CNN: 5 reasons GOP will rebound

[Count Chocula]

Private message

Message subject: Re: CNN: 5 reasons GOP will rebound
From: Count Chocula
Sent: Sat May 09, 2009 9:17 pm
To: Pablo Sanchez

If the parties are undifferentiated why is the one popular and winning elections hand over fist, while the other is reviled and marginalized? You're not making any sense because you seem to just be regurgitating conservative talking points about getting back to core principles. I'm going to stop you here and ask you to explain the principles you're talking about. What are they, specifically, and why do you believe that a Republican party that affirms these principles will be electorally successful?

I will do that, Pablo, but not tonight...hopefully by tomorrow night.

It's been a busy five days...plus I had to do some research. I started a reply Sunday but realized a proper answer would take more time than I had.

To your first sentence, with the Democrats popular and winning, that's a pattern that's repeated itself over time. Nixon pulled a bunch of shit, including wage and price controls and abrogation of the Bretton Woods agreement, with Watergate as the topper, and handed over control of Congress and the Presidency to the Democrats. Carter was a miserable failure as President, despite his intelligence (IIRC he stopped the Three Mile Island meltdown) and the pendulum swung to the Republicans with Reagan and Bush. Bush I was so bad it swung to Clinton, and so on. IIRC, Congressional majorities also swung back and forth based on the sitting President's perceived effectiveness. Also, Obama won 52.9% of the popular vote vs. 45.7% for McCain...a significant edge, certainly, but not a "crushing" victory. Bush vs. Kerry in 2004 was 50.7%/48.3%, so it was won by a larger margin than 2004. As for hand over fist, the Democrats picked up 5 Senate seats (maybe more if Franken wins his appeal), a 9% gain, and 14 seats in Congress, adding 6% to their majority numbers. Again, significant in that they're close to filibuster-proof in the Senate, but not that significant regarding turnover. As far as being "reviled and marginalized," much of that perception in my opinion comes from watching the "Big Three" networks. As Obama said, half-jokingly, "Most of you covered me, all of you voted for me."

Now, to the principles I'm talking about. I went to the Republican Party's 2008 platform for reference. Here's what they said.

R E P U B L I C A N
P L A T F O R M

Chairmen’s Preamble

This is a platform of enduring principle, not
passing convenience . The product of the most open
and transparent process in American political history.
We offer it to our fellow Americans in the assurance
that our Republican ideals are those that unify our
country: Courage in the face of foreign foes. An optimistic
patriotism, driven by a passion for freedom.
Devotion to the inherent dignity and rights of every
person. Faith in the virtues of self-reliance, civic
commitment, and concern for one another. Distrust
of government's interference
in people's lives. Dedication
to a rule of law that both protects
and preserves liberty.

The first four, courage, patriotism, devotion, faith, are rather broad statements void of any significant semantic content, and are therefore difficult to match to facts. You could say, I suppose, that the "courage in the face of foreign foes" turned into torture, but Clinton did the same via proxy.

Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, the architect of the rendition program under Bill Clinton, said what many Democrats know but would rather not hear: that when it comes to sending people to face torture in other countries, the Clinton administration may be as vulnerable to indictment as the Bush administration.

Back to the Republican Party's platform, specifically the last two:
"Distrust of government's interference
in people's lives. Dedication
to a rule of law that both protects
and preserves liberty."

"Distrust of government's interference[?]" I think not. This is the crew that passed the Patriot Act, which appeared full-fledged mere days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, much like TARP in its 1,000+ page "no time to read gotta vote" glory appeared last year. Then they voted to renew it. Unlimited wiretaps for all! So, with this one example, I call bullshit on Republicans standing for their stated principles. Let's look at the last one, shall we?

"Dedication to a rule of law that both protects and preserves liberty." BULLSHIT. The October bailout vote is a perfect example. It turns out that Bush's Fed and Treasury, Bernanke and Paulson, forced BofA to buy Merrill Lynch just before receiving bailout funds:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Department chief Henry Paulson pressured Bank of America Corp. to not discuss its increasingly troubled plan to buy Merrill Lynch & Co. -- a deal that later triggered a government bailout of BofA -- according to testimony by Kenneth Lewis, the bank's chief executive.

