The New Modern Republican Party?...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Perhaps the following is a big reason the Republican party, aka the Tea Party, is losing credibility.
Given Steve Lonegan's self identified "callous disregard" for presumably every conceivable (unfortunate) situation maybe the party of which he is a member should take a look at how the majority of Americans view his callousness, and by extension the callousness of the party he represents.
Only a blind person could shoot themselves (and their party) in the foot as thoroughly as this dunderhead.
Read the story HERE.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Perhaps the following is a big reason the Republican party, aka the Tea Party, is losing credibility.
Given Steve Lonegan's self identified "callous disregard" for presumably every conceivable (unfortunate) situation maybe the party of which he is a member should take a look at how the majority of Americans view his callousness, and by extension the callousness of the party he represents.
Only a blind person could shoot themselves (and their party) in the foot as thoroughly as this dunderhead.
Read the story HERE.
Via: Memeorandum
The tea party has been the group pushing "cut, cap, and balance", which you have in the past supported strongly. Have you changed your mind on this policy, or are the other problems with the tea party so strong, that "cut cap and balance" is not reason enough to support them?
ReplyDeleteVisit my consevative manifesto, it is at the top of the page. Click on it. I stand by all statements therein.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not agree with many who profess to support that which is therein contained.
Define cut, define where the cuts should be made, define the depth of the cuts, define cap, define where caps will be placed, define for how long, define balance, at what cost, born by whom... And then we can start the discussion.
The only breed worse than politicians are attorneys and used car salesmen. Oh, that's right. Most politicians are attorneys. At the national level anyway.
This guy makes Christine O'Donnell sound like Margaret Chase Smith. Where does the New Jersey Republican party get these people, and do they have a death-wish?
ReplyDeleteWhere? Don't know, perhaps they scrape them off the pavement?
DeleteA death wish? Well, maybe tha's the only thing that could explain it.
Lonegan's fishing for a job at FOX News, I bet. He's in a guaranteed losing race, so he's playin' it all out. Maybe he wants a radio show. Americans love cranky Northeastern conservatives.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
You're a hoot Jersey.
DeleteThanks for the tip though, gives me an ieea.
It pains me to see the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower reduced to the level of McCarthyism and neo-fascism. It should be pointed out that the most reactionary forces in American politics are former Dixiecrats (i.e. racists, segregationists, former KKK clansmen, and religious extremists from the Bible Belt) who left the Democrats in the 1960s in resentment against civil rights legislation of the time. These former Dixiecrats now comprise the worst, most reactionary elements of the GOP.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP made another critical mistake in catering to the greed of plutocrats while abandoning the middle class. For decades, their game plan has been about winning at all cost while loosing all sight of principle. In pandering to crooks and thugs, the GOP is now in deep trouble, and I have no sympathy for them.
I do not feel sorry for them either. I just wish they, or another 3'rd party would put forth positive workable alternatives to the democrlats and their agenda.
DeleteDo you have any specifics on the second paragraph, Octo? It looks like when it comes to "catering to the greed of plutocrats", the Democrats are much worse: look at the massive bailouts shoveled to the biggest banks, auto barons, and other sectors. Mostly supported by Dems and mostly opposed the Republicans. All unnecessary too.
ReplyDeleteAs for the first paragraph and "neo-fascism", when one lookes at the definition of the term fascism (especially in regards to the centralization of power), Obamacare is as big a step toward fascism as we have had in ages. Again, the Dems favor and Republicans oppose.
D. Luthor,
DeleteI refer you to this article by Mike Lofgren,
Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult, who says in part:
“The GOP cares solely and exclusively about its rich contributors. The party has built a whole catechism on the protection and further enrichment of America's plutocracy. Their caterwauling about deficit and debt is so much eyewash to con the public. Whatever else President Obama has accomplished (and many of his purported accomplishments are highly suspect), his $4-trillion deficit reduction package did perform the useful service of smoking out Republican hypocrisy. The GOP refused, because it could not abide so much as a one-tenth of one percent increase on the tax rates of the Walton family or the Koch brothers, much less a repeal of the carried interest rule that permits billionaire hedge fund managers to pay income tax at a lower effective rate than cops or nurses. Republicans finally settled on a deal that had far less deficit reduction - and even less spending reduction! - than Obama's offer, because of their iron resolution to protect at all costs our society's overclass.”
Above are the words of a Republican Congressional staffer who retired last year. With regard to the bailout known as TARP, the original bill was one page long - crafted by then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, a Goldman Sachs Republican, who served in the last years of the Bush/Cheney administration. One passage in particular was especially troubling: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." In other words, no oversight and therefore no accountability. This language was struck from the final bill by Congressional Democrats.
