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

[cutter]

When the democrats talk about closing tax loopholes you have to remember to a democrat a tax loophole is anything that allows anyone to keep any of the money they earn.

 

[Truthmatters]

More utter lies by the right

 

[Modbert]

The President has offered far more cuts than the GOP was looking for. Will they take it? No.

Why? They will never accept any sort of tax increases or closing of tax loopholes.

Why? Because they are no longer driven by common sense, but rather ideology.

President Obama has done nothing but compromise with the Republicans since he's gotten into office and hasn't worked out every time. Though I don't think it's because he weak, but rather he's comfortable with the corporate cronies in both parties.

 

[cutter]

More utter lies by the right

An "utter lie" is that a bull masquerading as a cow? Don't try to milk that one.

 

[Modbert]

False premise.
Not raising the debt limit no no way necessarily endangers the 'sacred pledge' we made with our creditors.

This is the problem with the debt ceiling issue. A bunch of ignorant people playing armchair economist think it'll be all cool if we don't raise the debt ceiling.

S&P Would Lower U.S. Credit Rating to D on Failure to Increase Debt Limit - Bloomberg

Standard & Poor’s would cut the U.S. credit rating to its lowest level and Moody’s Investors Service said it will probably reduce its ranking if the government fails to increase the debt limit, leading to a default.

S&P would lower its sovereign top-level AAA ranking to D, the last rung on its scale if the U.S. can’t pay its debt, John Chambers, chairman of the company’s sovereign rating committee, said today. Moody’s said it would probably assign a position in the Aa range, or within three steps of its highest level.

Not paying off creditors will hurt us. Furthermore, it will make interest rates rise and make it harder for the U.S going forward to pay off it's debt.

 

[Stephanie]

The President has offered far more cuts than the GOP was looking for. Will they take it? No.

Why? They will never accept any sort of tax increases or closing of tax loopholes.

Why? Because they are no longer driven by common sense, but rather ideology.

President Obama has done nothing but compromise with the Republicans since he's gotten into office and hasn't worked out every time. Though I don't think it's because he weak, but rather he's comfortable with the corporate cronies in both parties.

Yeah right. more CUTS over a PERIOD OF TEN YEARS..
what a joke.

 

[Modbert]

Yeah right. more CUTS over a PERIOD OF TEN YEARS..
what a joke.

$4 Trillion over 10 years. Which is more than the Republicans have offered. So if President Obama's plan is a joke (which it isn't, since it has cuts in both Medicare and SS) then the Republicans are a laughing stock. But I don't see you calling the GOP a joke.

 

[M14 Shooter]

False premise.
Not raising the debt limit no no way necessarily endangers the 'sacred pledge' we made with our creditors.

This is the problem with the debt ceiling issue. A bunch of ignorant people playing armchair economist think it'll be all cool if we don't raise the debt ceiling.

Not paying off creditors will hurt us. Furthermore, it will make interest rates rise and make it harder for the U.S going forward to pay off it's debt.

I see you failed to quote the part of my post where I said that not rasiing the debt ceiling in no way means we cannot pay our creditors - that we will necessarily default on our debt - as we have pelnty of revenue to cover our debt service.

So... while not paying our creditors might very well hurt us, there's nothing that necessitates we cannot pay them; all you're doing here is continuing to follow that false premise.

 

[freedombecki]

Toro, your NYTimes article said, "President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate."

He can campaign all he wants to as a moderate, but the bottom line is this: if he is elected, he will throw his temporary moderation right straight under the bus, and push, push, push the community aspect until the nation is exactly what he and his Weatherman soulmate, William Ayres want: a toothless police department that will allow them to gun their way to communism.

Everyone knows it.

If we're a little "radical" right now, it's only because keeping freedom is not a couch potato thing to do. It means standing up to people who would take advantage of our generally laconic good will. It means fighting lies with a reminder of what the founders said they intended. It means matching brass knuckle for brass knuckle.

If we are not radical right now, our nation will follow the path that Nikita Kruschev beat the podium with his shoe saying "America we will bury you."

We have no intention of letting Nikita Kruschev's false prophecy come true just because we have a black president who beats up on every one who has a disagreement with the disparaging "race" card.

We have no idea of cooperating with allowing a dictator to steamroll right over the Constitution our founders bestowed on a free people with incarceration to a ridiculous debt to satisfy his penchant for spendthriftery.