Mr. Lewis, testifying under oath before New York's attorney general in February, told prosecutors that he believed Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke were instructing him to keep silent about deepening financial difficulties at Merrill, the struggling brokerage giant. As part of his testimony, a transcript of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lewis said the government wanted him to keep quiet while the two sides negotiated government funding to help BofA absorb Merrill and its huge losses.

The Federal Reserve, by its own charter which has force of law, has NO AUTHORITY to take shares in financial institutions, much less controlling interests in Chrysler and GM which are now on the table. This happened in 2008, with a Democrat controlled Congress but a Republican president. Oh Mr. Bush, what the fuck were you thinking?!!? The taking of investors' money (not just fat cats, mind you, but also pension funds and personal IRAs), in my view is also a taking of liberty, in that it is a usurpation of the rule of law by fiat and coercion. I call ullshitbay on isthay ositionpay too. So, the two stated positions of the Republican party which can be checked with facts are, in fact, not followed by the majority of Republicans. Both Obama and McCain voted for TARP. So, what's the difference between the two parties? It's late; I'll wrap up with comments on my rate of change contention tomorrow.

Oh, and Mike? I'm not a Republican, so Pablo's challenge was a "difficult argument." I had to think about it before responding.

EDIT: Hey woot, Page 3 snipe! Oh, never mind; that shit's for Testing.

[Darth Wong]

Chocula, are you mentally retarded? Pablo asked you to describe the "core principles" that you think the Republican party should obey, and how you have established these principles to be the core principles of the Republican Party. You have done none of that in your last post. Instead, you ranted about how the Republicans don't live up to their rhetoric: something which has absolutely nothing to do with what you were asked to provide.

Oh, and Mike? I'm not a Republican, so Pablo's challenge was a "difficult argument." I had to think about it before responding.

I don't give a fuck whether you call yourself a Republican. You referenced "core principles" that the Republican Party should follow, and instead of explaining and justifying those "core principles" as asked, you just quoted a bunch of useless Republican party bullshit that you don't even agree with yourself, and then posted a useless and irrelevant libertarian talking point at the end.

Since you either have amnesia or are simply a dishonest turd, here's what you said:

there are too few Republicans who hew to core principles

This was your explanation of what's wrong with the Republican Party. You were challenged to explain what those "core principles" were. You have not done this. Instead, you found examples of hypocrites inside the Republican Party. Either you're evading or you're too fucking stupid to understand what's being asked of you.

[Count Chocula]

Fucked up the formatting and copy/paste; working.

[Count Chocula]

OK fixed it.

Chocula, are you mentally retarded? Pablo asked you to describe the "core principles" that you think the Republican party should obey, and how you have established these principles to be the core principles of the Republican Party. You have done none of that in your last post. Instead, you ranted about how the Republicans don't live up to their rhetoric: something which has absolutely nothing to do with what you were asked to provide.

Here's what he said:

You're not making any sense because you seem to just be regurgitating conservative talking points about getting back to core principles. I'm going to stop you here and ask you to explain the principles you're talking about. What are they, specifically, and why do you believe that a Republican party that affirms these principles will be electorally successful?

To be quite honest, I had no more than a vague idea what those core principles were...so I did some research on the Republican party and found that they started off their 2008 platform with a declaration of principles. Reading the party platform, then comparing what they say to what they've done got me off on last post's semi-rant. Oops.

If you hold the opinion that that makes me "pretty much a generic party line libertarian" (your post 5/9 7:46PM), "mentally retarded," "either have amnesia or are simply a dishonest turd," and "evading or you're too fucking stupid to understand what's being asked of you" (your post 5/15 1:59AM), well screw you. Unlike Pablo Sanchez, who put significant thought into his posts, from what I've read you've just been sniping and generalizing in your posts in this thread. I blame myself for getting pissed at what the Republicans say they'll do and what they've done, shame on me, but at least I put a little thought into my replies. Live up to your own standards for once.

