|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 04 2012 09:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 05:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 04 2012 05:47 silynxer wrote:On December 04 2012 04:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 03 2012 04:44 aksfjh wrote:
It's not your money. It's the government's money.
did the government make that money? and actually, if the government passed tax-cuts, then that would mean that the government has legally declared it as my money, not theirs. seriously though, without any philosophical quibbling: how is never receiving money in the first place equatable with spending something? Didn't we have that exact same discussion already? Yes, the government made that money, literally. did the government conceive of the product? did they provide the capital? did they manufacture it and then distribute it? did they sell it? I don't give a crap if they print the dollars, that doesn't make the fruit of my labor theirs. Yes. At some point, people decided that some entity should exist for the good of those involved in the society based on selective measures. The existence provides services to those that implicitly agree to give power to the entity and those that administer it. When creating those services, it must somehow compensate the effort of those employed to fulfill the roles required. In a modern economy, the compensation is done through fiat currency. A piece of paper is given as compensation, which, by law, is guaranteed the power to be used to pay down all debts. This is how capital is created, by the government paying for services. It is by the grace of the government we give power to that we have capital that can be divided and transported easily for trade. Without this, the "product" wouldn't have a specific value. The incentive to create anything would be to trade directly for sustenance. It leaves little incentive to increase one's own output beyond their own needs, or to create something for the benefit of somebody else for supplies that would be wasted in the time it took for you to use them. Without government, there is no modern economy, no economic conquest, no socioeconomic scale, no class mobility, and certainly not the notion of being "compensated" for the "fruits of your labor."
the modern economy did not originate with the modern government though... and fiat currency is not the only type of currency capable of supporting a modern economy.
and since the answer to every one of my questions is actually no, they didn't. no matter what they did do, they didn't conceive of the product (inventor), provide the capital (investor), manufacture or distribute it (factory/shipping), and they didn't sell it either (salesmen). shit, they didn't even advertise it (ad firms).
but apparently no one ever bought anything before we got off the gold standard.
|
What do you mean by "modern economy" and "modern government"?
|
On December 06 2012 00:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 09:36 aksfjh wrote:On December 04 2012 05:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 04 2012 05:47 silynxer wrote:On December 04 2012 04:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 03 2012 04:44 aksfjh wrote:
It's not your money. It's the government's money.
did the government make that money? and actually, if the government passed tax-cuts, then that would mean that the government has legally declared it as my money, not theirs. seriously though, without any philosophical quibbling: how is never receiving money in the first place equatable with spending something? Didn't we have that exact same discussion already? Yes, the government made that money, literally. did the government conceive of the product? did they provide the capital? did they manufacture it and then distribute it? did they sell it? I don't give a crap if they print the dollars, that doesn't make the fruit of my labor theirs. Yes. At some point, people decided that some entity should exist for the good of those involved in the society based on selective measures. The existence provides services to those that implicitly agree to give power to the entity and those that administer it. When creating those services, it must somehow compensate the effort of those employed to fulfill the roles required. In a modern economy, the compensation is done through fiat currency. A piece of paper is given as compensation, which, by law, is guaranteed the power to be used to pay down all debts. This is how capital is created, by the government paying for services. It is by the grace of the government we give power to that we have capital that can be divided and transported easily for trade. Without this, the "product" wouldn't have a specific value. The incentive to create anything would be to trade directly for sustenance. It leaves little incentive to increase one's own output beyond their own needs, or to create something for the benefit of somebody else for supplies that would be wasted in the time it took for you to use them. Without government, there is no modern economy, no economic conquest, no socioeconomic scale, no class mobility, and certainly not the notion of being "compensated" for the "fruits of your labor." the modern economy did not originate with the modern government though... and fiat currency is not the only type of currency capable of supporting a modern economy. and since the answer to every one of my questions is actually no, they didn't. no matter what they did do, they didn't conceive of the product (inventor), provide the capital (investor), manufacture or distribute it (factory/shipping), and they didn't sell it either (salesmen). shit, they didn't even advertise it (ad firms). but apparently no one ever bought anything before we got off the gold standard.
