"The Republican Party is SCREWED" says Bloomberg's conservative(and HOT GAY Josh Barro)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 2:40 AM GMT
    "The upshot is that the Republican Party is screwed: It's in for a lot of infighting, but both sides of the party's internal fight are committed to economic policies that are not saleable to the broader public.

    For the next few years, we're going to see a lot of articles like Murphy's, arguing that the Republican Party can rehabilitate itself by abandoning policies the author never cared about anyway. But unless these articles tell the Republicans to abandon some of their core economic policies, the prescriptions they contain will be wrong."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-29/in-republican-civil-war-both-sides-are-hopeless.html

    HIS POINT: The problem for Republicans is not about a need to switch positions on social issues----which would probably be fine with their big donors.

    The problem is that the majority of voters want REDISTRIBUTION of economic advantages to favor the middle class. Republican donors cannot be talked into backing this.

    Short column. Worth your reading time.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Dec 01, 2012 2:55 AM GMT
    Facebook-Like.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 2:00 PM GMT
    I really like Josh Barro. I certainly don't agree with him on everything but he's a smart, pragmatic conservative.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Dec 01, 2012 2:07 PM GMT
    After hearing Boner's comments on the news channels yesterday; it's apparent that the GOP/TEAbaggers have learned NOTHING since the Presidential election.




    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 2:46 PM GMT
    Unfortunately the leaders of the GOP are set in their ways and bent on revenge.

    Rather than trying to embrace what the American people want they choose to cause further problems for the US by being divisive and childish. All in order to save face.

    Boehner, McConnel, McCain, and Graham are the epitome of the cliché you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

    For them life is a binder full of grumpy old white men.

    rnch saidAfter hearing Boner's comments on the news channels yesterday; it's apparent that the GOP/TEAbaggers have learned NOTHING since the Presidential election.




    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 2:49 PM GMT
    "The Republican Party is SCREWED" says Bloomberg's conservative(and HOT GAY Josh Barro)

    A la Bette Davis: "They say you shouldn't speak badly when someone is screwed. The Republican Party's screwed. That's good."
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Dec 01, 2012 2:51 PM GMT
    creyente saidUnfortunately the leaders of the GOP are set in their ways and bent on revenge.

    Rather than trying to embrace what the American people want they choose to cause further problems for the US by being divisive and childish. All in order to save face.

    Boehner, McConnel, McCain, and Graham are the epitome of the cliché you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

    For them life is a binder full of grumpy old white men.....



    Don't forget about the youngest member of the "grumpy old men club", House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 3:09 PM GMT
    rnch saidDon't forget about the youngest member of the "grumpy old men club", Senate Majority Leader Eric Cantor.....

    HOUSE Majority Leader Cantor
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Dec 01, 2012 3:29 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    rnch saidDon't forget about the youngest member of the "grumpy old men club", Senate Majority Leader Eric Cantor.....

    HOUSE Majority Leader Cantor




    ahhhh...my caffine deprived mistake....since corrected.

    Yes, a big difference between house and senate!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 3:53 PM GMT
    This isn't a revelation. I've always said that the Republicans RELY on wedge issues at different points in time in order to ultimately be able to further their economic views, which, by themselves, would be impossible to garner enough voters. It's like a child with two parents and one says that they will give them everything they want for economic security and the other one telling their child that they will give them nothing and that they need to go out and make the effort to create a successful life for themselves -- one involves risk and the other security but no freedom. The child will want to live with which parent? So yes, this article basically is telling us that people are selfish and will choose that which is not ultimately in their own best interest.

    People in the past used to vote for economic freedom with the understanding that a free enterprise system doesn't guarantee some kind of success, but for the chance to give it a try and attempt to give your children a better life than you had. But now people have abandoned those ideas in favor of "I deserve", "I'm entitled to". Conservatives who believe in greater economic freedom have been able to successfully trick stupid people into economic policies that are better for the country as a whole, but only because of wedge issues that are now evaporating.

