"It's the continuing dumbing down of the Republican Party,"

**Bowden** · 12-22-2012, 07:49 AM

Excellent article on some of the issues facing the GOP.
Like the article points out, demographic numbers are shifting away from their traditional base of support.

Compromise is required within a democracy.
Some in both the GOP and the democratic party have the attitude that it's my way or the highway.
Democracies cannot survive under those polarized conditions.

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - House Republicans seem shocked by their party's meltdown on the so-called fiscal cliff. They shouldn't be.
The uncompromising conservatives who blocked Speaker John Boehner's tax bill were merely sticking to policies that Boehner and nearly all other GOP leaders have pushed, without reservation, for years: It's always wrong to raise tax rates on anyone, no matter how rich. The nation's big deficit is entirely "a spending problem, not a revenue problem." And in any deficit-reduction plan, spending cuts must overwhelm new revenues, by 10-to-1 if not more.

To be surprised by Boehner's failure is to assume one of two things. Either House conservatives didn't really believe their party's bedrock principles; or they would compromise after seeing President Barack Obama win re-election on a deficit-reduction plan that called for higher taxes on the wealthy.
Neither was true. And now the Republican Party is reeling from unbending fealty to its core principles.

Congress' structure makes compromise essential, and the nation once lionized the 19th century senator and congressman Henry Clay as "the Great Compromiser." But the modern Republican Party is heavily energized by the tea party movement, which sees compromise as a triumph of flabby pragmatism over courageous conviction.
All these threads weaved themselves into a knot late Thursday that strangled Boehner's bid to position his party behind a tiny concession on tax hikes. Whereas Obama campaigned to raise tax rates on couples making more than $250,000 ? a threshold he offered to raise in postelection negotiations Boehner asked his House Republican colleagues to accept higher rates only on millionaires.

When an undisclosed number refused, Boehner had to abruptly send Congress home for the holidays and face reporters asking if he will lose his speakership.
"We had a number of our members who just really didn't want to be perceived as having raised taxes," even on millionaires, Boehner explained Friday.
And with good reason, many would say. The Republican establishment has long embraced activist Grover Norquist's drive to persuade nearly every GOP lawmaker to pledge never to raise taxes on anyone, no matter how big the gap between federal revenue and spending.

Even though conservative heroes such as President Ronald Reagan raised taxes at times, the anti-tax pledge became the Republican Party's "brand," as Norquist often said.
Norquist on Wednesday said Boehner's proposed tax on millionaires would not technically violate the pledge. But it was too late, or too little, for many House Republicans.
"We made a pledge not to let taxes go up," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. Barton entered Congress 24 years before the tea party's birth, proof that unyielding tax aversion runs deep.

Such intransigence in the face of a narrowly divided U.S. electorate dismays Republicans who say compromise can be vital to a party's survival.
The collapse of Boehner's tax effort "weakens the entire Republican Party," said Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, who is retiring after 18 years.
"It's the continuing dumbing down of the Republican Party," he said, "and we are going to be seen more and more as a bunch of extremists that can't even get a majority of our own people to support policies that we're putting forward. If you're not a governing majority, you're not going to be a majority very long."
Republican consultant and writer Craig Shirley told The Washington Post: "The national GOP is now simply a collection of warring tribal factions."
Republicans point to their success in maintaining control of the House, now assured for 16 of 20 years since 1994.

It's also true, however, that Democrats this year won more House votes nationwide than Republicans did. And Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.

For some time, signs have indicated the Republican Party is shifting away from majority public opinion on key issues. They include taxes and spending.
Despite Republican leaders' insistence that the deficit be tackled with spending cuts alone, and no new taxes, a recent Pew Research Center poll found a different public view. The vast majority of Americans say the deficit should be addressed with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts in major programs.

Few prominent Republicans protested when Mitt Romney, the eventual presidential nominee, joined his primary opponents in saying he would reject a deficit-reduction plan even if it raised $1 in new revenue for every $10 in spending cuts. Some conservative writers said the GOP should exult in so lop-sided a deal.
But Romney's acquiescence contributed to the view that modern Republican leaders are well to the right of their predecessors, not to mention most American voters. In June, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said his father, former President George H.W. Bush, and Reagan would have a hard time being nominated by today's Republican activists.
Scores, if not hundreds, of House members focus more intensely on their home district's politics than on their national party's reputation. Many Republicans from staunchly conservative districts fear a primary election challenge from someone to their right.