The best example of a non-fiat currency in the modern economic structure is that of the EU member countries that don't have influence in monetary policy. Notably, I'm talking about the GIPSI countries. They must borrow and spend with a medium that is manipulated (intentionally or unintentionally) in a way that works against the country as a whole. When the capital isn't created and controlled by the government, it hurts everybody in the country. It prevents people from having faith that those given credit can pay it back, even just the principle, including the government. It prevents people from innovating due to rent seeking providing a return greater than the nominal gain in wealth.
Granted, these aren't "direct" yes answers, but without the government, the economy is limited to communities that are so small and personal that morality wins over greed.
|
On December 06 2012 02:28 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 00:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 04 2012 09:36 aksfjh wrote:On December 04 2012 05:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 04 2012 05:47 silynxer wrote:On December 04 2012 04:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 03 2012 04:44 aksfjh wrote:
It's not your money. It's the government's money.
did the government make that money? and actually, if the government passed tax-cuts, then that would mean that the government has legally declared it as my money, not theirs. seriously though, without any philosophical quibbling: how is never receiving money in the first place equatable with spending something? Didn't we have that exact same discussion already? Yes, the government made that money, literally. did the government conceive of the product? did they provide the capital? did they manufacture it and then distribute it? did they sell it? I don't give a crap if they print the dollars, that doesn't make the fruit of my labor theirs. Yes. At some point, people decided that some entity should exist for the good of those involved in the society based on selective measures. The existence provides services to those that implicitly agree to give power to the entity and those that administer it. When creating those services, it must somehow compensate the effort of those employed to fulfill the roles required. In a modern economy, the compensation is done through fiat currency. A piece of paper is given as compensation, which, by law, is guaranteed the power to be used to pay down all debts. This is how capital is created, by the government paying for services. It is by the grace of the government we give power to that we have capital that can be divided and transported easily for trade. Without this, the "product" wouldn't have a specific value. The incentive to create anything would be to trade directly for sustenance. It leaves little incentive to increase one's own output beyond their own needs, or to create something for the benefit of somebody else for supplies that would be wasted in the time it took for you to use them. Without government, there is no modern economy, no economic conquest, no socioeconomic scale, no class mobility, and certainly not the notion of being "compensated" for the "fruits of your labor." the modern economy did not originate with the modern government though... and fiat currency is not the only type of currency capable of supporting a modern economy. and since the answer to every one of my questions is actually no, they didn't. no matter what they did do, they didn't conceive of the product (inventor), provide the capital (investor), manufacture or distribute it (factory/shipping), and they didn't sell it either (salesmen). shit, they didn't even advertise it (ad firms). but apparently no one ever bought anything before we got off the gold standard. The best example of a non-fiat currency in the modern economic structure is that of the EU member countries that don't have influence in monetary policy. Notably, I'm talking about the GIPSI countries. They must borrow and spend with a medium that is manipulated (intentionally or unintentionally) in a way that works against the country as a whole. When the capital isn't created and controlled by the government, it hurts everybody in the country. It prevents people from having faith that those given credit can pay it back, even just the principle, including the government. It prevents people from innovating due to rent seeking providing a return greater than the nominal gain in wealth. Granted, these aren't "direct" yes answers, but without the government, the economy is limited to communities that are so small and personal that morality wins over greed.
I highly doubt people would have more faith in the Drachma than the Euro. It would be easier for Greece to manage the crisis if the country had more tools at its disposal, but either way the country would be sunk and its debt defaulted on.
To your more general point, the norm is that governments can (and do) create stable useful currencies. But that's not a given (currencies can go bust - ex. Zimbabwe). Nor is it a fact that absent the government a currency is impossible to have.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
natural currencies do exist, but there are two different functions of currency, exchange and debt accounting. as a tool of debt accounting, i think the existence of that debt contract in the form of a currency does create a government in the functional sense of enforcing a particular obligation/right of collection. the creditor typically has enough political power to collect the debt, be it a feudal lord or a merchant close to the power elites of the state. a natural currency that is used for trade exchange would tend to be precious and rare objects difficult to reproduce (and thus substitute natural properties of these objects for the political power of the state). this creates a lot of interest for rent seeking through hoarding of these objects, a deflationary cycle.
incidentally, the way for the U.S. to avoid a greece situation would be to prevent so much of the economy from falling outside of the tax system, and not artificially create a severe depression by cutting government spending due to debt pressure. that pressure is certainly imaginary in the u.s. case.
|
|
|
This leads many of us to wonder what the Republican Party stands for these days. It used to be across the board tax cuts; everybody sees their tax rate drop. Boehner's shooting himself in the foot with conservatives here. Luckily for him, he has maybe the hardest to believe wiggle room here: that the Denocrats would be willing to compromise just for loophole and deduction reductions as a means of increasing revenues. He doesn't raise tax rates, there's maybe 0.8 trillion raised, and somehow spending cuts are approved.