In fact, if he doesn't stop lying his ass off, we will do the stopping for him. That's why he was presented with such an overwhelming new number of Republicans in 2010.

You think we're radical?

Brother, we have only begun to fight, and since his advisers, many of whom are card-carrying communists, think they're just gonna move right in on Congress and oust them from their duties, there are going to be some political casualties in this fracas, and it's not going to be us Republicans.

 

[Modbert]

I see you failed to quote the part of my post where I said that not rasiing the debt ceiling in no way means we cannot pay our creditors - that we will necessarily default on our debt - as we have pelnty of revenue to cover our debt service.

So... while not paying our creditors might very well hurt us, there's nothing that necessitates we cannot pay them; all you're doing here is continuing to follow that false premise.

Not raising the debt limit no no way necessarily endangers the 'sacred pledge' we made with our creditors.

Look at what I bolded and then look at what I quoted from your previous post.

I'll say it again, not raising the debt ceiling is like playing russian roulette with a full chamber. You want to be the one to pull the trigger?

 

[Mustang]

... 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?

A normal political party requires normal core members. The GOP has been chasing the more normal members away for years as it driftted ever further right. Now the base has too many core members who metaphorically ascribe to the insane notion that burning down a house to solve a termit problem is actually a viable solution to the problem.

 

[Toro]

I see you failed to quote the part of my post where I said that not rasiing the debt ceiling in no way means we cannot pay our creditors - that we will necessarily default on our debt - as we have pelnty of revenue to cover our debt service.

So... while not paying our creditors might very well hurt us, there's nothing that necessitates we cannot pay them; all you're doing here is continuing to follow that false premise.

Not raising the debt limit no no way necessarily endangers the 'sacred pledge' we made with our creditors.

Look at what I bolded and then look at what I quoted from your previous post.

I'll say it again, not raising the debt ceiling is like playing russian roulette with a full chamber. You want to be the one to pull the trigger?

Our creditors will make that decision.

And I'm not sticking around to find out what that decision will be.

 

[Modbert]

Toro, your NYTimes article said, "President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate."

He can campaign all he wants to as a moderate, but the bottom line is this: if he is elected, he will throw his temporary moderation right straight under the bus, and push, push, push the community aspect until the nation is exactly what he and his Weatherman soulmate, William Ayres want: a toothless police department that will allow them to gun their way to communism.

Everyone knows it.

If we're a little "radical" right now, it's only because keeping freedom is not a couch potato thing to do. It means standing up to people who would take advantage of our generally laconic good will. It means fighting lies with a reminder of what the founders said they intended. It means matching brass knuckle for brass knuckle.

If we are not radical right now, our nation will follow the path that Nikita Kruschev beat the podium with his shoe saying "America we will bury you."

We have no intention of letting Nikita Kruschev's false prophecy come true just because we have a black president who beats up on every one who has a disagreement with the disparaging "race" card.

We have no idea of cooperating with allowing a dictator to steamroll right over the Constitution our founders bestowed on a free people with incarceration to a ridiculous debt to satisfy his penchant for spendthriftery.

In fact, if he doesn't stop lying his ass off, we will do the stopping for him. That's why he was presented with such an overwhelming new number of Republicans in 2010.

You think we're radical?

Brother, we have only begun to fight, and since his advisers, many of whom are card-carrying communists, think they're just gonna move right in on Congress and oust them from their duties, there are going to be some political casualties in this fracas, and it's not going to be us Republicans.

Except if you bother to listen to some Liberals, they're currently complaining about the militarization of the police department. So the opposite of what you think is going to occur is happening.

Furthermore, the idea that President Obama is going to become a dictator in his second term is as crazy as those who said Bush was going to become one.

All you're doing is baseless fear mongering. Though I have a feeling you may actually believe what you're typing, which is the scariest thing of all.

 

[Modbert]

Our creditors will make that decision.

And I'm not sticking around to find out what that decision will be.

I can't blame you. It's not going to be pretty if the GOP continues to risk the well-being of this country in order to satisfy their base.

 

[Stephanie]

... 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?

