Ah, Those Republican Deficit Hawks

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:06 am

The most laughable part of this last election is that the Tea Party has forced the gop to sound even more ridiculous than it has in the past.

I'M HAVING trouble writing about the GOP effort to reach a compromise over whether to cut $100 billion out of the 2011 budget, or just $50-60 billion. My problem is that I can't really write about the advantages or disadvantages of one or another version of the cuts when the entire enterprise appears completely senseless to me.
GOP budget cuts: Deficit hawkery as farce | The Economist

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:01 am

Yup, no real difference at all between Republicrats. The most laughable notion is that government action & intervention can help solve the very problem it created.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:14 am

Accountable;1352577 wrote: Yup, no real difference at all between Republicrats. The most laughable notion is that government action & intervention can help solve the very problem it created.At least democrats (the non-conservative ones) were willing to permit the Bush tax cuts to expire. I'd call that a significant difference.

You know, it's amusing with you because when a representative is moderate you accuse them of a kind of collusion, but when a person such as myself advocates liberal solutions, you point an equally accusatory partisan finger at me. Is it a contradiction or just my perception?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:41 pm

The GOP is having a hard time trying to figure out how to have it's cake and eat it too. Most the "solutions" I've heard just involve blaming the cook. Which, in a democratic republic, is the voter.

The GOP doesn't want to pay taxes, but they also don't want debt. The prospect of cutting funding for military, police, prisons, education, vets benefits, etc also would be an act of political suicide. I suspect voter wrath will be aligned against the GOP in two years, since they ran on a platform promising roads that go downhill in both directions.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:12 pm

Ahso!;1352580 wrote: At least democrats (the non-conservative ones) were willing to permit the Bush tax cuts to expire. I'd call that a significant difference.

You know, it's amusing with you because when a representative is moderate you accuse them of a kind of collusion, but when a person such as myself advocates liberal solutions, you point an equally accusatory partisan finger at me. Is it a contradiction or just my perception?
Both the so-called liberal answer and the so-called conservative answer are to centralize yet more power in Washington, Increase revenue to Washington, and waste more citizens' money -- so much so that they're targeting future generations. For all their bluster, the debate is never to do or not to do, but only over how to do.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:30 pm

Accountable;1352609 wrote: Both the so-called liberal answer and the so-called conservative answer are to centralize yet more power in Washington, Increase revenue to Washington, and waste more citizens' money -- so much so that they're targeting future generations. For all their bluster, the debate is never to do or not to do, but only over how to do.I'm quite familiar with your stubborn preconceived notion about everything government by now. You don't seem to bother taking much into consideration outside your 'everyone in government wants more centralized power' mantra. What I've put forward as a difference between the two parties is not significant enough for you? How about the health care law that was voted on mostly along party lines by democrats which republicans are now attempting to repeal? Those two examples taken together is about as opposite as it gets.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:59 am

Ahso!;1352616 wrote: I'm quite familiar with your stubborn preconceived notion about everything government by now. You don't seem to bother taking much into consideration outside your 'everyone in government wants more centralized power' mantra. What I've put forward as a difference between the two parties is not significant enough for you? How about the health care law that was voted on mostly along party lines by democrats which republicans are now attempting to repeal? Those two examples taken together is about as opposite as it gets.As usual, you only listen to the half that supports your view. Repubs have been chanting Repeal And Replace, not just repeal. The control is in Washington, the control will stay in Washington. I don't think the repubs would be calling for repeal if they thought they could succeed. It's all fog & bullshit for you, their loyal partisans. If we has a repub senate and president, they would be using words like 'alter' and 'shrink' - shrink of course meaning to exaggerate the projected costs so that they could reduce that, rather than actually spend less money.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:59 am

Bryn linked a site that illustrates my point quite nicely:

US State Senatorial Positions

These readings are based on their senators' opinions, NOT on the general public opinion at any given time within the state. This might make some of the readings seem surprising. For instance, many states which are considered "battleground" states in the 2008 general election actually have two senators of the same party and/or two senators with similar voting records, pushing their reading away from the middle and toward a more "red" or "blue" position. The senators' views (the actual reading) often correlate with the public opinion in the state, making this chart an interesting way to look at state opinions. Bear in mind that this will not always be the case.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:19 am