Time is ticking down and I think enough Republicans will cave when they see themselves successfully painted of as sticks in the mud. Sore losers. Not elected representatives committed to start reducing the growth of the debt through spending cuts first and foremost. Tea party influence is still small within the party leadership. I'm hoping against hope that I am wrong, and there's enough Repulicans up in Washington willing to get bruised a little to limit tax and spend policies and defend freedom for even the top 2%.
|
On December 06 2012 05:19 Danglars wrote:
... and there's enough Repulicans up in Washington willing to get bruised a little to limit tax and spend policies and defend freedom for even the top 2%.
Is a tax increase really an attack on freedom?
NPR gave a somewhat comical view of the fiscal "negotiations" going on:
link
|
On December 06 2012 08:22 Trumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 05:19 Danglars wrote:
... and there's enough Repulicans up in Washington willing to get bruised a little to limit tax and spend policies and defend freedom for even the top 2%. Is a tax increase really an attack on freedom? NPR gave a somewhat comical view of the fiscal "negotiations" going on: link
Its impinging on their "economic freedom" this is very important for Republicans.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/50075183/
Boehner is making it pretty clear that he will bruise them as bad as he can if Republicans don't stay in line.
Edit: hah, didn't notice that was an MSNBC video, sorry for the biased source, Google knows I'm a liberal.
|
On December 06 2012 08:22 Trumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 05:19 Danglars wrote:
... and there's enough Repulicans up in Washington willing to get bruised a little to limit tax and spend policies and defend freedom for even the top 2%. Is a tax increase really an attack on freedom? NPR gave a somewhat comical view of the fiscal "negotiations" going on: link
It's not really an unknown claim. Of course, I don't want to write an essay on how progressive taxes of any kind constitute a violation of equality before the law, or at what point that becomes so. I got real tired of hearing about the Republican "War on Women" during the campaign. Suffice it to say that somewhere between the government confiscates between 1 extra percent from a rich man, solely based on the extra money he earns, and 99% or 100% extra that it constitutes an attack on that man's freedom. I am free to keep about 80% of the money I earn and spend it as I wish. These new guys in the top 2% have less of an ability to spend their hard-earned money than I do. The government, these days presuming to be the more capable one in giving charitably, spends it for them on more worthy things. I'm not saying raising the rates across the board, or even a base progressive income tax I would even describe it that way, let somebody else develop that one or look at ongoing debates in academia or think tanks. I say singling out the top 1% or 2% or 10% or 20% and saying that THEY will see their rates go up in order to pay for more spending programs and existing debt, I say THAT constitutes the assault. In the same way a smaller country might nationalize a business for the good of the people, this is re appropriating wealth.
Take a step back, here's the whole post again, spoilered, my main thrust being the discussion on what caving on tax increases (Many top Republicans signed a no-new-taxes pledge) means for the identity and support base of the Republican party.+ Show Spoiler +On December 06 2012 05:19 Danglars wrote:This leads many of us to wonder what the Republican Party stands for these days. It used to be across the board tax cuts; everybody sees their tax rate drop. Boehner's shooting himself in the foot with conservatives here. Luckily for him, he has maybe the hardest to believe wiggle room here: that the Denocrats would be willing to compromise just for loophole and deduction reductions as a means of increasing revenues. He doesn't raise tax rates, there's maybe 0.8 trillion raised, and somehow spending cuts are approved. Time is ticking down and I think enough Republicans will cave when they see themselves successfully painted of as sticks in the mud. Sore losers. Not elected representatives committed to start reducing the growth of the debt through spending cuts first and foremost. Tea party influence is still small within the party leadership. I'm hoping against hope that I am wrong, and there's enough Repulicans up in Washington willing to get bruised a little to limit tax and spend policies and defend freedom for even the top 2%.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
distribution of income pre-tax is largely political anyway.
