration.

Or is it all STILL the Republicans fault because they control one half of the three branches of the federal government?

[TC]

Jan 4, 2013 10:02:01 GMT -5 Boz said:

I also seem to recall a certain Congressman who proposed reforming Medicare and Social Security. He was hailed as a visionary on both sides of the aisle and, though not everyone agreed with his specific prescriptions, there was general consensus that he was proposing steps that needed to be taken and his ideas could be used as a starting point for genuine negotiations.

No, wait, I'm sorry. Liberals portrayed him shoving an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff.

Which is pretty much what Marco Rubio did to Obama of last week when chained CPI was being discussed. When you constantly bring up "what's X's plan", you're missing the whole point that no one is going to be able to make these cuts except for in a backroom negotiation. The problem we've had so far the last two years is that the Republican House keeps walking out of that negotiation.

[TC]

Jan 4, 2013 9:38:04 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

Jan 3, 2013 10:28:11 GMT -5 TC said:

We're not going to pay it down, and when conservatism was given a chance to, it chose not to pay it down but to take giant tax cuts.

I don't suppose you've had your TV on in the past two weeks, but those "giant tax cuts" were apparently the greatest thing ever enacted by the U.S. government. At least, the overwhelming majority of them were. If those tax cuts for ordinary non-wealthy Americans hadn't been preserved, we would have gone over this thing called "the fiscal cliff" and it would have completely obliterated our nation's economy on Wednesday morning.

Now granted, I had been led to believe over the last 10 years that these tax cuts only benefited the rich, but apparently over 80% of the cuts went directly to households earning less than $450,000 a year, which is honestly is barely enough to cover the average middle class Washington area family's spending on froyo and cupcakes.

There was no grand bargain on spending or entitlements. All the Congress and President did this week was save Dubya's massive tax cuts.

This post is so dripping with snark that I don't understand what your point is. Would you favor doing nothing (letting the sequester happen, letting taxes go up)? Did you favor a lower threshold than 400K/450K? Did you favor a higher threshold?

Yes, there was no "grand bargain" on spending or entitlements - why did you expect one?

[GUJook97]

Let's face it, the biggest reason Congress doesnt work anymore is no earmarks. I wish someone would just get that out in the open and have a discussion about it.

I never had much issue with pork spending. It obviously got out of hand with the last transpo bill, but it doesnt have to be that way.

[Boz]

There have been negotiations to walk out of?

I must've missed that.

TC, all of the snark that we trade back and forth aside, I do actually agree with you that it is going to be very difficult to accomplish anything.

First of all, before politics get into it, we as Americans are mostly unwilling to suffer difficult choices. No one wants their taxes raised and no one wants their benefits cut or even frozen.

This is a prescription for failure, no matter how you slice it.

Now, personally of course, as you well know, I think the problem is far, FAR more on the spending side than on the revenue side. But ask people if they are willing to endure some cutbacks and you get only theoretical agreement at best (an entitlement version of NIMBY, if you will).

And then you add politics into it and it just gets far, far worse.

Any tax increases are pilloried by one side and any spending cuts or reforms are equally demagogued by the other.

The problem I have been trying to point out in this thread is that, if you are not prepared to accept the fact that both sides are to blame -- yes, equally so -- then I just can't take you seriously (I am using "you" in general terms here).

I mean, look at what we just read. Well, George Bush increased debt and deficits, so it's the Republicans' fault.

Yes, he did that. And most conservatives railed at him for it.

But the answer is that we should increase the debt and deficits even more??? In what reality does that even approach sanity???

Tax increases on the rich are not going to make a dent. The only way to increase revenue sufficiently, if that is what you think needs to be done, is to raise taxes on EVERYONE. Good luck trying to get a Democrat to admit that.

On the other side, while I genuinely believe that conservative proposals for tax and entitlement reforms are necessary, as Ed has pointed out, there is no one left, not even Paul Ryan, who will get out there and stand behind a substantive proposal, because it is a political nightmare.

So, here we are. Getting nowhere.

And I don't even have hockey to distract me. [edited!!!]

But we've got the Hoyas.


EDIT: And yes, Jook, while in theory earmarks are OK, in reality, they have become a cancer. While I sympathize with Chris Christie and Peter King and everyone else in NY and NJ, that relief bill, as currently constituted, is a frakking joke.

[GUJook97]

I think there are plenty of Democrats that dont have a problem with taxes being raised. I think many Democrats are in favor of doing away with all of the Bush tax cuts. I think you are right that would have been political suicide for Obama, but let's face it, the $250K figure was just something pulled out of the air for political purposes.

[GUJook97]

"EDIT: And yes, Jook, while in theory earmarks are OK, in reality, they have become a cancer. While I sympathize with Chris Christie and Peter King and everyone else in NY and NJ, that relief bill, as currently constituted, is a frakking joke. "

But, like you said, it's Rs that think its unconscionable not to have this Sandy relief. Both sides love earmarks probably more than we realize. My argument is that if you still had some, there would be way more compromise in Congress. Is that a good solution? Im not sure.

[Boz]

Jan 4, 2013 11:24:19 GMT -5 GUJook97 said:

"EDIT: And yes, Jook, while in theory earmarks are OK, in reality, they have become a cancer. While I sympathize with Chris Christie and Peter King and everyone else in NY and NJ, that relief bill, as currently constituted, is a frakking joke. "

But, like you said, it's Rs that think its unconscionable not to have this Sandy relief. Both sides love earmarks probably more than we realize. My argument is that if you still had some, there would be way more compromise in Congress. Is that a good solution? Im not sure.

I guess I'm not understanding your point.

Acknowledged that bringing bacon home to your constituents knows no political party. Lip service aside, there are plenty of members of both parties who love that equally.

But you also seem to be making the point that earmarks are no more.

My response to that is..."huh?"

Pork-laden bills are just as prevalent now as they have ever been.

[GUJook97]

How do you figure? There isnt anything close to the pork there used to be. The previous surface transpo bill had about 100 pages of pork. There was none of that in the last incarnation. I dont think it's really a question that the ineffectiveness of Boehner has some to do with his inability to give his caucus something in return.

I think Sandy relief is pork to some extent, but that's not the type of thing I am talking about, or what most would consider pork spending. I think it's pretty clear that earmarks as they used to be, are no more.

[derhoya]

RE: the transportation bill - has anyone seen names of those senators (I assume all basically originated from their version of the bill) that authorized the inclusion of all those riders/pork projects to that bill? I'd be interested and I wish there was a fair amount of 'calling-out' involved by some outside group. That was the TP's job afterall, right?

RE: taxes & cuts. I'm scared that the 'ringing' success produced from averting the cliff will mean the issue of tax reform will be kicked once again down the road. Raising ~400-600B over 10 yrs in revenue is nothing. I did ear that the bill also included some caps on deductions for high earners that will be phased in over time but more of that is necessary. Perhaps this was a litmus test to see its effectiveness vs the tax-dodging CPA industry out there? It also seems like each party is playing chicken on specifically identifying which entitlements they mean to amend. The he said/she said game isn't helping as previously mentioned.

I'm going to send this to my congressman with a lovely note (http://compare.ebay.com/like/310331705860?var=lv<yp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar). I think all should.

[Boz]

Jan 4, 2013 15:57:24 GMT -5 derhoya said:

I'm going to send this to my congressman with a lovely note (http://compare.ebay.com/like/310331705860?var=lv<yp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar). I think all should.

Nice.

I think we should also tell them all to Put! That Coffee! DOWN!!