    Unless America sticks with the founding economic concepts that made it great it will just fall.

    Basically, the "Republican party" (as it relates to more economic freedom) has to find some NEW wedge issues, or they are screwed -- and America goes down with it in the same way Greece went down. Greece is our future.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 6:22 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles saidThis isn't a revelation. I've always said that the Republicans RELY on wedge issues at different points in time in order to ultimately be able to further their economic views, which, by themselves, would be impossible to garner enough voters. It's like a child with two parents and one says that they will give them everything they want for economic security and the other one telling their child that they will give them nothing and that they need to go out and make the effort to create a successful life for themselves -- one involves risk and the other security but no freedom. The child will want to live with which parent? So yes, this article basically is telling us that people are selfish and will choose that which is not ultimately in their own best interest.

    People in the past used to vote for economic freedom with the understanding that a free enterprise system doesn't guarantee some kind of success, but for the chance to give it a try and attempt to give your children a better life than you had. But now people have abandoned those ideas in favor of "I deserve", "I'm entitled to". Conservatives who believe in greater economic freedom have been able to successfully trick stupid people into economic policies that are better for the country as a whole, but only because of wedge issues that are now evaporating.

    Unless America sticks with the founding economic concepts that made it great it will just fall.

    Basically, the "Republican party" (as it relates to more economic freedom) has to find some NEW wedge issues, or they are screwed -- and America goes down with it in the same way Greece went down. Greece is our future.


    Mock -

    The parties aren't parents. They are political parties. And the fact that you're pushing the Mittens' claim that people want "free stuff" shows that you've learned nothing about the loss.

    Since it's founding, America has been a mixed economy that is largely capitalist but has some social insurance aspects to prevent the nadir of hyper-capitalism, which inevitably eats itself by destroying the very "free markets" it purports to creates.

    And it bears constant, endless repeating that the US is not Greece. There is no possibility that we will ever be Greece. If for no other reason that we control our currency, which remains the world reserve currency. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 6:26 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkles saidThis isn't a revelation. I've always said that the Republicans RELY on wedge issues at different points in time in order to ultimately be able to further their economic views, which, by themselves, would be impossible to garner enough voters. It's like a child with two parents and one says that they will give them everything they want for economic security and the other one telling their child that they will give them nothing and that they need to go out and make the effort to create a successful life for themselves -- one involves risk and the other security but no freedom. The child will want to live with which parent? So yes, this article basically is telling us that people are selfish and will choose that which is not ultimately in their own best interest.

    People in the past used to vote for economic freedom with the understanding that a free enterprise system doesn't guarantee some kind of success, but for the chance to give it a try and attempt to give your children a better life than you had. But now people have abandoned those ideas in favor of "I deserve", "I'm entitled to". Conservatives who believe in greater economic freedom have been able to successfully trick stupid people into economic policies that are better for the country as a whole, but only because of wedge issues that are now evaporating.

    Unless America sticks with the founding economic concepts that made it great it will just fall.

    Basically, the "Republican party" (as it relates to more economic freedom) has to find some NEW wedge issues, or they are screwed -- and America goes down with it in the same way Greece went down. Greece is our future.


    Mock -

    The parties aren't parents. They are political parties. And the fact that you're pushing the Mittens' claim that people want "free stuff" shows that you've learned nothing about the loss.

    Since it's founding, America has been a mixed economy that is largely capitalist but has some social insurance aspects to prevent the nadir of hyper-capitalism, which inevitably eats itself by destroying the very "free markets" it purports to creates.