|
On December 06 2012 10:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 08:22 Trumpet wrote:On December 06 2012 05:19 Danglars wrote:
... and there's enough Repulicans up in Washington willing to get bruised a little to limit tax and spend policies and defend freedom for even the top 2%. Is a tax increase really an attack on freedom? NPR gave a somewhat comical view of the fiscal "negotiations" going on: link It's not really an unknown claim. Of course, I don't want to write an essay on how progressive taxes of any kind constitute a violation of equality before the law, or at what point that becomes so. I got real tired of hearing about the Republican "War on Women" during the campaign. Suffice it to say that somewhere between the government confiscates between 1 extra percent from a rich man, solely based on the extra money he earns, and 99% or 100% extra that it constitutes an attack on that man's freedom. I am free to keep about 80% of the money I earn and spend it as I wish. These new guys in the top 2% have less of an ability to spend their hard-earned money than I do. The government, these days presuming to be the more capable one in giving charitably, spends it for them on more worthy things. I'm not saying raising the rates across the board, or even a base progressive income tax I would even describe it that way, let somebody else develop that one or look at ongoing debates in academia or think tanks. I say singling out the top 1% or 2% or 10% or 20% and saying that THEY will see their rates go up in order to pay for more spending programs and existing debt, I say THAT constitutes the assault. In the same way a smaller country might nationalize a business for the good of the people, this is re appropriating wealth. Take a step back, here's the whole post again, spoilered, my main thrust being the discussion on what caving on tax increases (Many top Republicans signed a no-new-taxes pledge) means for the identity and support base of the Republican party. + Show Spoiler +On December 06 2012 05:19 Danglars wrote:This leads many of us to wonder what the Republican Party stands for these days. It used to be across the board tax cuts; everybody sees their tax rate drop. Boehner's shooting himself in the foot with conservatives here. Luckily for him, he has maybe the hardest to believe wiggle room here: that the Denocrats would be willing to compromise just for loophole and deduction reductions as a means of increasing revenues. He doesn't raise tax rates, there's maybe 0.8 trillion raised, and somehow spending cuts are approved. Time is ticking down and I think enough Republicans will cave when they see themselves successfully painted of as sticks in the mud. Sore losers. Not elected representatives committed to start reducing the growth of the debt through spending cuts first and foremost. Tea party influence is still small within the party leadership. I'm hoping against hope that I am wrong, and there's enough Repulicans up in Washington willing to get bruised a little to limit tax and spend policies and defend freedom for even the top 2%. Just know why I said it, I have no desire of getting tangled up on one metaphor.
Why Republicans would ever give a man like Grover Norquist defacto ideological figurehead status I will never understand, and accordingly, your insistence on the the manifestation of the vilification of progressive taxation (lol i had to) as the standard-bearing identification of the Republican Party is not really supported by anything truly factual. The identity of the Republican Party is not some definite quantity that one call upon unequivocally during times of inner-party duress, it is a fluid concept that draws on a multitude of constituent factors that necessarily reflect the contemporary political zeitgeist. Now, I can understand why you amongst other anti-tax Republicans would speak so certainly as it pertains to the identity of the party; the Republican primary this past year was proof in the pudding that the essence of the Republican Party is up for debate, and a widely divergent one at that. For a time, the primary polls amounted to a brand of GOP ideological roulette, as Fox News and punditry danced back and forth between candidates while the undecided Republican could do nothing but hold on, for it was a bumpy ride. Now don't get me wrong, Democratic primaries have seen their ideologically schismatic squabbles, but never to this degree, and I think a lot of that chaos of the past election cycle has fed into the current "fiscal cliff" instability and loggerheads, especially in terms of the Republican Party as a bargaining agent.