Thus, your comment: “Mostly supported by Dems and mostly opposed the Republicans” is false. TARP was a Republican-sponsored bill written by a Republican administration. Check your dates before you make erroneous statements.
With regards to the Affordable Healthcare Act, one question: Does your state require mandatory automobile insurance? Mince on this thought for a while before I get back to you.
Taking away ALL the money of the rich won't make even a large dent in the deficit problem, which anyway is caused by massive overspending (not by overtaxing even worse than we do now). Check "Absurdity of taxing rich...". Will Hart does a good job of summarizing the problem.
Delete-------
"Thus, your comment: “Mostly supported by Dems and mostly opposed the Republicans” is false. TARP was a Republican-sponsored bill written by a Republican administration. Check your dates before you make erroneous statements."
The Republicans were wise to reject Obama's proposal which stole even more from the group that is paying the lions share in taxes while not doing what needs to be done about the overspending problem. the government has plenty of resources without stealing more from the people. It needs to spend these vast, near record level resources, responsibly.
The TARP vote? I did check the dates (carefully), I did make a mistake on the Senate. But the House Republicans voted against it while the Democrats voted against. Since the TARP vote, the Republicans have become even more against the bailouts (electing many who campaigned strongly against TARP and bailouts).
Most Democrats (Senate, House, and our current Democratic President) supported this record-level (up to that time, in history) handout to huge wealthy corporations. This included the current President. The House Republicans can and do make bad and irresponsible votes, but they did the correct thing on TARP, and also on the early Obama-era stimulus (which was a pork political payoff and caused massive job loss.)
Auto insurance? Show me an auto insurance law that includes such horrible aspects as Obamacare does (i.e. the provision to prevent companies from hiring more than 49 people, the provision to force companies to cut full-time hours to less than 30 a week, and the provision to force medical equipment makers to raise their prices sharply). Aside from that, the auto insurance requirements are related to the privilege of driving on government roads. The Obamacare insurance mandate (which is one of the largest middle class tax hikes in history) is punishment that hits people just for living.
I do refuse to call it the ACA, except ironically, since it is making insurance so much more expensive. I do draw the line at using Orwellian terms for things. And yes, that includes military pet names for invasions.
There are ways to improve the healthcare situation in this country without such entirely negative and damaging provisions.
Thinking about this a little more, Octo. You brought up mandatory auto insurance. Lets run with that, shall we?
DeleteWhy not make "Obamacare" more like mandatory auto insurance? Since you seem fond of it?
To do so, we would need to:
- Drop the idea of forced exchanges/marketplaces/etc
- Drop the punitive tax in medical equipment makers (which basically forces more firing of American workers and more offshoring.
- Drop the provisions that force companies to turn full time workers into part time workers and to fire people to get below certain levels.
I don't know of any state mandatory auto insurance law which includes so many destructive provisions. So yes, moving in the direction of this would be great and real progress.
We can keep some of the good ideas of Obamacare, such as the ability to keep your insurance longer. But there is so much bad that we'd be better off without.
D, Luthor,
DeleteSome problems with your scholarship, or rather the lack thereof. I consulted the link to Will-the-Shill’s blog and found statistics but no attributions or references – meaning no checking of his facts.
Error #1: You did not cite an authoritative source; your source was not the Congressional Budget Office or some other reputable authority but a fellow blogger of dubious credentials; plus no citations.
Error: 2: The date of Will-the-Shill’s post: August 3, 2011. Please note: This post is now two years old – “stale dated” - and the situation has changed since 2011. Will-the-Shill cites a budget deficit of $1.5 trillion in 2011. According to this Wall Street Journal report dated August 12, 2013, U.S. Budget Deficit Shrinks as Revenues Rise:
“ The budget deficit for the 10 months reached $607.42 billion, 38% narrower than a year earlier. For the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office estimates a deficit of $642 billion, compared with $1.087 trillion a year earlier and the smallest gap since 2008's $458.55 billion shortfall.”
Furthermore, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – presumably your favorite whipping post for receiving taxpayer bailouts – is now a revenue source having contributed $67 billion to the Treasury in June 2013.
Given your penchant for bad scholarship, for blanket assertions with no substantiation, and for your propensity to debate not one topic but a scattershot of topics, I frankly have no time or patience to debate you any further. End of comment thread.
Octo: The CBO is not an authoritative source, either. Their predictions are all over the place. Shrinking deficits? At their lower level now, they are still much much higher than they were under Bush. Will the Shill was correct. He is good about attributing his facts. Its a cop-out to confront facts that contradict your opinions that way.
