A theory- Why the GOP is doomed in the short term but not in the long.

[GhostWriter16]

Are you trying to say Democrats should be conservative? Don't try and blame them for 'not compromising' when that is simply not the case. When the Republicans confirm all of Obama's nominees, we can revisit this.

They should be fiscal conservatives even if they aren't political conservatives. They are far too unwilling to cut spending. They want to increase it.

He wasn't trying to weasle around it with legitimate rape. That was just some random nonsense that came out of his mouth. Bottom line, he supports no rape/incest exceptions and that is the official party line.

I agree with the party line, on that issue.

Most people do not like that, so why push it? Why not start with the position:
*abortion should be outlawed with an exception for rape and incest (reasonable enough) while focusing on working with democrats to reduce abortions overall*

I would gladly work with democrats to reduce abortion, and if a bill came to my desk banning abortion but making an exception for rape and incest I would still sign it. But I couldn't stand up there and say "I think its OK in that case" or "I think it should be illegal in that case" because I don't believe that's right.

Do I believe people who don't agree with me should be purged from the GOP? No. I don't agree with party purges.

Or is that too much compromise for you?

I answered above, but you can sign a compromised law without actually compromising your position.

Yes they are and it's a pretty extreme, no-compromise position.

Wake me up when the GOP tries to cut defense or close down some of our overseas bases.

I'm sorry but it just isn't happening. The Democrats are more for that than the GOPers are.

Couldn't Obama just close down bases by executive order though? Is that even something he needs congressional approval for or is that his entitlement as commander in chief? (I honestly don't know the answer to this, this is a question.)

Too bad? You fail to see you're basically the problem with the Republican party, or would be if you could vote.

I'm not even a Republican

It cannot be done without causing another recession immediately. Ask the UK how well austerity worked out for them at first.

That might actually be the long-run lesser evil.

I might agree to temporary tax hikes if it were temporary and the ultimate goal was to create a situation where spending was far lower, but that had to be phased in.

That's not reality though. Reality is that the Democrats want high spending, high taxes, and big government. That's what the Democrats (Most of them anyhow) stand for.

No one is saying they want this. You add a bit of tax at the top, close some loopholes, but the majority of the savings comes from shrinking spending. I've said that like 5 times on this thread alone. It's Obama's offical stance on reform.

I'll close loopholes but I wouldn't raise the tax bill at all. It needs to be lowered because its excessive, IMO. Even right now.

If you're going to raise anything though, raise capital gains. I wouldn't object to raising the capital gains rate somewhat and lowering the rates of other taxes to meet it. That capital gains are taxed less than regular income is somewhat absurd IMO. (Possible compromise.)

It happened, and not just with defense.

I wouldn't be surprised. I'm no Republican apologist.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They should be fiscal conservatives even if they aren't political conservatives. They are far too unwilling to cut spending. They want to increase it.

They are willing to cut spending and have done so. When will you give up your personal characiture of them?

I would gladly work with democrats to reduce abortion,

Best way to do that: stop focusing on ending all abortions right now for all reasons. It's a loser position no matter how moral you think it and only destroys any hope of compromise and also chances to win elections. Remember, to change the law you first have to win the election.

I'm sorry but it just isn't happening. The Democrats are more for that than the GOPers are.

So you are just going to ignore everything myself and others have posted about the current situation where dems have cut spending and taxes? OK.

Couldn't Obama just close down bases by executive order though? Is that even something he needs congressional approval for or is that his entitlement as commander in chief? (I honestly don't know the answer to this, this is a question.)

I really don't know.

That might actually be the long-run lesser evil.

Yeah the great depression worked out great in the end.

 

[LamaGT]

That might be where I end up. Although I'm unlikely (Note: Not impossible, I'd vote for one that I liked) to ever vote "D". The combination of disagreement with their economic policies and pro-choice views is just too big, unless the other guy was really bad (I'd seriously think about voting for a Dennis Kucinich over a George W. Bush [I know he can't run again, I'm making a point] on foreign policy alone if I lived in a swing state, but if not I'd almost certainly vote "L" if there were a competent Libertarian on the ballot.)

But the "R"s will definitely have to earn my vote, doubly so if there's a Libertarian option on the ticket for a given ticket. I'm not afraid to play spoiler

I don't understand why somebody would want outlawing abortions completely unless he's one of those who believe the earth was created 6000 years ago and we are the descendants of a man made out of dust and a woman made by the man's rib who essentially had mass incest. If you as a teenager believe this I will seriously have to reconsider my stance on humanity...