To speak more directly to your point, for I've rambled a bit, you've gotta do a fair amount of footwork if you are going to insist that a majority of Republicans do not believe in the diminishing marginal utility of income.
|
The fiscal cliff is some bullshit. Because congress couldn't get anything done, they put in this arbitrary date after which things will go to shit to motivate themselves. How about instead of screwing over everybody, we just say that if no deal is reached none of the current congressmen can get re-elected. I'm sure that would foster a spirit of co-operation between the two parties.
|
On December 06 2012 10:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 10:27 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2012 08:22 Trumpet wrote:On December 06 2012 05:19 Danglars wrote:
... and there's enough Repulicans up in Washington willing to get bruised a little to limit tax and spend policies and defend freedom for even the top 2%. Is a tax increase really an attack on freedom? NPR gave a somewhat comical view of the fiscal "negotiations" going on: link It's not really an unknown claim. Of course, I don't want to write an essay on how progressive taxes of any kind constitute a violation of equality before the law, or at what point that becomes so. I got real tired of hearing about the Republican "War on Women" during the campaign. Suffice it to say that somewhere between the government confiscates between 1 extra percent from a rich man, solely based on the extra money he earns, and 99% or 100% extra that it constitutes an attack on that man's freedom. I am free to keep about 80% of the money I earn and spend it as I wish. These new guys in the top 2% have less of an ability to spend their hard-earned money than I do. The government, these days presuming to be the more capable one in giving charitably, spends it for them on more worthy things. I'm not saying raising the rates across the board, or even a base progressive income tax I would even describe it that way, let somebody else develop that one or look at ongoing debates in academia or think tanks. I say singling out the top 1% or 2% or 10% or 20% and saying that THEY will see their rates go up in order to pay for more spending programs and existing debt, I say THAT constitutes the assault. In the same way a smaller country might nationalize a business for the good of the people, this is re appropriating wealth. Take a step back, here's the whole post again, spoilered, my main thrust being the discussion on what caving on tax increases (Many top Republicans signed a no-new-taxes pledge) means for the identity and support base of the Republican party. + Show Spoiler +On December 06 2012 05:19 Danglars wrote:This leads many of us to wonder what the Republican Party stands for these days. It used to be across the board tax cuts; everybody sees their tax rate drop. Boehner's shooting himself in the foot with conservatives here. Luckily for him, he has maybe the hardest to believe wiggle room here: that the Denocrats would be willing to compromise just for loophole and deduction reductions as a means of increasing revenues. He doesn't raise tax rates, there's maybe 0.8 trillion raised, and somehow spending cuts are approved. Time is ticking down and I think enough Republicans will cave when they see themselves successfully painted of as sticks in the mud. Sore losers. Not elected representatives committed to start reducing the growth of the debt through spending cuts first and foremost. Tea party influence is still small within the party leadership. I'm hoping against hope that I am wrong, and there's enough Repulicans up in Washington willing to get bruised a little to limit tax and spend policies and defend freedom for even the top 2%. Just know why I said it, I have no desire of getting tangled up on one metaphor. Why Republicans would ever give a man like Grover Norquist defacto ideological figurehead status I will never understand, and accordingly, your insistence on the the manifestation of the vilification of progressive taxation (lol i had to) as the standard-bearing identification of the Republican Party is not really supported by anything truly factual. The identity of the Republican Party is not some definite quantity that one call upon unequivocally during times of inner-party duress, it is a fluid concept that draws on a multitude of constituent factors that necessarily reflect the contemporary political zeitgeist. Now, I can understand why you amongst other anti-tax Republicans would speak so certainly as it pertains to the identity of the party; the Republican primary this past year was proof in the pudding that the essence of the Republican Party is up for debate, and a widely divergent one at that. For a time, the primary polls amounted to a brand of GOP ideological roulette, as Fox News and punditry danced back and forth between candidates while the undecided Republican could do nothing but hold on, for it was a bumpy ride. Now don't get me wrong, Democratic primaries have seen their ideologically schismatic squabbles, but never to this degree, and I think a lot of that chaos of the past election cycle has fed into the current "fiscal cliff" instability and loggerheads, especially in terms of the Republican Party as a bargaining agent. To speak more directly to your point, for I've rambled a bit, you've gotta do a fair amount of footwork if you are going to insist that a majority of Republicans do not believe in the diminishing marginal utility of income.