Accountable;1352622 wrote: As usual, you only listen to the half that supports your view. Repubs have been chanting Repeal And Replace, not just repeal. The control is in Washington, the control will stay in Washington. I don't think the repubs would be calling for repeal if they thought they could succeed. It's all fog & bullshit for you, their loyal partisans. If we has a repub senate and president, they would be using words like 'alter' and 'shrink' - shrink of course meaning to exaggerate the projected costs so that they could reduce that, rather than actually spend less money.They've had to because as Nancy Pelosi accurately predicted, even in the short amount of time (and very limited implementation) of the law it's gaining widespread popularity pretty quickly as the public becomes more familiar with it. The republicans, like any smart bunch now realize they must try to appeal to those constituents who now prefer a health care law, so they've been softening their position. It's my personal belief however, if gop was successful in their repeal efforts, replacement would drag on until the public appetite once again waned.

Gop members have been speaking out both sides of their collective mouths insisting the economy suffers from uncertainty of climate, but refuse to put this puppy to bed and get to the business of permitting the economy to stabilize.

Unless the Supreme Court legislates from the bench by usurping the will of congress, this health care law is here to stay. Get used to it.

(Though I should say that with a court made up of the likes of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Scalia usurping any person or authority is possible.)

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:33 am

There's nothing surprising there. I doubt any of the senators actually took the test, so the results are most likely based on each ones voting record, which, if I'm correct, would be more representative of where they perceive their constituents (highest paying and most powerful lobbyists) to be.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:01 am

Accountable;1352627 wrote: Bryn linked a site that illustrates my point quite nicely:

US State Senatorial Positions

If I understand this, it doesn't make sense why libertarians tend to support the GOP does it? Between the two, the GOP is the most authoritarian, even in matters that makes no economic sense (opposing gay marriage, drug legalization, pro-corporate).

Also, just because one party is a fraud doesn't mean they both are, and to an equal degree. The democrats are to the left of the GOP and that's what they campaign on. Sure, they are still fairly conservative, but they generally don't claim to be socialists ... they are scared of the word. But it's another thing to campaign on "freedom" and be more authotarian than the opposing party, like the GOP. Or to run on cutting spending, then blow 4 trillion on Iraq. That's complete fraud.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:49 pm

I recall taking this test once before a few years ago and I think I was pretty much the same back then. Here's where I am on this graph currently.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:01 pm

Ahso!;1352628 wrote:

Unless the Supreme Court legislates from the bench by usurping the will of congress, this health care law is here to stay. Get used to it.Are you insinuating that to declare it unconstitutional to force citizens to purchase something from a private company is "legislating from the bench"? :wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:07 pm

yaaarrrgg;1352648 wrote: If I understand this, it doesn't make sense why libertarians tend to support the GOP does it? Between the two, the GOP is the most authoritarian, even in matters that makes no economic sense (opposing gay marriage, drug legalization, pro-corporate).

Also, just because one party is a fraud doesn't mean they both are, and to an equal degree. The democrats are to the left of the GOP and that's what they campaign on. Sure, they are still fairly conservative, but they generally don't claim to be socialists ... they are scared of the word. But it's another thing to campaign on "freedom" and be more authotarian than the opposing party, like the GOP. Or to run on cutting spending, then blow 4 trillion on Iraq. That's complete fraud.
I never mentioned anything about fraud. I never said the dems are not to the left of the repubs. I said they both have the same goal, and that goal is antithetical to freedom and liberty. Ahso should be even more against them than I.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:10 am

Accountable;1352696 wrote: I never mentioned anything about fraud. I never said the dems are not to the left of the repubs. I said they both have the same goal, and that goal is antithetical to freedom and liberty. Ahso should be even more against them than I.Why?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:17 am

Ahso!;1352776 wrote: Why?Really??

Different quadrants, different political ideology.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:37 am

Accountable;1352780 wrote: Really??