Anyway, back on what I was saying, I can somewhat understand opposing government-funded abortion but why would you care if somebody wants to abort? It's her choice, and it's her problem if she burns in hell later. Besides since you apparently define yourself as a libertarian, don't you think it's a bit of a contraddiction?

 

[GhostWriter16]

They are willing to cut spending and have done so. When will you give up your personal characiture of them?

I don't hate them personally. I just want the government to be about 20% [Number for effect, not a scientifically derived number] of the size it is now, while Democrats want the government to be doing more than it is now. I'm not trying to demonize them (I actually think most higher level politicians are evil but not all and I don't think all Democrats are in that group either) I just completely, absolutely disagree with them on economic policy. If we start talking about foreign policy I will say that the Democrats are not as bad as the Republicans.

Best way to do that: stop focusing on ending all abortions right now for all reasons. It's a loser position no matter how moral you think it and only destroys any hope of compromise and also chances to win elections. Remember, to change the law you first have to win the election.

To be clear, I don't hold an "All reasons" view. I hold a "Unless the mother's life is endangered" view. You may not think that's reasonable either but it is a distinction to be made.

Personally, I couldn't lie to win an election. Compromising is distinct from lying. I can't say "I oppose abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother in danger" if I really believe that rape and incest are not valid exceptions. For me to say that would be a lie and so it would be immoral.

So you are just going to ignore everything myself and others have posted about the current situation where dems have cut spending and taxes? OK.

IIRC I said the Dems are more in favor of cutting defense than the Republicans. Which had nothing to do with taxes.

I really don't know.

If he can, he absolutely should send all of our troops home. If he did that my respect for him would increase.

Yeah the great depression worked out great in the end

Calvin Coolidge avoided his by doing nothing

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't understand why somebody would want outlawing abortions completely unless he's one of those who believe the earth was created 6000 years ago and we are the descendants of a man made out of dust and a woman made by the man's rib who essentially had mass incest. If you as a teenager believe this I will seriously have to reconsider my stance on humanity...

Um...that's exactly what GhostWriter16 believes actually.

IIRC I said the Dems are more in favor of cutting defense than the Republicans. Which had nothing to do with taxes.

You did, my bad.

 

[Hygro]

The bottom part of your post states my point more eloquently,but how is gold flawed?

I wouldn't mind a learning of the subject/explanation why gold can't work in our modern times...

There's a bunch of reasons, here's one: Gold reserves don't grow much. The economy does. You have permanent deflation. Another is that governments have their hands completely tied when it comes to deficit spending. Being able to deficit spend is one of the big reasons we never had a socialist revolution in America.

 

[LamaGT]

Um...that's exactly what GhostWriter16 believes actually.

You did, my bad.

As I understand he admits it only in case of rape, incest and health complications, and yet he's against it in generic cases? I admit that from, say, 5th month onwards it should be illegal to do it because it would be somewhat of a murder, but early on the baby is just a bunch of roughly shaped cells...

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't understand why somebody would want outlawing abortions completely

I don't. If the mother's life is in danger I believe she should be allowed to abort. Otherwise I consider it a form of murder.

unless he's one of those who believe the earth was created 6000 years ago and we are the descendants of a man made out of dust and a woman made by the man's rib who essentially had mass incest. If you as a teenager believe this I will seriously have to reconsider my stance on humanity...

I actually do believe in a young earth. Its not something I talk about much though because I, by my own admission, don't really understand the science involved.

"Mass incest"... family roles weren't really defined Biblically until Moses. It wasn't considered wrong at that early point for a man to marry his sister or first cousin.

Anyway, back on what I was saying, I can somewhat understand opposing government-funded abortion but why would you care if somebody wants to abort? It's her choice, and it's her problem if she burns in hell later

To me that's a lot like saying "Its her choice" to a mother who commits infanticide.

I understand why some people do not think this but to me its that simple.

Besides since you apparently define yourself as a libertarian, don't you think it's a bit of a contraddiction?

No, Libertarianism is all about eliminating victimless crimes, economic liberty*, and a non-warlike foreign policy. Abortion is arguably not a victimless crime. I don't consider it a victimless crime. Neither does Ron Paul. But some people do. See "#3" on This link where the pro-choice (At least for the most part and at the present time) Walter Block argues that it isn't necessarily non-libertarian to have a pro-life view.