You've hit the nail on the head with the tax plan. That is an ideological position and very central to current debates within the Republican party and elsewhere. In the spirit of the thread, I'd like to show instead of grandstand. I don't even reserve the hope that I can ideologically change the mind of one reader of this thread; a lot of this is cemented too hard, you either believe one way or the other and it is gonna years of personal observation and perhaps incessant arguing with close friends to change mind from one to another. But as Churchill said, "Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." He observed mood change in his circumstance with age, maybe some here will reverse course one way or the other in time. So I may not have the years to argue about the factual support and whom it supports, merely detailing some of the reasons I believe how I do and some of the facts and history that shows it.
On with the showing. Bob Woodward has chronicled politics for years, most famously exposing Nixon's Watergate. In an interview posted to the Politico today, he (they're only about 2 minutes long) hits at the heart of it. It's political groundhog day. We've seen this all before. Looming financial crisis if action isn't taken, millions of people suddenly with less money to pay the bills. Temporary compromise passed, and my big spender Republican last time and his Congress couldn't get passed permanent tax cuts. Call me shading the debate with rose colored glasses, but I'm seeing the same kind of negotiators and compromises at the table that I did last time. Woodward sees a misbehaving government willing to murky through the core job of Congress, and also sees Obama owning this economy in time, even though he passed off an "I did my best with something bad" for the 2012 elections. "Who is Obama?" he asks, with the backdrop being two guys with so much power going at it behind closed doors a political game of chicken with the American people in the lurch. I was lucky, only spending 3 hours of my time last month making fiscal cliff calculations with a nonprofit while I'd rather be sleeping for work the next day. Boehner is out there making overtones to caving on tax increases, and I'm wondering if he actually believes in anything in the GOP party position worth fighting for. No wonder politicians got the reputation of saying what they needed to in order to get elected, and doing the exact opposite when they arrive. I ask anyone reading if they ever remember the recommendations of Obama's debt panel. On point, you elect Republicans, they mouth support for tax cuts and a hard line on tax increases to get elected, arrive in Washington and cave. Save face measures when they publicize big panels investigating deficit reduction strategies that they can ignore when its released to very little media attention--as long as its widely publicized that they asked a bunch of smart people for their advice.
A majority of Republicans pretend they're gonna fight hard for lower taxes (Conservative belief that American tax rates are still too high, and their lowering will spur economic growth generating new tax revenue that partially offsets the revenue lost from lower taxes) and surrender that belief at the drop of a hat. I'm talking about people that would lose their primaries if their voting base thought for a MILLISECOND that they would seriously consider raising taxes. There's a few moderate Republicans that could feasibly run on incumbency and talk of the possibility of tax increases. So many moderates were thrown out in 2010 by Tea Party candidates in the primary and election without Republican National Committee support. But lo and behold, the candidate this time around looked like a moderate for all but the final days of the primaries (conservatives rallied behind Herman Cain and Newt among others) and a conservative for the real elections (only talked about closing tax loopholes and no tax increases to provide additional revenue for the government). In that sense you're right, the Republican heart shifts and I consider myself a Conservative trying to push/persuade the Republican party to my side, unwilling to try to vault a third party up to die in the 2 party contest. You're right about the heart of the Republican party, our speaker is quite the moderate. I say many Republicans voting for a plan that includes tax increases and not enough spending cuts are going to be looking for new jobs in two years. Their support lies in the broad conservative base and tax increases loses it.
But, really, is it true that spending cuts become just papercuts while tax increases go through more easily? That the Republican side too willing to cave? Novak (50 years reporting in Washington) in The Prince of Darkness his swap in ideological factions (aka he supported Ike, a moderate republican, and later in life found himself agreeing with Taft). He was watching when Bush Sr. said, "Read my lips: no new taxes." I lay before you that Bush said this to shore up his conservative base that wanted the tradition of Reagan-style tax cuts to continue, and saw Bush as that moderate that would cave, like moderates do. Bush went on to change his mind, as voters had feared, pass a tax increases and become a one-term president. Hmm. Compromising on an issue that big really does give opportunity for somebody to come in and vote split. Well, after that Clinton arrives, and started passing into law the agenda that Democrats had wanted for a while and hadn't gotten all of. That's 1992. Midterm election in 1994 saw the Democrats with 2 years of Clinton, and Clinton's political consultants plus Clinton sure that their universal health care solution "Hillarycare" (came close to passing) would carry the day in Congress. Voters had had enough and took the House that had been in Democratic hands for the 58 of the past 62 years. Welfare reform (spending cuts) and a capital gains tax (tax cuts) followed. Newt Gingrich led the charge back then with Contract with America, a very conservative sounding piece meant to finally assuage conservatives disgusted then as now with Republicans that had no intention to holding back the tax and spend policy norm (First you get the money by promising that you're also gonna cut the spending and balance the books, then you spend even more money because they foolishly thought you were gonna really cut spending). And yes, it's pretty easy to negotiate your plan on federal taxation and federal spending when you control the House in that kind of landslide change.