What could the Republicans do to rebound? It seems reasonable to me to start with what their 2008 platform declares, then go from there. So, back to my last post, I'll address Pablo's questions by examining the GOP's explicit platform points, examining why they could get traction with those points, and speculating a bit from there. Understand that I'm treating this entire line of reasoning as hypothetical, since I have little confidence the sitting Republicans will do this.

This is a platform of enduring principle, not
passing convenience . The product of the most open
and transparent process in American political history.
We offer it to our fellow Americans in the assurance
that our Republican ideals are those that unify our
country: Courage in the face of foreign foes. An optimistic
patriotism, driven by a passion for freedom.
Devotion to the inherent dignity and rights of every
person. Faith in the virtues of self-reliance, civic
commitment, and concern for one another. Distrust
of government's interference
in people's lives. Dedication
to a rule of law that both protects
and preserves liberty.

First off, "distrust of goverment's interference in people's lives." Back it up with specific measures, despite what a vocal minority in your party may think. Abortion is probably the biggie here: if any potential candidate simply said "it's been decided in the Supreme Court, but I will push for it to be overturned and left to the States to decide" they'd get some traction. My reasoning follows:

• Abortion is a hot-button issue, and has been so since before Roe vs. Wade;
• Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, there are millions of voting Americans who think that the decision was both wrong and out of the Supreme Court's purview, as the decision was based on privacy rights (I'm ambivalent about abortion but acknowledge that it's legal);
• By asserting that it should be a state's decision, the GOP could get more Libertarians and Independents inclined to join the party. Conversely, there's a good chance it wouldn't change Bible Belt voters' minds on the party, since (I'm guessing here) the Bible thumpers would reason that "well OUR state would never allow abortion and will overturn it, so that's hunky-dory;"
• It could entice "Blue Dog" Democrats who are not beholden to a fundamentalist electorate (I'm thinking Midwest here) to swing their votes, or maybe party allegiance, based on its explicit ceding of a federal decision back to the states.

This one may be off the wall, but it came to me this morning: a GOP candidate could push for the legalization of marijuana, just like California's considering! Republicans who've advocated that in the past have been ridiculed and marginalized, but here's my reasoning:

• California is a big-ass state with a lot of voters, and a lot of liberal voters. If California legalization passes, and like Portugal's analagous experience it doesn't result in a crime or delinquency wave, California Democrats may think to themselves "hey, maybe the GOP's not as bad as Bush made it seem!"
• If the old-time religion GOP'ers protest the move, well shit, just remind them that Washington and Jefferson both cutivated marijuana hemp, then ask them rhetorically "what, you don't think the Founding Fathers of this nation knew what was good or bad? Are you really smarter than they are?" Turn the Founders' worship (as distinguished from respect) on its ear;
• Cite the potential Federal and State revenues that could come from taxing Mary Jane like cigarettes or alcohol, measures that are desperately needed in our time of crisis; heck, assert that it would be un-American to deprive people of that right when so many people smoke it now. Adopt a reasonable tone for those who reason, citing studies that show it's not a gateway drug;
• Cite the potential cost reductions in law enforcement, the courts, and the prison system that de-criminalizing marijuana would allow. According to this source, marijuana-related incarcerations account for 13% of the prison population. Legalizing it could mean 260,000 fewer inmates, with all their associated costs. This is a simplistic analysis, but sometimes simple works;
• Say over, and over, and over again, that marijuana related forfeitures and takings of property are un-American and absurd in their face, and that the rulings that led to them must be stricken. Put simply, if a guy's pulled over and an officer finds an ounce of marijuana in the car, the car is charged with the crime of possession!

Even better, candidates could stand by these positions while also pointing out that they don't personally approve of each, thus appearing to satisfy everyone. Yay!

This also dovetails into the last point in the Republican party platform:

Dedication to a rule of law that both protects and preserves liberty.