Of course, I was pro-life before I was a libertarian so there you go. Take it or leave it

As I understand he admits it only in case of rape, incest and health complications, and yet he's against it in generic cases? I admit that from, say, 5th month onwards it should be illegal to do it because it would be somewhat of a murder, but early on the baby is just a bunch of roughly shaped cells...

Not rape or incest. Don't get me wrong, that would be one hell of a mitigating factor but I don't think it should be legal. Because the fetus is an innocent bystander and that it is wrong to kill an innocent person for a guilty person's crimes. I wish the woman could not carry the child without killing it, I wish that was an option, but since its not I think a woman is obligated not to kill her child.

And yeah, I can tell from your post you would disagree with me on when human life begins. Fair enough. But my position is still logically consistent. There's no logical inconsistency in saying that victimless crimes should not be crimes and simutaneously saying that abortion does, in fact, have a victim. You can disagree with it but its completely logical coherent.

 

[WindFish]

Calvin Coolidge avoided his by doing nothing

Are you like stoned?

Silent Cal was the worse US president of the entire history of the USA.

His policies are directly responsible for the Great Depression.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Are you like stoned?

Silent Cal was the worse US president of the entire history of the USA.

His policies are directly responsible for the Great Depression.

Coolidge was the best President since Jefferson, and is probably tied with that.

Coolidge was a hero. And he didn't cause the Great Depression. Hoover did, and FDR dragged it out.

 

[Hygro]

OK, can we PLEASE use the quote button at the bottom right of each post so that quotes get attributed and linked to their proper sources?



Edit @GW, having the great fortune of having taken a course by two of the preeminet economists on the Great Depression, I can inform you that what you just said is completely and utterly untrue.

Edit #2:Another appeal to authority here, would like to add that my major not only teaches this stuff in its core curriculum, but requires us to invent a concentration. Mine is on crises in economy, and from many angles, finance, economics, political economy, history, studied the Great Depression and similar issues. That aforementioned class is just the one that was the most specifically targeted to the Great Depression and not just covering in context of other things.

 

[WindFish]

Coolidge was the best President since Jefferson, and is probably tied with that.

Jefferson is another quite poor president as are Jackson, Madison and a bunch of others.

Coolidge was a hero. And he didn't cause the Great Depression. Hoover did, and FDR dragged it out.

Can you source that please?

 

[Hygro]

Can you source that please?

Well, you can source economists from the late 1800s, or modern Austrian economists* for why FDR may have slowed down recovery, but not for why the other two are or are not guilty. Or you can source political scientists (at best) who will cite them. Or you can just trust pundits who make that stuff up.

*(aka economists stuck in the 1800s who have noneconomic premises mucking their otherwise neoclassical models, while not letting go of the fact that economics advanced past them 20 years after the school made its contribution in the 1870s... )

 

[WindFish]

Well, you can source economists from the late 1800s, or you can source political scientists (at best) who will cite them.

I'm asking Dommy to prove that Cal was a hero that didn't have anything to do with it and that FDR made it worse.

 

[GhostWriter16]

OK, can we PLEASE use the quote button at the bottom right of each post so that quotes get attributed and linked to their proper sources?

Done

Edit @GW, having the great fortune of having taken a course by two of the preeminet economists on the Great Depression, I can inform you that what you just said is completely and utterly untrue.

Edit #2:Another appeal to authority here, would like to add that my major not only teaches this stuff in its core curriculum, but requires us to invent a concentration. Mine is on crises in economy, and from many angles, finance, economics, political economy, history, studied the Great Depression and similar issues. That aforementioned class is just the one that was the most specifically targeted to the Great Depression and not just covering in context of other things

Are you able to explain why?

Jefferson is another quite poor president as are Jackson, Madison and a bunch of others.



Can you source that please?

Jackson was too much of a hypocrite to be a good President, but Jefferson and Madison were solid.

 

[WindFish]

Jackson was too much of a hypocrite to be a good President, but Jefferson and Madison were solid.

Madison was so bad that he turned an invasion of British North America into the Second War of Independence.

Jefferson wanted to annex British North America.

 

[Hygro]

Are you able to explain why?

I've given you a lot of information why that kind of depression can only be solved by fiscal stimulus, unless you are willing to wait 20 years for capital destruction and start over (which is politically impossible, it only results in a Japan style back and forth which means walling in permanent slow growth). The only time FDR "prolonged" the recession was in 1937 when he caved to deficit fears and signed a law cutting the budget dramatically, and caused another recession--one of the greatest in history. Otherwise Roosevelt brought us out of recession faster and stronger than any President prior (or post, except counting the Bush and Obama admins staving off depression this time around. A stitch in time...) Fiscal stimulus did that.