    And it bears constant, endless repeating that the US is not Greece. There is no possibility that we will ever be Greece. If for no other reason that we control our currency, which remains the world reserve currency. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Whether he lost because of it or not, it's still true, people want free stuff. People would rather vote for someone who is going to give them something than for someone who is running on not giving anyone anything and keeping an environment where everyone has to make efforts to become what they want to be. It's just the way life is. People are geared towards selfishness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 6:54 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkles saidThis isn't a revelation. I've always said that the Republicans RELY on wedge issues at different points in time in order to ultimately be able to further their economic views, which, by themselves, would be impossible to garner enough voters. It's like a child with two parents and one says that they will give them everything they want for economic security and the other one telling their child that they will give them nothing and that they need to go out and make the effort to create a successful life for themselves -- one involves risk and the other security but no freedom. The child will want to live with which parent? So yes, this article basically is telling us that people are selfish and will choose that which is not ultimately in their own best interest.

    People in the past used to vote for economic freedom with the understanding that a free enterprise system doesn't guarantee some kind of success, but for the chance to give it a try and attempt to give your children a better life than you had. But now people have abandoned those ideas in favor of "I deserve", "I'm entitled to". Conservatives who believe in greater economic freedom have been able to successfully trick stupid people into economic policies that are better for the country as a whole, but only because of wedge issues that are now evaporating.

    Unless America sticks with the founding economic concepts that made it great it will just fall.

    Basically, the "Republican party" (as it relates to more economic freedom) has to find some NEW wedge issues, or they are screwed -- and America goes down with it in the same way Greece went down. Greece is our future.


    Mock -

    The parties aren't parents. They are political parties. And the fact that you're pushing the Mittens' claim that people want "free stuff" shows that you've learned nothing about the loss.

    Since it's founding, America has been a mixed economy that is largely capitalist but has some social insurance aspects to prevent the nadir of hyper-capitalism, which inevitably eats itself by destroying the very "free markets" it purports to creates.

    And it bears constant, endless repeating that the US is not Greece. There is no possibility that we will ever be Greece. If for no other reason that we control our currency, which remains the world reserve currency. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Whether he lost because of it or not, it's still true, people want free stuff. People would rather vote for someone who is going to give them something than for someone who is running on not giving anyone anything and keeping an environment where everyone has to make efforts to become what they want to be. It's just the way life is. People are geared towards selfishness.


    It's not true. In fact, it's a disgraceful thing to say based on complete bullshit.

    Most people voted AGAINST supply side economics, which do not work and for people like Mitt Romney to pay more than 13% in taxes.

    What "free stuff" did Obama promise?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 7:17 PM GMT
    When do we get to bomb Canada? That's what I want to know.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 7:36 PM GMT
    If this were indeed true, then wouldn't it stand to reason that business owners' only goal in voting republican is so that they can be handed more tax incentives, loopholes and deregulation?

    Aren't the fundamentalist voting simply to have their religious views forced on others?


    You make it sound like only the poor can be selfish.

    This line of thought is extremely simplistic and does nothing to further the real issues.

    mocktwinkles said

    Whether he lost because of it or not, it's still true, people want free stuff. People would rather vote for someone who is going to give them something than for someone who is running on not giving anyone anything and keeping an environment where everyone has to make efforts to become what they want to be. It's just the way life is. People are geared towards selfishness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 10:01 PM GMT
    creyente saidIf this were indeed true, then wouldn't it stand to reason that business owners' only goal in voting republican is so that they can be handed more tax incentives, loopholes and deregulation?

    Aren't the fundamentalist voting simply to have their religious views forced on others?


    You make it sound like only the poor can be selfish.

    This line of thought is extremely simplistic and does nothing to further the real issues.

    mocktwinkles said

    Whether he lost because of it or not, it's still true, people want free stuff. People would rather vote for someone who is going to give them something than for someone who is running on not giving anyone anything and keeping an environment where everyone has to make efforts to become what they want to be. It's just the way life is. People are geared towards selfishness.