Newt then went mushy on our faction of the Republican party, detailed by Novak in his book. I give you two examples of that. He had this dialogue with a right-wing meeting
"What would you say, Mr. Novak, if I were to tell you that half the Democratic professional staffers on the House Appropriations Committee are being retained by the Republicans?"
"I would say it was an outrage," I replied. And yes, he kept big-spending appropriators around and got a liberal Republican to chair the House Appropriations Committee. Again from Novak,
[A story in the Hill] was perhaps the greatest expose of behind-the-scenes Capitol Hill machinations that I Had seen in half a century of Congress-watching. [Sandy] Hume reported that long-simmering discontent within the big, unruly Class of 1994 had reached critical mass when Speaker Gingrich continued his leftward lurch by abandoning efforts to defund the National Endowment for the Arts. and goes on to talk about the revolt as Sandy Hume found it. I do recommend the book for how a ideological conservative reported on the shifting factions vying for control from the age past all the way to the 2004 election. Later, we ran the liberal Bob Dole in 1996 and lost. Bush sounded like the best we could get for a conservative, and in debates with Gore sounded that way, and barely won. Proved to be a big spender and led Congress to do the same, fiscally a mess and definitely lost conservative support, though the wars were a bigger deal.
All this is to say something which, in my mind, is very small. Republican candidates that stop supporting tax cuts and pass tax increases lose their conservative support and have only incumbency and the moderate wing to try and save themselves. The pressure in Washington is for the Republican side to cave massively in contrast to what they were elected to do, and there is a history of that happening. Voters therefore have a reason and not a small amount of history on their side when they distrust the Republicans they elect from negotiating fiercely for their positions. The trend is you increase government spending and increase taxes, passing small spending decreasing here and there. That is why I place tax cuts and a hard line on tax increases at the heart of the Boehner wibble wobble, though a shifting heart of the Republican party. That is why I say we've seen this before. Democrats are set to regain the House if Boehner loses in the game of chicken. They already have plenty of people buying their agenda, as seen in the 2012 elections, and soon a very lessened support. I say primarily that this is not a Norquist problem, but the latest in the ongoing struggle between moderates that don't have enough base, and conservatives that have a greater share of the base but no party power. I certain influential conservative recently spent two hours before about 14 million discussing why the waffling.
|
interesting reading, thanks danglars
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Churchill didn't say that, Danglars. The quote is from Francois Guizot and he was referring to a democracy and a monarchy.
That's all I have to say. :d
|
Thanks for that Danglars, the only components of your argument that I take issue with are largely due to items of partisan disagreement, so I'll leave those tired pickings aside. I'm not entirely sure that conservatives have enough of a base to continue fighting the demographic changes that are only going to continue, so this is more or less their last ditch moment to take control of the party in my mind. I'm not entirely sure how they'll go about this via the fiscal cliff talks other than simply voting down anything they are faced with, which I suppose remains their prerogative, but I think the real answer to the question of who is captaining the GOP boat will come with this next election cycle. Either a bunch of voters will come out and support the anti-tax ultimatums of their elected representatives, or we'll see the moderates and liberals learn from their 2010 mistakes and make a good fight for control in the face of gerrymandering (which may be all they can do). In any case, I'm not sure the future looks great for the Republican Party, though who can say the future looks great for anyone these days 
|
At this point sc2superfan101, I'd appreciate it if you used quotes. You're mixing issues, you're not responding in order (which also makes it difficult to understand what you're responding to), and, what's more, quoting me would help prevent you from ignoring what I said/the evidence I provided you with.
