"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

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.

thats why we need the balanced budget amend. what very few mention here seems to be the fact you spoke to, no on trusts the gov. I don't trust ANY of them. reps dems ......if you give them money, they will spend it.


its always the same, some heavily emotional issue(s) like oh, mediscare will force obama to ask for more money say for his HC prgm. the dems will of course be all over it and the reps if they balk, will then be termed, again, as the party that will throw grannie over the cliff. this shit is as old as wine.

balanced budget amendment, period its the only way to keep them all within some spending constraint and it plays NO favorites. .

 

[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.

really I don't see it there...

 

[initforme]

I dont understand why the GOP thinks its their job to protect the ultra wealthy. I was a hardline GOP voter until I saw how they would protect and stand up for them. Like a small tax increase on a billionaire is going to have any affect on them. Since then I have struggled to find a candidate I like. There sure arent any out there now, and this goes for both parties. To heck with it, let the country spiral downward. I sure will not help it out in any way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol

how far left are you that you would even dream Mitty baby is a conservative?

Hugo is that you? Did they give you a computer?

Romney was supported by the likes of Limbaugh in 2008. Now that same crowd has him labeled a RINO.

Give me a link to Limbaugh supporting Mitt please.

And Mitt is a political opportunist. Romneycare alone sinks him with any decent conservative. And I'm not being a right wing nutbar here. I actually truly admired his father.

But those were the days when Michigan wasn't a piece of turd floating in a liberal toilet from hell.

Mitt's like Paul Martin or Al Gore. Daddy told them one day they would lead the world and these crazy libs actually believed this crap. And they truly believed this was their destiny.

Rush Limbaugh *endorses Mitt Romney « Hot Air

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

The country is recovering from the worst Pub recession ever, and that's saying something. Remain calm...tyvm.The pub propaganda machine excites haters and depresses the heck out of most of the country. Can we shut Murdoch down like the UK did?

 

[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.

thats why we need the balanced budget amend. what very few mention here seems to be the fact you spoke to, no on trusts the gov. I don't trust ANY of them. reps dems ......if you give them money, they will spend it.


its always the same, some heavily emotional issue(s) like oh, mediscare will force obama to ask for more money say for his HC prgm. the dems will of course be all over it and the reps if they balk, will then be termed, again, as the party that will throw grannie over the cliff. this shit is as old as wine.

balanced budget amendment, period its the only way to keep them all within some spending constraint and it plays NO favorites. .

We agree but a BBA will never happen. The Democrats killed it in 1996 and will do it again. Even if a miracle happened and it passed the Congress, Obama would veto it. You can trust me on this one.

 

[Toro]

Romney was supported by the likes of Limbaugh in 2008. Now that same crowd has him labeled a RINO.

Give me a link to Limbaugh supporting Mitt please.

And Mitt is a political opportunist. Romneycare alone sinks him with any decent conservative. And I'm not being a right wing nutbar here. I actually truly admired his father.

But those were the days when Michigan wasn't a piece of turd floating in a liberal toilet from hell.

Mitt's like Paul Martin or Al Gore. Daddy told them one day they would lead the world and these crazy libs actually believed this crap. And they truly believed this was their destiny.

Rush Limbaugh *endorses Mitt Romney « Hot Air

President Romney ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The country is recovering from the worst Pub recession ever, and that's saying something. Remain calm...tyvm.The pub propaganda machine excites haters and depresses the heck out of most of the country. Can we shut Murdoch down like the UK did?

Where do people get the idea that American Progressives are Fascists?

 

[bodecea]

The country is recovering from the worst Pub recession ever, and that's saying something. Remain calm...tyvm.The pub propaganda machine excites haters and depresses the heck out of most of the country. Can we shut Murdoch down like the UK did?

Where do people get the idea that American Progressives are Fascists?

The same people who call them Communists....it's laughable, really. They just pull stuff out of a hat, it looks like.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The country is recovering from the worst Pub recession ever, and that's saying something. Remain calm...tyvm.The pub propaganda machine excites haters and depresses the heck out of most of the country. Can we shut Murdoch down like the UK did?

Where do people get the idea that American Progressives are Fascists?

The same people who call them Communists....it's laughable, really. They just pull stuff out of a hat, it looks like.