Obama said this week he realizes that many House Republicans "come from districts that I lost. And so sometimes they may not see an incentive in cooperating with me, in part because they're more concerned about challenges from a tea party candidate, or challenges from the right."
Obama has his own problems with unbending liberals who want to protect Social Security, Medicare and other social programs from virtually any cuts. Obama's positions have varied, but he clearly signaled in his 2011 "grand bargain" talks with Boehner that he was willing to slow those programs' growth as part of a deficit-reduction, tax-increase deal.
It's still possible that Obama, Boehner and Congress can reach a deal to avert the "fiscal cliff" before the Jan. 1 deadline. For now, however, the House Republicans' internal warfare makes it easier for opponents to paint them as extremists, unworthy of serious negotiations.

"The president and Congress have no obligation to radical Republicans who have no ground to stand on," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
It's doubtful that any congressional Republicans see themselves as radicals. Polls nonetheless show that key GOP policies are drifting from mainstream American sentiment. The Republican establishment has yet to do much about it.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE - Charles Babington covers Congress and politics for The Associated Press. Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.

**LAM** · 12-22-2012, 08:31 AM

it's all ideology for them, every single top economist say there are specific rates for taxes that would produce optimum efficiency and sustainable growth in a capitalist economy. and they are far from "as low as possible", not even close.

**Bowden** · 12-22-2012, 09:07 AM

Taxes are the lowest that they have been in 50 years.
Capital Gains and Dividend taxes are at 15%.

The wealthy like Romney are paying a 15% tax rate on their passive income that is captured from a lower rate on Capital Gains and Dividends.
If supply side economics was a valid theory where in the hell are all of the jobs due to trickle down economics that these lower taxes should have been be generating for the past ten years?

The fiscal cliff and regulations have nothing to do with this problem as those lower tax rates were implemented over ten years ago and most of the same regulations were in place then as now.

It's all crap.
What is happening is that capital is trickling up in the form of reduced wages and benefits from the lower economic classes to the upper investor and wealthy and rich economic classes who are holding onto the captured capital instead of reinvesting it back into the economy.

As well they have traded jobs for profits and off shored a great deal of industry/jobs out of the U.S at all levels, blue collar and white collar.
Both manufacturing and especially in the Information technology industries.
This is also causing a National Security problem as both of those industries are critical related to National Security.

That has had a direct impact on the U.S. job market and reduced the level of jobs in the U.S.
It has also had a direct impact on the rise of the U.S. deficit/debt, and increases class warfare.

Lesser jobs means more people relying on expensive welfare government services who becoming more and more are attracted towards big government socialism as a means of survival and lesser numbers of employed people are paying taxes.
All of this is cumulative as to adding to the problem.

**Dale Mabry** · 12-22-2012, 11:26 AM

It's actually quite comical the way they manipulate their base with propaganda. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Ok then, quit your job and try to pay back all of your credit card debt and see what happens. Not that the dems are better, they're just dumb in other areas.

**heckler7** · 12-22-2012, 12:35 PM

fox news is sayn that the fiscal cliff will cause another recession, is this true Lam? For the most part I do see private aviation slow down when these news reports come out. Most people who have corporate jets usually have fox news on 24/7 in their offices.

**Swiper** · 12-22-2012, 01:08 PM

Romney pays about 14%, 47% of the American people don't even pay federal income taxes. thats fair, right?

**Zaphod** · 12-22-2012, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Swiper

Romney pays about 14%, 47% of the American people don't even pay federal income taxes. thats fair, right?

When that 47% lives below a certain level of income, yes, it's fair.

**Swiper** · 12-22-2012, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Zaphod

When that 47% lives below a certain level of income, yes, it's fair.

fair to whom?

it's not their fault they make a small income. it's always someone else's fault. so society needs to let them live federal income tax free. right?

don't get me wrong. i actually like the fact they pay no fed income tax. now we just need to get the other 53% not to pay.

**maniclion** · 12-22-2012, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Swiper

fair to whom?

it's not their fault they make a small income. it's always someone else's fault. so society needs to let them live federal income tax free. right?

don't get me wrong. i actually like the fact they pay no fed income tax. now we just need to get the other 53% not to pay.

How is it their fault, someone has to do the low paying jobs, we just don't have enough high paying jobs for everyone in the country to realize the American Dream. Then their are those who have realized the American Dream a million times over and still keep taking and taking, at some point those people should realize "Hey I made mine, maybe I should leave a little for someone else. There isn't infinite amounts of money out there, and when someone has more than they or their family for 20 generations could ever need then they are just being capitalist selfish swine, no better than royalty.

**Swiper** · 12-22-2012, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by maniclion

How is it their fault, someone has to do the low paying jobs, we just don't have enough high paying jobs for everyone in the country to realize the American Dream. Then their are those who have realized the American Dream a million times over and still keep taking and taking, at some point those people should realize "Hey I made mine, maybe I should leave a little for someone else. There isn't infinite amounts of money out there, and when someone has more than they or their family for 20 generations could ever need then they are just being capitalist selfish swine, no better than royalty.

i stand corrected. you're right. it's not their fault. they chose to take a low paying job.