Second, the economic policies of the 1920s were awful. There are many conjoined policies that helped create the situation that lead to the 1920s.

• We were letting commercial banks do investment banking.
• Our economy was piling up all its money in the richest few, which leads to massive asset bubbles as the rich run out of safe investments. Those asset bubbles combined with leveraged investing (investing using debt, many fold over) destroys economies.
• Wages were not growing with economic growth, similar to above, which lead to over production and underconsumption.
• France saw the writing on the wall and starting trading their US dollars for US gold (we were back on gold after WW1) which caused a bit of a panic as well.
• When the stock market crashed, it was a while before the banks really started to fail. The bank failures were the main cause of the depression, and they went on from 1929-1933. That was because the Fed didn't understand to reduce interest rates (it raised them), promote short run inflation (it promoted deflation, straight up ideologically), and fought to keep the dollar strong and the gold standard secure. Hoover didn't help with bank failures, but FDR did.

There are other reasons as well.

Ultimately, the bad policies were in place and the Titanic was already at the iceburg by the time Hoover took office. Hoover has virtually no responsibility in starting the depression, though he did contribute to its depths. Coolidge, however, did.

P.S. the 1920s didn't actually have much in the way of economic growth beyond the historical average. It wasn't "running too hot". It was a lot like the Bush years, actually.

 

[Hygro]

Madison was so bad that he turned an invasion of British North America into the Second War of Independence.

Jefferson wanted to annex British North America.

Windfish, do you see how I'm quoting to "Windfish" with a link?

Please start doing that. Use the quote or multiquote feature on the bottom right of each post. It's faster for you and it helps the reader. Win-win.

 

[LamaGT]

I don't. If the mother's life is in danger I believe she should be allowed to abort. Otherwise I consider it a form of murder.



I actually do believe in a young earth. Its not something I talk about much though because I, by my own admission, don't really understand the science involved.

"Mass incest"... family roles weren't really defined Biblically until Moses. It wasn't considered wrong at that early point for a man to marry his sister or first cousin.


To me that's a lot like saying "Its her choice" to a mother who commits infanticide.

I understand why some people do not think this but to me its that simple.



No, Libertarianism is all about eliminating victimless crimes, economic liberty*, and a non-warlike foreign policy. Abortion is arguably not a victimless crime. I don't consider it a victimless crime. Neither does Ron Paul. But some people do. See "#3" on This link where the pro-choice (At least for the most part and at the present time) Walter Block argues that it isn't necessarily non-libertarian to have a pro-life view.

Of course, I was pro-life before I was a libertarian so there you go. Take it or leave it




Not rape or incest. Don't get me wrong, that would be one hell of a mitigating factor but I don't think it should be legal. Because the fetus is an innocent bystander and that it is wrong to kill an innocent person for a guilty person's crimes. I wish the woman could not carry the child without killing it, I wish that was an option, but since its not I think a woman is obligated not to kill her child.

And yeah, I can tell from your post you would disagree with me on when human life begins. Fair enough. But my position is still logically consistent. There's no logical inconsistency in saying that victimless crimes should not be crimes and simutaneously saying that abortion does, in fact, have a victim. You can disagree with it but its completely logical coherent.

Fair enough, it boils down to the question of where life begins. But anyway there's nothing scientific about creationism, it's just about taking the Bible to the letter, which should really never be done. However i could agree that Darwinism doesn't explain how exactly all the features of animals appear in the first place, or how a bunch of acids know the laws of physics and chemistry better than 18th century scientists.

/end OT

 

[GhostWriter16]

Right, so the GOP= always wins. I was being told this by everyone on the right just a few days ago.

Yes, something called the GOP will always be around. Will it include all of its present components in fifty years? Not a chance. The Democratic party is already an amorphous cloud so we're used to it

GOP voters have more in common with each other intellectually. The Left is a coalition of convenience, and that is our greatest strength and weakness. For example, I have basically nothing in common intellectually with a 70 year old black female evangelical that just voted for the same guy.

The conservatives have their alliances of convenice as well. Catholic voters (Usually economically more liberal and socially more conservative) frequently have social issues as their first priority will probably vote for a traditional right wing Republican, as will a Ron Paul supporter who has economic issues as first on their priority list. The GOP has everything from social conservatives who may or may not be fiscally conservative at all, to free market libertarians, to nation-building neocons.

The GOP may have "More" in common intellectually, but the Republicans are a coalition of convenience as well.