There are a lot of examples where the rule of law is not followed by either party, but for the sake of brevity (hah!) I'll focus on two: the Patriot Act and SEC regulation. First, the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act has been widely condemned since its inception in 2001; indeed, the entire backstory to its introduction (regarding its appearing full-blown and ready for a vote) is suspect. Nevertheless, it's law and was renewed. A smart Republican candidate could possibly garner new voters, and still keep the GOP base in his/her district, by advocating and pushing for the following modifications:

• Eliminate ALL provisions for indefinite detentions; fall back to police or FBI standards, or at least set a maximum amount of time to hold a person without charges;
• Eliminate the use of National Security Letters, which allow for wiretaps and surveillance without judicial review. Striking the National Security Letters should be done as a matter of principle, if for no other reason; frankly, warrantless wire taps and surveillance are a 14th Amendment violation, the very amendment cited for privacy rights in Roe vs. Wade. Replace it with the requirement for a Federal judge to authorize any wiretaps or surveillance of suspect, and end fishing expeditions.

Taking these two steps would still keep the Patriot Act in effect (thus satisfying much of the GOP base) but remove the most egregious violations of American federal law from it. Plus, coincidentally, it would be in my opinion the right thing to do.

The current financial crisis has its roots partially in the allowing of banks to engage in market investments, including derivative investments, in 2001 IIRC. We're all familiar with the consequences of that and other decisions. One thing the press has downplayed, however, is that the Treasury and SEC already had laws in place to prevent this mess from happening, and chose NOT to enforce their own laws. As an example, there were numerous calls to investigate Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme hedge fund for nearly 10 years before any action was taken! Finally, when the larcenous activity affected the market at whole and could no longer be ignored, investigations began. New York Attorney General and Democrat Andrew Cuomo has begun his own state investigations, and is finding red meat. The 1980's S&L crisis saw over 1,000 executives indicted, with over 700 found guilty and sentenced to prison terms if I recall correctly. Any GOP'er who runs with enforcement of securities law and bank regulations, and follows through with it, will become and remain popular.

One conspicuous absence in the Republican party platform that I spotted is a lack of any statement for fiscal responsibility. They address fiscal responsibility, kind of, in the body of the platform (PM me if you want the page citations), but it's not a core principle. In my opinion, it should be, based simply on the numbers.

The federal government, both parties, has approved budgets with deficits for at least the last 40 years. The Clinton second-term surpluses were almost entirely a result of the Social Security Trust Fund running a surplus and investing that surplus in Treasuries. The actual deficit Clinton ran was equivalent to the deficits both Reagan and Bush racked up during their tenures. I think that a GOP emphasis on fiscal prudence, with a promise to reduce and eliminate deficits, that again is followed up by action, would win huge among Democrat, Republican and Independent voters.

It would be childishly simple to explain, too: I have a mortgage, so I have incurred a debt to repay over time. If, however, I don't make enough money to live the way I'd like to and borrow to buy things I want or need, like putting my groceries and utility bill payments on my credit cards, I've run up a deficit. If I do this for too many months or years, I'm screwed. This is so simple that even mouth-breathers would comprehend it. It's also easy to justify with budget figures. In 2006, $211 billion was spent paying INTEREST on the national debt. Interest, NOT principal; that's even worse than a strapped homeowner making the minimum monthly credit card payment! It was the sixth largest non-discretionary budget item, equal to the expenditures for education and training, transportation, and veterans' benefits combined. In 2007 it increased to $243.7 billion, almost a $33 billion increase, just in INTEREST payments! In 2008 it jumped again to $261 billion. Add TARP, the latest round of new bailouts, an estimated $1.75 trillion deficit in 2009 as a result, and a 2010 budget request with a ~$1.2 trillion deficit, and you're looking at a shit sandwich. Congress is piling on debt at a rate that guarantees that the interest payment alone will be a top 5 budget item for decades to come, especially if this trend continues.

Your problem is that you refuse to see the obvious: that the debt can only be paid down by increasing taxes. In your imaginary dream world, you can magically eliminate half of government spending with little or no consequence on society, and then these enormous cost savings will pay down the debt while also giving the government breathing room to cut taxes even more than they already have.

That's a wonderful fantasy. It's right up there with flying cars, penis enlargement creams, and that guy from Nigeria who wants to give you millions of dollars in exchange for letting him have your bank account numbers. Everyone wants to believe they can have something for nothing. Nobody wants to pay the piper.