DeleteFannie and Freddie were not just bad for receiving the money you named, they were instrumental in causing the economic meltdown.
" and for your propensity to debate not one topic but a scattershot of topics"
I made neither an error #1 nor an error #2. I think your problem is that I debated your own erroneous points (like your attempt to blame Republicans for Obama's TARP), and in your bad scholarship you attempt to imagine a significant difference between two different levels of Obama's much-higher-then-Bush, way-high, deficits. And your implication that $67 billion back from those two government divisions somehow makes up for the trillions in economic damage they caused.
I am not even sure what you are debating at this point; in your scattershot approach, you ran from the main topic (s), such as the fundemental problems with Obamacare and the fact of how the Democrats serve "plutocrats" more then Republicans do. Given your penchant for bad scholarship and scattershot approach and attempts to prove irrelevant points (such as the aforementioned way high deficit not being as way high now as in 2013), it is clear that you lost patience and decided to stop debating before you made that last comment.
More about Octo's scattershot, poor-scholarship approach.
DeleteOcto said: "With regards to the Affordable Healthcare Act, one question: Does your state require mandatory automobile insurance? Mince on this thought for a while before I get back to you."
You never got back to me, or anyone. You lobbed it out there, apparently without much thought to anything, at least you showed no evidence of it.
Lets look a little more closely from another angle:
No state has mandatory automobile insurance.
You only pay if you want to own a car. And more and more, people are choosing not to drive or own cars. 40% in the linked article.
How can it be mandatory if 40% choose to legally not pay it, with no penalty?
56% of those in New York City do not have cars. So much for mandatory.
I am not sure why you brought this up, and in what comparison?
Auto insurance is not mandatory, it is easy to opt out, with no criminal action, and no penalty.
You were comparing this somehow to the ACA, "Obamacare", obviously, but weren't clear at all (very poor debating).
The facts show how very very different Obamacare is from state auto insurance requirements. People, even half of them in certain important geographic areas or demographic groups, choose not to pay auto insurance by not owning cars.
How, do tell us, do we accomplish this with "Obamacare", Octo? When the insurance in it truly IS mandatory, and the only way to avoid paying without being persecuted by the Feds or paying a massive exit tax, is to die?
Get ready for The Full Ayn Rand !!!!
ReplyDeleteIt's a freaking clown car.
No wonder Obama has been so free to operate right of center.
The right wing has walked off a pier.
Good luck with these morons.
Ayn Rand? Clown car? Really/
DeleteRand was as anti authoritarian as one could be.
Anti authoritarian is without a doubt something republicans are NOT.
Nor is Obama.
So you must be in favor of, Ayn Rand?
Les, the Rand ideology is the up-and-coming populist movement on the Right. They've mixed it with religion, as can be done with pretty much any ideology, but it's the same animal. It is not going to play well with the American people. It's one thing to lean a little libertarian, it's another thing to reinvent the entire rulebook in the middle of the game.
DeleteJMJ
Obama is operating to the left for sure, Ducky.
DeleteHave any understanding of Rand?
DeleteIf you do you should have noted that the republican, libertarian parties, and the fundies have hijacked and bastardized her philosophy to fit their template.
But the the nation at large is so far gone why even care about political parties anyway? They're just authoritarian collectives anyway.
Perhaps the next step for liberty is.. never mind.
Les, the country is not going to buy into getting rid of the of the social compact, the social safety net, civil rights laws, etc. You can chip away at it, as Republicans mostly do, but to run on getting rid of it all? Ain't gonna win.
DeleteJMJ
Never expected it would, never said it should.
DeleteMan-made global-warming - THAT'S the new "religion"!
DeleteJersey said: "Les, the country is not going to buy into getting rid of the of the social compact, the social safety net, civil rights laws, etc. You can chip away at it, as Republicans mostly do"
DeleteThey mostly do not, Jersey. The social safety net, welfare expands under both parties. There is as much (or as little) of an assault on civil rights from Republicans as there is from Democrats.
"but to run on getting rid of it all? "
Your wording now implies that Ayn Rand's views mean getting rid of all civil rights. Where can one possibly get that?
One thing about Ayn Rand... her views are the most anti-authoritarian possible. And another, the Republican Party sure does not embrace her ideology.
ReplyDeleteRand was basically a Marxist(labor theory of value, gold standard, strict materialism) only she differed on who would form the politburo.
ReplyDeleteDucky: I've been reading a lot more Rand lately. Under that philosophy, the "politburo" (if one can call it that) under Rand has a very limited role. As opposed to the politburo under Marxism which has vast power... especially undue, unwarranted, and unlimited power to force the choices of those in the politburo upon those it rules.
Delete"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence" - Rand