It's a distinction without a difference as to where on the Totalitarianism Scale American Progressives fall. It's a Big Tent that Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel or Pol Pot would find comfortable.

Shutting down newspapers? Yeah, that's Progressive

 

[bodecea]

Where do people get the idea that American Progressives are Fascists?

The same people who call them Communists....it's laughable, really. They just pull stuff out of a hat, it looks like.

It's a distinction without a difference as to where on the Totalitarianism Scale American Progressives fall. It's a Big Tent that Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel or Pol Pot would find comfortable.

Shutting down newspapers? Yeah, that's Progressive

Okay...the word Totalitarianism is another one of those words from the Rightwing hat....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The same people who call them Communists....it's laughable, really. They just pull stuff out of a hat, it looks like.

It's a distinction without a difference as to where on the Totalitarianism Scale American Progressives fall. It's a Big Tent that Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel or Pol Pot would find comfortable.

Shutting down newspapers? Yeah, that's Progressive

Okay...the word Totalitarianism is another one of those words from the Rightwing hat....

Do you support shutting down NY Post and Wall Street Journal, like your Progressive brother proposed, Dear

 

[Big Fitz]

... many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary. ...

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol. ...

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independent voters will see that 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.

And they will be right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=4&ref=davidbrooks

Thoughts?

I'll take "Reasons David Brooks isn't worth two shits in the woods", Alex.

 

[kiwiman127]

Where do people get the idea that American Progressives are Fascists?

The same people who call them Communists....it's laughable, really. They just pull stuff out of a hat, it looks like.

It's a distinction without a difference as to where on the Totalitarianism Scale American Progressives fall. It's a Big Tent that Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel or Pol Pot would find comfortable.Shutting down newspapers? Yeah, that's Progressive

Wow,,,,,,all I can say is wow.

 

[Zander]

If the debt ceiling is not raised the government would not immediately go into default. Default is purely a political choice. Money still flows to the Treasury every day. As interest payments came due, the money would be there to pay them. As old debt was retired, new debt could be issued up to the current limit. What the Administration could not do is incur new debt, additional debt. They could not spend trillions of dollars more than they take in. An instant balanced budget would result. The best thing that could happen for this country is for the debt limit to NOT be raised.......

 

[Salt Jones]

It's a distinction without a difference as to where on the Totalitarianism Scale American Progressives fall. It's a Big Tent that Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Fidel or Pol Pot would find comfortable.

Shutting down newspapers? Yeah, that's Progressive

Okay...the word Totalitarianism is another one of those words from the Rightwing hat....

Do you support shutting down NY Post and Wall Street Journal, like your Progressive brother proposed, Dear

I support News Corp being dismantled, the Murdoch's being sent to gitmo and life goes on.

 

[Zander]

Okay...the word Totalitarianism is another one of those words from the Rightwing hat....

Do you support shutting down NY Post and Wall Street Journal, like your Progressive brother proposed, Dear

I support News Corp being dismantled, the Murdoch's being sent to gitmo and life goes on.

How "progressive" of you.....

 

[Salt Jones]

Do you support shutting down NY Post and Wall Street Journal, like your Progressive brother proposed, Dear

I support News Corp being dismantled, the Murdoch's being sent to gitmo and life goes on.

How "progressive" of you.....

I never claimed to be progressive. Progressive is the pussy term liberals adopted when the right tried to taint the word liberal. I'm a black liberal, unsympathetic, unapologetic and without one drop of compassion for my fellow man or woman.

 

[Zander]

I support News Corp being dismantled, the Murdoch's being sent to gitmo and life goes on.

How "progressive" of you.....

I never claimed to be progressive. Progressive is the pussy term liberals adopted when the right tried to taint the word liberal. I'm a black liberal, unsympathetic, unapologetic and without one drop of compassion for my fellow man or woman.

Do you think that makes you special? Well, you're not. You're just another miserable fuck......

 

[MarcATL]

... many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary. ...

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol. ...

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independent voters will see that 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.

And they will be right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=4&ref=davidbrooks

Thoughts?

Spot on...when have the RepubliCON$ ever been normal?

In fact...what have they done for this country in 30 years?

Hmmmm....!?!?!??