(emphasis added)
The only way the debt can be paid down while keeping the federal government at its current size is, as you stated, to increase taxes. Or to slough off the debt to our children. Personally speaking, I'd prefer to keep the tax rates as they are and reduce federal spending so my son does NOT have to pay off a debt incurred in my name.

Simple-minded math indicates that the Fed take from income taxes would have to double to fund our current government without a deficit, yet income tax receipts are down double digits. That happens in a depression (or recession). If you really think any significant portion of the American electorate, Democrat or Republican, would go along with a 25% or 50% increase in the federal taxes they pay, I want some of what you're smoking! Uh uh; won't work and, to quote G.H.W. Bush, doing that "wouldn't be prudent."

Getting back to the mouth breather analogy, what does the average person who doesn't have enough money to pay their living expenses do? Cut Expenses. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few things we could do:

• Close foreign bases, especially those in Western Europe. Do we really need to have soldiers, sailors, airmen and bases in Europe? Shit, World War II ended 64 years ago near enough. There's a savings. Aside from Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea, do we need other overseas bases? I include South Korea because we have an armistice with North Korea, not an end to the conflict. Why do we have a base in Japan, or Turkey for that matter, if Russia isn't a strategic threat? More savings.
• Why can't the Post Office go to four days for delivery, close branches, or take other measures to operate in the black? E-mail's taken a big bite from their revenues; a lot of people pay their bills online, so there's no need for statements to be mailed. More savings; minor in the overall scheme of things, but still a valid example in my opinion.
• Sell off Federal land holdings. The government owns a HUUUGE amount of land out West; 50% of San Diego County, for example, was state-or Fed-owned when I lived out there. We're talking millions of acres. Keep what's needed for park land or military use, and sell off the rest. For that matter (and I may be dredging up something the Duchess noted) why does the Navy still own the Presidio in San Francisco? That's prime land. For that matter, MCRD San Diego is right downtown too; why not move it to Otay Mesa where the land's cheaper?

I'm sure these examples are fraught with what-ifs, can't dos and "it'll piss off my voting base" objections, but an inability to cut budget expenditures looks like a lack of will to me.

And back to the original point, could the GOP revitalize themselves by taking these positions? I think so, but I also think that any GOP candidate who does so will rise from a local political scene, or possibly ditch a successful business life for politics. I doubt it would come much above the state party level, because by that point I'm guessing that a candidate would already owe a lot of favors to sponsors and be beholden to them. However, it could happen. Regardless of whether the GOP does anything I've outlined, I think they'd need some new faces and 30 or more electoral victories in the next election to remain effective as an opposition party to the Democrats.

[The Yosemite Bear]

the only rebounding I've see comming out of the current GOP, are all the rubber checks from the time of Reagan onward comming back to bite us in the arse with the current economic cluster fuck.

[Ziggy Stardust]

And back to the original point, could the GOP revitalize themselves by taking these positions? I think so, but I also think that any GOP candidate who does so will rise from a local political scene, or possibly ditch a successful business life for politics. I doubt it would come much above the state party level, because by that point I'm guessing that a candidate would already owe a lot of favors to sponsors and be beholden to them. However, it could happen. Regardless of whether the GOP does anything I've outlined, I think they'd need some new faces and 30 or more electoral victories in the next election to remain effective as an opposition party to the Democrats.

To be perfectly honest, any GOP candidate who actually endorses the positions you outlined would probably end up defecting from the party, and become either a Democrat or a Libertarian, due to the intense backlash they will face from the extreme right fundamentalist base.

[Pablo Sanchez]

By asserting that it should be a state's decision, the GOP could get more Libertarians and Independents inclined to join the party. Conversely, there's a good chance it wouldn't change Bible Belt voters' minds on the party, since (I'm guessing here) the Bible thumpers would reason that "well OUR state would never allow abortion and will overturn it, so that's hunky-dory;"

This is not different from anything the GOP is already doing; Roe v. Wade ensures that abortion cannot be outright banned by any state, but on a state-by-state basis the right wing has undertaken attempts to limit access to abortion or make it more inconvenient--check out the Parental Consent, Informed Consent, and Waiting Period laws that most conservative-leaning states have already enacted.