**Zaphod** · 12-22-2012, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Swiper

fair to whom?

it's not their fault they make a small income. it's always someone else's fault. so society needs to let them live federal income tax free. right?

don't get me wrong. i actually like the fact they pay no fed income tax. now we just need to get the other 53% not to pay.

If you doubled Romney's income tax rate it wouldn't affect his lifestyle one iota. You put a 14% tax on someone making $35k/year and you put a serious burden on them. It isn't rocket science.

**LAM** · 12-22-2012, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Swiper

i stand corrected. you're right. it's not their fault. they chose to take a low paying job.

shows what you know about the US economy. 25% of low paid workers in the US have either college degrees or some college behind them. jobs that used to pay middle class wages have disappeared and in short supply, and then 80% of the US population also lives in the metro area so then there's that and that little thing called inflation.

only 20% of the US workforce a high school educated or lower.

**LAM** · 12-22-2012, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Swiper

it's not their fault they make a small income. it's always someone else's fault. so society needs to let them live federal income tax free. right?

why is it that the US is pretty much the only country in the OECD outsourcing so much labor? and why is the GOP the only political party in the world fighting against organized labor?

**Swiper** · 12-22-2012, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

shows what you know about the US economy. 25% of low paid workers in the US have either college degrees or some college behind them. jobs that used to pay middle class wages have disappeared and in short supply, and then 80% of the US population also lives in the metro area so then there's that and that little thing called inflation.

only 20% of the US workforce a high school educated or lower.

people chose the job they have. no one puts a gun to their head and tells them where to work.

**Swiper** · 12-22-2012, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

why is it that the US is pretty much the only country in the OECD outsourcing so much labor? and why is the GOP the only political party in the world fighting against organized labor?

shows how little you know about labor. workers here are paid well compared to the rest of the world. labor is also cheaper over seas. pretty simple to understand if you ask me.

you'll have to ask your buddies in the GOP that question.

**Dale Mabry** · 12-23-2012, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Swiper

people chose the job they have. no one puts a gun to their head and tells them where to work.

I getcha. So what you're saying is that as long as somebody strives to be more they can. If everyone wanted to be an executive that makes $500k they can. In other words, if 100% of the population wanted to be CEO of a company all they need to do is work hard at it, there are no other constraints to that upward mobility and we would have a country full of CEOs. Oh yeah, so who's going to be emptying dumpsters and washing dishes in this utopia? BTW, have you seen what's happened to all of these lawyers that have graduated law school in the past 5 years? Yeah, they make dick if they're even employed at all.

**oufinny** · 12-23-2012, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I getcha. So what you're saying is that as long as somebody strives to be more they can. If everyone wanted to be an executive that makes $500k they can. In other words, if 100% of the population wanted to be CEO of a company all they need to do is work hard at it, there are no other constraints to that upward mobility and we would have a country full of CEOs. Oh yeah, so who's going to be emptying dumpsters and washing dishes in this utopia? BTW, have you seen what's happened to all of these lawyers that have graduated law school in the past 5 years? Yeah, they make dick if they're even employed at all.

That would be my cousin that is a public defender because it is the only job she can get...

**DOMS** · 12-23-2012, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I getcha. So what you're saying is that as long as somebody strives to be more they can. If everyone wanted to be an executive that makes $500k they can. In other words, if 100% of the population wanted to be CEO of a company all they need to do is work hard at it, there are no other constraints to that upward mobility and we would have a country full of CEOs. Oh yeah, so who's going to be emptying dumpsters and washing dishes in this utopia? BTW, have you seen what's happened to all of these lawyers that have graduated law school in the past 5 years? Yeah, they make dick if they're even employed at all.

The will be no utopia because you cannot force everyone to be the sort of person that succeeds in any great amount. Most people are destined for mediocrity because most people -- on a global scale -- are mediocre.

I've said it before, and I'll reiterate it here: the idea that all people are equal is nonsense and completely divorced from reality.

**Zaphod** · 12-23-2012, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Swiper

people chose the job they have. no one puts a gun to their head and tells them where to work.

So if someone is unemployed, holding out for a better paying job they're a freeloading sack of shit. Or if they take whatever is available fuck 'em because they took the job? Damned if they do, damned if they don't, eh?

**Dale Mabry** · 12-24-2012, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by DOMS

The will be no utopia because you cannot force everyone to be the sort of person that succeeds in any great amount. Most people are destined for mediocrity because most people -- on a global scale -- are mediocre.