Different quadrants, different political ideology.I don't think they're antithetical, both parties behave exactly as any Darwinian minded person might expect.

Why would I expect much if any variation from people who were educated through the same system and practice the same religion? The battles which occur between political parties is Within Group fighting. From a distance the differences are small, but from a blown up view they appear large. So when I say there are huge differences between the parties, I'm viewing it close up, but as you say, from a longer view they appear very close.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 4:56 pm

Macro or micro, they're miles from you, if that chart is to be believed.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:11 pm

Accountable;1352817 wrote: Macro or micro, they're miles from you, if that chart is to be believed.I took the test, they didn't. If I were a US Senator my voting record might resemble theirs or I probably would not last more than a term. In reality people such as myself don't run for elected office.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:26 pm

Ahso!;1352821 wrote: I took the test, they didn't. If I were a US Senator my voting record might resemble theirs or I probably would not last more than a term. In reality people such as myself don't run for elected office.
WTF has that got to do with it? You mean it's okay that they drive the country off a cliff, so long as they personally believe it's the wrong thing to do??

I think it might be impossible for you admit when we agree, you're so into arguing.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:37 pm

Accountable;1352825 wrote: WTF has that got to do with it? You mean it's okay that they drive the country off a cliff, so long as they personally believe it's the wrong thing to do??

I think it might be impossible for you admit when we agree, you're so into arguing.It means they represent the majority (or most powerful) of their constituants, I'm not a member of the majority and I'm definately not powerful.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:52 am

Accountable;1352693 wrote: Are you insinuating that to declare it unconstitutional to force citizens to purchase something from a private company is "legislating from the bench"? :wah:Here's a good read:

In his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts famously said that the job of a judge was "to call balls and strikes." That analogy is wrong for several reasons, but it illustrates perfectly the problem judges have here. A baseball umpire must make a call on every pitch. But judges have a choice. If the Constitution doesn't give clear directions, they can decide not to decide. They need not strike the law down, nor uphold it. They should just admit, instead, that the Constitution does not direct any result. They should then step aside and let the political process unfold.

In the case of the health care reform law, where the Constitution gives no clear direction, judicial review is inherently and inescapably political. In our system, political decisions are the province of the elected branches—Congress and the president. Judges are charged with enforcing constitutional limits on government power when those limits can be discerned. But when the Constitution doesn't speak, judges have no authority to displace democratically made policy decisions with their own preferences.

That means, in sum, that the debate over health care reform doesn't belong in the courts. It should proceed in Congress, in election campaigns, and around workplace water coolers. Already, we see this happening. The Tea Party movement was born, in large part, in opposition to health care reform, and the movement's political adherents continue to push in Congress for the law's repeal or defunding. They may or may not succeed, but the important point is that the struggle over health care reform must be fought out by politicians and the voters who elect them. The best thing for judges to do in the absence of textual, interpretive, or any other wisdom about the constitutionality of health care reform? Nothing.Why judges should butt out of the fight over health care reform. - By Christopher Jon Sprigman - Slate Magazine

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:12 pm

Ahso! from some spinmeister wrote: In the case of the health care reform law, where the Constitution gives no clear direction, judicial review is inherently and inescapably political. In our system, political decisions are the province of the elected branches—Congress and the president. Judges are charged with enforcing constitutional limits on government power when those limits can be discerned. But when the Constitution doesn't speak, judges have no authority to displace democratically made policy decisions with their own preferences.That's some pretty funny tripe. So if Congress can make sure the laws they pass are worded such that the Constitution doesn't mention it, then it can't be ruled unconstitutional??? :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:19 pm

Accountable;1353594 wrote: That's some pretty funny tripe. So if Congress can make sure the laws they pass are worded such that the Constitution doesn't mention it, then it can't be ruled unconstitutional??? :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotflI see you're still smarting. It would probably help to read the entire piece. I thought you were interested in serious information. C'est la vie!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:21 pm

Ahso!;1353596 wrote: I see you're still smarting. It would probably help to read the entire piece. I thought you were interested in serious information. C'est la vie!Did I misinterpret? Perhaps you can clear it up for me.

{holding my breath}