"GOP No Longer a 'Normal' Party" - David Brooks

[Trajan]

I see The Economist seems to agree with Brooks.

Shame on them
The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes

IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.

There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion. Back in May the government bumped up against that limit, but various accounting dodges have been used to keep funds flowing. It is now reckoned that these wheezes will be exhausted by August 2nd.

The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink.

Related topicsBarack ObamaRepublican Party (United States)United States
Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical
For more go to: America's debt: Shame on them | The Economist

I see The Economist seems to agree with Brooks.

Shame on them
The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes

wooooowweeee, time to pack it in.

 

[Trajan]

oh and one other thing, I am shocked, really that I have to be the one amongst all of you bright folks to surface the fact that this ma be a NEGOTIATING tactic?

 

[Trajan]

I see The Economist seems to agree with Brooks.

Shame on them
The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes

IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.

There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion. Back in May the government bumped up against that limit, but various accounting dodges have been used to keep funds flowing. It is now reckoned that these wheezes will be exhausted by August 2nd.

The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink.

Related topicsBarack ObamaRepublican Party (United States)United States
Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical
For more go to: America's debt: Shame on them | The Economist

The Economist is a communist organ that hates freedom and America...

its editors eat puppies too......

Oh and at least their article seems fair.

 

[Stephanie]

I see The Economist seems to agree with Brooks.

Shame on them
The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes

IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.

There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion. Back in May the government bumped up against that limit, but various accounting dodges have been used to keep funds flowing. It is now reckoned that these wheezes will be exhausted by August 2nd.

The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink.

Related topicsBarack ObamaRepublican Party (United States)United States
Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical
For more go to: America's debt: Shame on them | The Economist

OH FER SURE and the Democrats are without ANY BLAME and we know they have no shame playing politicts with this. it's PARTY over COUNTRY for them. screw the Economist

 

[The T]

Bare bones fact? We need to default. Period. No mini deals...Either start cutting with NO tax raises...or no deal.

I want to see Government shut down. ALL of it.

 

[Toro]

...

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer. ...

<cough> <cough>

 

[Trajan]

I see The Economist seems to agree with Brooks.

Shame on them
The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes

IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.

There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion. Back in May the government bumped up against that limit, but various accounting dodges have been used to keep funds flowing. It is now reckoned that these wheezes will be exhausted by August 2nd.

The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink.

Related topicsBarack ObamaRepublican Party (United States)United States
Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical
For more go to: America's debt: Shame on them | The Economist

The Economist is a communist mouthpiece that hates freedom and America.

And they know nothing about economics!

tsk tsk editing after the bell......

 

[Toro]

oh and one other thing, I am shocked, really that I have to be the one amongst all of you bright folks to surface the fact that this ma be a NEGOTIATING tactic?

That's what I think.

But it sure doesn't seem that way for some of the more rabid members here.

 

[tinydancer]

lol

what part of "we're freaking broke" don't the writers at the Economist get?

I know. It's stellar to create jobs at $278,000. per person. I want one of those jobs. Puhleeze. Just pass me the money honey.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that neither Brooks nor the Economist mention that Obama is a Failed Leader who believes bank ATM's are kicking his economic theory's ass?

Might be embarrassing to admit that you're taking sides with a total economic illiterate, right?

 

[Trajan]

...

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America&#8217;s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America&#8217;s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer. ...

<cough> <cough>

Link.....I know where it from but I'd like to read it all

and what if I told you 1 trillion of the cuts are from money they won't be spending and are planning to cut anyway? in other words gristle, no meat.

 

[Toro]

Odd that neither Brooks nor the Economist mention that Obama is a Failed Leader who believes bank ATM's are kicking his economic theory's ass?

Might be embarrassing to admit that you're taking sides with a total economic illiterate, right?

Exactly. I'm just waiting for Obama to say that all tax cuts increase revenues and that'll seal the deal.

 

[Toro]

...

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer. ...

<cough> <cough>

Link.....I know where it from but I'd like to read it all

and what if I told you 1 trillion of the cuts are from money they won't be spending and are planning to cut anyway? in other words gristle, no meat.

That's the last part of The Economist leader.

 

[Trajan]

...





<cough> <cough>

Link.....I know where it from but I'd like to read it all

and what if I told you 1 trillion of the cuts are from money they won't be spending and are planning to cut anyway? in other words gristle, no meat.

That's the last part of The Economist leader.

wow, they fooled me, they don't like big gov.?

 

[Zander]

First of all, Brooks is not a conservative. Not even close.


The choice is simple; cut spending or default. It's a simple decision. I hope the Democrats get it. If they let the country default, they will be the ones who voters will blame. They are the ones in control.

Either way, it's a win/win for Republicans- they need to stick to their principles no matter what. Conservatives win when they are "CONSERVATIVE".

 

[Too Tall]

Yeah Frankie. What say you

"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 we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies." -- Barack Hussein Obama, Failed Leader, Community Organizer and low-level socialist agitator

That was no doubt said after the previous Repub Pres mired the U.S. in two, unpaid-for wars of which the Current Democratic Pres. is attempting to extract us from. I believe our current Pres voted against Vietraq also. What will the final tab be for those two wars , which are far from over BTW, that Bu$h II put on your grand kid's credit card hmmm?

Since Bush left office Obama has tripled the number of troops in Agfhanistan, tripling the cost to your grand kids and has managed to bomb two more sovereign nations and increase the attacks on a third nation. That makes 5 wars ongoing from a dipshit that got a Nobel PEACE Prize. He fooled them and he obviously has you fooled.

 

[kiwiman127]

oh and one other thing, I am shocked, really that I have to be the one amongst all of you bright folks to surface the fact that this ma be a NEGOTIATING tactic?

That's what I think.

But it sure doesn't seem that way for some of the more rabid members here.

Negotiate? The Tea Party would revolt.

 

[Too Tall]

I see The Economist seems to agree with Brooks.

Shame on them
The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes

IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.

There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion. Back in May the government bumped up against that limit, but various accounting dodges have been used to keep funds flowing. It is now reckoned that these wheezes will be exhausted by August 2nd.

The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink.

Related topicsBarack ObamaRepublican Party (United States)United States
Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical
For more go to: America's debt: Shame on them | The Economist

Only a fool would believe that increased revenue would be used for deficit reduction. The more money the gubmint gets, the more it spends. Obama would start a dozen or so new spending programs with increased revenue.

 

[kiwiman127]

First of all, Brooks is not a conservative. Not even close.


The choice is simple; cut spending or default. It's a simple decision. I hope the Democrats get it. If they let the country default, they will be the ones who voters will blame. They are the ones in control.

Either way, it's a win/win for Republicans- they need to stick to their principles no matter what. Conservatives win when they are "CONSERVATIVE".

Brooks isn't a conservative? Back in the day before the wild eyed far right took over the traditional conservative GOP, Brooks was identified as a conservative. But, the farther right goes, the more traditional conservatives it leaves behind. Reagan Republicans are actually being called RINOs! The far right tries to tie itself to Reagan, but only for the benefit of sucking conservative leaning voters in. But in real life,,,,,,,

Republican Litmus Test - Even Ronald Reagan Would Fail It!
Republican Litmus Test - Even Ronald Reagan Would Fail It! - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

And how far, far right the GOP has become, it's to the point of fanatics leading the party. Does anyone know when a fanatic leadership was a benefit? Anyone?

 

[MikeFrank]

The GOP has losts it's way, it has become filled with neocons that support wallstreet not mainstreet.