I've said it before, and I'll reiterate it here: the idea that all people are equal is nonsense and completely divorced from reality.

100% agree. I remember you saying you come from fairly poor stock, I do as well. I don't want the gov't handing money to just anyone, but if someone wants to succeed they should be given every opportunity to and I have no problem with it being done with tax dollars.

**DOMS** · 12-24-2012, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

100% agree. I remember you saying you come from fairly poor stock, I do as well. I don't want the gov't handing money to just anyone, but if someone wants to succeed they should be given every opportunity to and I have no problem with it being done with tax dollars.

Sort of. All of my relatives are, at least, upper middle class. My mom divorced my dad, so pretty much all of her family, blood-related and otherwise, turned their backs on her. She had no idea how to take care of herself, much less children. Hell, she got a pony for her fifth birthday. She was too prideful to get any sort of assistance, so I grew up as poor as you can in this country. I starved on many occasions. My mother did take the time to instill proper manners and work ethics, because that's what she was taught growing up.

Growing up like that, I learned the difference between being white and poor, and being white trash. I also had the opportunity to learn that the vast majority of poor deserve to be poor. The simply do nothing to better their station in life. The bitch and whine about others have stuff, but do nothing to work their way up the fiscal and social strata.

There are already plenty of ways for a poor person, that works hard enough, to work their way up. But most poor never will. The USA, with all it's flaws, is still the best place on the Earth when it comes to being able to change ones station in life.

**Dale Mabry** · 12-24-2012, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by DOMS

The USA, with all it's flaws, is still the best place on the Earth when it comes to being able to change ones station in life.

Imo, that's sort of like being the smartest retard.

I agree that a large chunk of the poor are there because they deserve to be. IMO this is learned behavior that can be reversed with the right parents and educators.

**DOMS** · 12-24-2012, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Imo, that's sort of like being the smartest retard.

I do think that Earth needs a helmet...

And maybe a leash...

**Swiper** · 12-24-2012, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Zaphod

So if someone is unemployed, holding out for a better paying job they're a freeloading sack of shit. Or if they take whatever is available fuck 'em because they took the job? Damned if they do, damned if they don't, eh?

it's all about how bad you want to succeed in life. if my dumb ass could make it anyone can.

**Zaphod** · 12-24-2012, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Swiper

it's all about how bad you want to succeed in life. if my dumb ass could make it anyone can.

You really think you had it worse than anyone else? That you had fewer opportunities than anyone else?

**Swiper** · 12-24-2012, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Zaphod

You really think you had it worse than anyone else? That you had fewer opportunities than anyone else?

considering I only have a high school education and have ADD which I take no meds for, yes

**Zaphod** · 12-24-2012, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Swiper

considering I only have a high school education and have ADD which I take no meds for, yes

There are others that DON'T have a HS education, have had to work to support their family in the inner city and have ADD with no meds. Your life is a cake walk in comparison to others.

Everyone thinks they've got it worse than everybody else. Sheesh.

**Swiper** · 12-24-2012, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Zaphod

There are others that DON'T have a HS education, have had to work to support their family in the inner city and have ADD with no meds. Your life is a cake walk in comparison to others.

Everyone thinks they've got it worse than everybody else. Sheesh.

LOL So who's fault is it they chose not to addend HS? It's their own. they chose that life. now they have to deal with the consequences. yeah it sucks, but that's the life.

why would someone who has no HS education and makes little money decide to have a family they can't support?

**Zaphod** · 12-24-2012, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Swiper

LOL So who's fault is it they chose not to addend HS? It's their own. they chose that life. now they have to deal with the consequences. yeah it sucks, but that's the life.

why would someone who has no HS education and makes little money decide to have a family they can't support?

I said nothing about them having a family of their own. Some people need to quit school so they can help support the family they are growing up with. As in son needs to go to work to supplement the income of mom and dad.

So fuck you and your assumptions. People like you think you have it all figured out. Usually some dumbass that thinks "Oh, I finished high school with ADD and nobody had it worse than me!"

**Swiper** · 12-24-2012, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Zaphod

I said nothing about them having a family of their own. Some people need to quit school so they can help support the family they are growing up with. As in son needs to go to work to supplement the income of mom and dad.

So fuck you and your assumptions. People like you think you have it all figured out. Usually some dumbass that thinks "Oh, I finished high school with ADD and nobody had it worse than me!"

WTF are talking about? I never said i had it bad. I worked hard to get where i'm at. that's all. Some people probably like yourself have no work ethic and make a low income who's piss off at the world blaming everyone else but yourself for your failed life.

Thread: "It's the continuing dumbing down of the Republican Party,"

Thread Tools

Display