A normal political party requires normal core members. The GOP has been chasing the more normal members away for years as it driftted ever further right. Now the base has too many core members who metaphorically ascribe to the insane notion that burning down a house to solve a termit problem is actually a viable solution to the problem.

good gawd, could you please talk NORMAL..we won't think less of you if you do, REALLY..
SHEEEEEEEESH

 

[M14 Shooter]

I see you failed to quote the part of my post where I said that not rasiing the debt ceiling in no way means we cannot pay our creditors - that we will necessarily default on our debt - as we have pelnty of revenue to cover our debt service.

So... while not paying our creditors might very well hurt us, there's nothing that necessitates we cannot pay them; all you're doing here is continuing to follow that false premise.

Not raising the debt limit no no way necessarily endangers the 'sacred pledge' we made with our creditors.

Look at what I bolded and then look at what I quoted from your previous post.

I'll say it again, not raising the debt ceiling is like playing russian roulette with a full chamber. You want to be the one to pull the trigger?

You are STILL following the down path of the false premise.

Everything you mention here is predictaed on the idea that not raising the debt ceiling means we default on the debt by not paying our creditors.

You are willfully ignoring the very real fact that nothing about not raising the debt ceiling in NO WAY NECESSITATES that we cannot pay our creditors as we have MORE than enough revenue to do so.

And so, nothing you mention is at any way a necessary result of not raising the ceiling.

 

[Modbert]

You are STILL following the down path of the false premise.

Everything you mention here is predictaed on the idea that not raising the debt ceiling means we default on the debt by not paying our creditors.

You are willfully ignoring the very real fact that nothing about not raising the debt ceiling in NO WAY NECESSITATES that we cannot pay our creditors as we have MORE than enough revenue to do so.

And so, nothing you mention is at any way a necessary result of not raising the ceiling.

You seem to not understand what happens when we don't raise the debt ceiling by the date. I don't think you understand the implication of S&P lowering our credit rating to D either. Or Moody lowering ours. Even a single day with the debt ceiling not raise will hurt this country and our ability to pay back our debt going forward.

But hey, feel free to ignore all the financial analysts and experts because Ron Paul or the GOP think everything will be a-okay if we don't raise the debt ceiling.

The fact of the matter is when you use the words

So... while not paying our creditors might very well hurt us

in a sentence, that alone tells you why we need to raise the debt ceiling. End of story.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are STILL following the down path of the false premise.

Everything you mention here is predictaed on the idea that not raising the debt ceiling means we default on the debt by not paying our creditors.

You are willfully ignoring the very real fact that nothing about not raising the debt ceiling in NO WAY NECESSITATES that we cannot pay our creditors as we have MORE than enough revenue to do so.

And so, nothing you mention is at any way a necessary result of not raising the ceiling.

You seem to not understand what happens when we don't raise the debt ceiling by the date.

I understand fully - it means we cannot borrow more money.
So what?

I don't think you understand the implication of S&P lowering our credit rating to D either.

This only happens if we cannot service out debt.
How does that -necessarily- happen by not rasing the debt ceiling?
Hint: it doesn't.

You CONTINUE to follow the false premise I described, and you haven't even tried to address it. The failure to understand the issue, then, obviously belongs to you - and, worse, is willful.

 

[kiwiman127]

I think this statement in the Brooks piece hits the nail on the head.

"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."

A majority of economists have stated that in order to solve the US's economic problems, cutting spending and raising taxes are the best options. BUT in the true form of the far right, they claim that cutting spending is the only method and completely ignoring experts from all sides. That's like sitting in a house that's burning down, ignoring fire fighters pleas to evacuated and claiming everything is fine.

 

[Wry Catcher]

First thought: Overspending by $1.6 Trillion must be the new Normal

Second thought: Yes, we need to raise revenues and only a Failed Leader would even suggest raising taxes on a struggling economy. In the USA a growing economy raises revenues: cut taxes and spending, regulations and increase energy supply.

We don't have a growing economy, the failed leadership began on Sept. 11, 2001 and resulted in a near economic collapse in October 2008.

A growing economy with low unemployment and a labor force earning wages which provide sufficient income to pay for food, clothing and shelter as well as vacations, movies, restaurants and other personal luxuries will raise revenue and allow for a reasonable and targeted reduction of taxes, such as President Clinton signed into law during his years of leadership.

The most absurd part of your post is you've thought. The battle today is not about overspending, something for which each party has been complicit and no one person or party can be honestly blamed. The battle today is about ideology and not about ideas; the Republican Party has moved far right and its leadership uses demagoguery to arouse the thoughtless into true believers, and that CrusaderFrank is you.