    A country that tends to focus its energy on the non-productive in society will eventually just cease to be great anymore. America was founded on people coming here to try out their luck whether they won or lost -- it was never the responsibility of others to take care of them or their children. The more we deviate from those ideas the more we will discourage work and encourage laziness. Should we go back to the extreme working conditions and lack of any safety nets during the early days of this country? Of course not, but the direction we are headed is that we simply take from those who have so everyone else has a perfectly comfortable life. When immigrants of old came over it was their responsibility to survive, not the current citizens. Mothers didn't come from other countries and crank out 10 children and immediately receive financial aid and have free schooling for their children like they can today -- they had to figure out how to manage on their own. We are supposed to be the casino of the world. We are a country founded on risks and rewards. When you win, you win and you keep the money. When you lose you lose. Not everyone can be a winner. There would be no point in a casino if all the winners had to share their winnings with the losers to create "equity" and make sure "no one is left behind".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 10:14 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles saidThis isn't a revelation. I've always said that the Republicans RELY on wedge issues at different points in time in order to ultimately be able to further their economic views, which, by themselves, would be impossible to garner enough voters. It's like a child with two parents and one says that they will give them everything they want for economic security and the other one telling their child that they will give them nothing and that they need to go out and make the effort to create a successful life for themselves -- one involves risk and the other security but no freedom. The child will want to live with which parent? So yes, this article basically is telling us that people are selfish and will choose that which is not ultimately in their own best interest.

    In your analogy, how is the child that's being promised everything he or she wants for economic security getting no freedom?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 10:18 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles saidPeople are geared towards selfishness.

    Exactly. And this is especially true for the super rich. The richest 400 Americans paid just 18% in federal taxes on their personal individual incomes. Meanwhile the rest of us pay at a higher rate on our income taxes. Yet the super rich are so selfish, they insist that they continue to pay at a lower rate.

    Is it selfish for the rest of us to demand that the super rich pay at the same rate?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 10:24 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    creyente saidIf this were indeed true, then wouldn't it stand to reason that business owners' only goal in voting republican is so that they can be handed more tax incentives, loopholes and deregulation?

    Aren't the fundamentalist voting simply to have their religious views forced on others?


    You make it sound like only the poor can be selfish.

    This line of thought is extremely simplistic and does nothing to further the real issues.

    mocktwinkles said

    Whether he lost because of it or not, it's still true, people want free stuff. People would rather vote for someone who is going to give them something than for someone who is running on not giving anyone anything and keeping an environment where everyone has to make efforts to become what they want to be. It's just the way life is. People are geared towards selfishness.


    A country that tends to focus its energy on the non-productive in society will eventually just cease to be great anymore. America was founded on people coming here to try out their luck whether they won or lost -- it was never the responsibility of others to take care of them or their children. The more we deviate from those ideas the more we will discourage work and encourage laziness. Should we go back to the extreme working conditions and lack of any safety nets during the early days of this country? Of course not, but the direction we are headed is that we simply take from those who have so everyone else has a perfectly comfortable life. When immigrants of old came over it was their responsibility to survive, not the current citizens. Mothers didn't come from other countries and crank out 10 children and immediately receive financial aid and have free schooling for their children like they can today -- they had to figure out how to manage on their own. We are supposed to be the casino of the world. We are a country founded on risks and rewards. When you win, you win and you keep the money. When you lose you lose. Not everyone can be a winner. There would be no point in a casino if all the winners had to share their winnings with the losers to create "equity" and make sure "no one is left behind".

    "Should we go back to the extreme working conditions and lack of any safety nets during the early days of this country? Of course not, but the direction we are headed is that we simply take from those who have so everyone else has a perfectly comfortable life."

    So asking the super rich to pay at least at the same rate on their personal individual income taxes as the middle class does is an example of taking from those who have? I would argue that by paying a lower rate than the middle class, the super rich are taking from the middle class.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 10:36 PM GMT

    "A country that tends to focus its energy on the non-productive in society will eventually just cease to be great anymore."

    TRUTH !

    That's my greatest fear of the Republican Party.

    REPUBLICANS INVEST IN THE DYING:

    They lavish spending on Medicare Part D but resist healthcare for the young.