On December 06 2012 00:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:
@kwizach
the protests in the the other countries as a pretext... they couldn't have used a protest in Benghazi as a pretext when there was no protest in Benghazi. and the point of that quote was not to discount the existence of a protest (though it inadvertently does) but rather to show that there was never any indication that the attack was motivated by the video. which was another false claim by Susan Rice and the administration.
Some of the initial reporting, both in the media and by the intelligence community, did - falsely - indicate that there had been protests outside of the Benghazi outpost. Which is why some were wondering whether militants had used the protests (those that were thought to have happened there and those in Cairo) as a pretext to launch the attacks. I have provided you with direct reporting which specifically addresses this point. I've highlighted it in bold in my last message, so I suggest you go read it again.
First of all, I already addressed this. Several times. Secondly, Al-Qaeda-linked militants being involved is not synonymous to the attack being preplanned. The two are different issues. Your link is about Al-Qaeda-linked militants being involved, and I've already provided you with two links, including one referring to Petraeus' testimony, which explained why Rice used the term "extremists" (and was asked to use it by the intelligence community) to refer to the militants rather than name the groups involved more precisely. She therefore never said that militants weren't involved (something you acknowledged yourself). Thirdly, there's a difference between being wrong and lying. She did not lie. She was wrong about the attack having evolved from protests, because she was given bad intel by the intelligence community which genuinely thought it was likely to have been the case when they provided her with the intel and the talking points, as shown in the articles I provided you with. She remained prudent and said the information was susceptible to change as the investigation uncovered more details.
On December 06 2012 00:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:next, an article from Sept 13: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/13/168415/no-protest-before-benghazi-attack.htmlShow nested quote + The guard, interviewed Thursday in the hospital where he is being treated for five shrapnel wounds in one leg and two bullet wounds in the other, said that the consulate area was quiet – “there wasn’t a single ant outside,” he said – until about 9:35 p.m., when as many as 125 armed men descended on the compound from all directions. there has yet to be provided to me any evidence that there was a protest. and since there never was a protest, why on earth would any intelligence or the State dpt. or the administration think that there was? we know that the House Intelligence Committee chairman was just as confused at the insistence that there as a protest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Criticism_of_U.S._government_responseShow nested quote +Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who on the 13th of September said that the attacks had all the hallmarks of a coordinated attack by al-Qaeda, has questioned whether there were any protests at all in Benghazi, saying: "I have seen no information that shows that there was a protest going on as you have seen around any other embassy at the time. It was clearly designed to be an attack."
I suggest you go ask the intelligence community why they were confused about the possibility of there having been a protest, because they were, as I've shown you. There were conflicting reports, apparently notably because when more U.S. agents reached the scene many locals had also entered the area, possibly to see what was going on. The bottom line is that the intelligence community initially thought there had been protests, and that we don't know the detail of all the reports they were receiving. Feel free to blame them.
On December 06 2012 00:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:
what's especially funny about it is that so far, the media has been ahead of the administration and the CIA by at least a week on their information. apparently it's okay that our intelligence agencies are so worthless that they might as well just ask Fox News and CNN what's going on in the world.
Not true at all. Some of the reporting in the media initially did mention protests. In fact, McCain himself, who is now crucifying Rice, initially said that "demonstrations" were used by a small group of jihadists to attack. Also, (from what you're saying) Fox News apparently completely ruled out the possibility of the video having played a role, while it's possible it still did (even if only for the timing).
|
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wanted to prove on Thursday that Democrats don’t have the votes to weaken Congress’ authority on the debt limit. Instead they called his bluff, and he ended up filibustering his own bill.
The legislation, modeled on a proposal McConnell offered last year as a “last-choice option” to avert a U.S. debt default, would permit the president to unilaterally lift the debt ceiling unless Congress mustered a two-thirds majority to stop him.
McConnell brought up the legislation Thursday morning. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) initially objected, seemingly proving the Republican leader’s point that it cannot pass the Senate. But then Reid ran it by his members and, in the afternoon, agreed to hold that same vote. This time it was McConnell who objected.
“The Republican leader objects to his own idea,” Reid declared on the floor. “So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill.”
Source
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
^ lol.
Tea party leader resigned. Who's gonna step up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