    They subsidize industries using old technologies and deride investments in the new.

    Republicans embrace the past, not just on social issues. Where Republicans choose to invest "our money" is what makes them truly dangerous.

    Democrats are also too generous with spending on the elderly. (My parents in their 70s say the same btw.) But at least the Dems are willing to spend on education and healthcare for the young, the ones who will in time be the productive members of society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 10:43 PM GMT
    " I would argue that by paying a lower rate than the middle class, the super rich are taking from the middle class."

    sfbayguy, I think that's a good summary of the problem that Josh Barro identifies.

    The Middle Class are the real 'Job Creators' in our economy, and more and more, they are demanding the breaks that have been going to the (Politically Well-Connected) RICH.

    The most productive class has been used to subsidize the low tax rates of the super rich, often known for good reason as The Idle Rich.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 11:52 PM GMT
    creyente saidUnfortunately the leaders of the GOP are set in their ways and bent on revenge.

    Rather than trying to embrace what the American people want they choose to cause further problems for the US by being divisive and childish. All in order to save face.

    Boehner, McConnel, McCain, and Graham are the epitome of the cliché you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

    For them life is a binder full of grumpy old white men.



    Had the election turned out in Romney's favor everything you just said would have been reversed. The Democrats would be trying to figure out what went wrong and devise new strategies to get the White House back in four years, and there would be plenty of divisiveness. It's politics! The elders in the Democratic Senate and Congress are no different than McCain, et al. except for their party affiliation. We have a two party system and go back and forth between both of them when it comes to the presidency. It's not like Obama winning two terms means there's never going to be another Republican president ever again. Each party is only going to compromise to a certain degree.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 02, 2012 12:16 AM GMT
    Draper said
    creyente saidUnfortunately the leaders of the GOP are set in their ways and bent on revenge.

    Rather than trying to embrace what the American people want they choose to cause further problems for the US by being divisive and childish. All in order to save face.

    Boehner, McConnel, McCain, and Graham are the epitome of the cliché you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

    For them life is a binder full of grumpy old white men.



    Had the election turned out in Romney's favor everything you just said would have been reversed. The Democrats would be trying to figure out what went wrong and devise new strategies to get the White House back in four years, and there would be plenty of divisiveness. It's politics! The elders in the Democratic Senate and Congress are no different than McCain, et al. except for their party affiliation. We have a two party system and go back and forth between both of them when it comes to the presidency. It's not like Obama winning two terms means there's never going to be another Republican president ever again. Each party is only going to compromise to a certain degree.


    Actually, it's looking pretty obvious that the next five elections will go to democrats.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2012 12:21 AM GMT
    "Actually, it's looking pretty obvious that the next five elections will go to democrats."

    According to Nate Silver's reasoning regarding the Electoral College, you are correct for at least the next 3 elections.

    The next Republican president, if there is one, will not represent a party that is similar to today's Republican Party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2012 4:24 AM GMT
    While I agree that there is divisive behavior on the part of some democrats, it has never been as contentious as the republicans have been during the Clinton and Obama administration.

    Draper said
    creyente saidUnfortunately the leaders of the GOP are set in their ways and bent on revenge.

    Rather than trying to embrace what the American people want they choose to cause further problems for the US by being divisive and childish. All in order to save face.

    Boehner, McConnel, McCain, and Graham are the epitome of the cliché you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

    For them life is a binder full of grumpy old white men.



    Had the election turned out in Romney's favor everything you just said would have been reversed. The Democrats would be trying to figure out what went wrong and devise new strategies to get the White House back in four years, and there would be plenty of divisiveness. It's politics! The elders in the Democratic Senate and Congress are no different than McCain, et al. except for their party affiliation. We have a two party system and go back and forth between both of them when it comes to the presidency. It's not like Obama winning two terms means there's never going to be another Republican president ever again. Each party is only going to compromise to a certain degree.