This one may be off the wall, but it came to me this morning: a GOP candidate could push for the legalization of marijuana, just like California's considering! Republicans who've advocated that in the past have been ridiculed and marginalized, but here's my reasoning:
California is a big-ass state with a lot of voters, and a lot of liberal voters. If California legalization passes, and like Portugal's analagous experience it doesn't result in a crime or delinquency wave, California Democrats may think to themselves "hey, maybe the GOP's not as bad as Bush made it seem!"

Totally unrealistic because marijuana legalization is a secondary issue that could only determines the political allegiance of a tiny number of people--there are virtually no single-issue marijuana legalization voters. Switching stances on this issue is also risky, because the GOP has run as the tough-on-crime party since the 1960s; by moderating their stance on drugs they would effectively be ceding one of their few remaining strengths. Worse, once the GOP started to soften on legalization the Democrats would almost certainly do the same, making the entire issue a wash.

As for California specifically, don't kid yourself. California's demographics are heavily skewed to urban areas and minorities, more so than any state save Hawaii. Legal pot is not going to deliver that state for the GOP.

The Patriot Act has been widely condemned since its inception in 2001; indeed, the entire backstory to its introduction (regarding its appearing full-blown and ready for a vote) is suspect. Nevertheless, it's law and was renewed. A smart Republican candidate could possibly garner new voters, and still keep the GOP base in his/her district, by advocating and pushing for the following modifications:
[SNIP]

Again, you're talking about undermining one of the very few strengths that the Republican party still maintains.

The current financial crisis has its roots partially in the allowing of banks to engage in market investments, including derivative investments, in 2001 IIRC. We're all familiar with the consequences of that and other decisions. [SNIP] Any GOP'er who runs with enforcement of securities law and bank regulations, and follows through with it, will become and remain popular.

On this issue I think you're correct, because just as happened after the Great Depression, a retrenched and improved regulatory framework is going to have to be part of the political consensus going forward, because people have been made painful aware of the consequences of unfettered capitalism. The GOP will have to adopt it because opposing sensible government oversight won't fly anymore. That said, the Democratic stance will be the same with a few minor differences of degree, so that it will not be a battleground as an issue and elections will be decided on other issues, meaning that this is a wash and the advantage is still with Democrats.

Simple-minded math indicates that the Fed take from income taxes would have to double to fund our current government without a deficit, yet income tax receipts are down double digits. That happens in a depression (or recession).

We're spending more money and taking less money in right now because we're spending our way out of a depression; it doesn't follow that this debt-revenue ratio is going to continue indefinitely, even after an economic recovery.

If you really think any significant portion of the American electorate, Democrat or Republican, would go along with a 25% or 50% increase in the federal taxes they pay, I want some of what you're smoking! Uh uh; won't work and, to quote G.H.W. Bush, doing that "wouldn't be prudent."

Because of the dramatically unequal distribution of wealth in the United States the portion of the American electorate that faces dramatically higher taxes will be a small fraction, population-wise. Most Americans up through the "middle class" would see a moderate increase in their taxes, while upper brackets will pay progressively more the wealthier they are. These are all sensible changes that are known to function well in other countries with comparable standards of living.

Close foreign bases, especially those in Western Europe. Do we really need to have soldiers, sailors, airmen and bases in Europe? Shit, World War II ended 64 years ago near enough. There's a savings. Aside from Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea, do we need other overseas bases? I include South Korea because we have an armistice with North Korea, not an end to the conflict. Why do we have a base in Japan, or Turkey for that matter, if Russia isn't a strategic threat? More savings.

How much money will this actually save?

Why can't the Post Office go to four days for delivery, close branches, or take other measures to operate in the black? E-mail's taken a big bite from their revenues; a lot of people pay their bills online, so there's no need for statements to be mailed. More savings; minor in the overall scheme of things, but still a valid example in my opinion.

It's a valid example, sure, but of what? Are you proposing that every government service should be slashed by 20%?

Sell off Federal land holdings.

To who? The vast majority of Federal holdings are wilderness of marginal value, whose mineral rights (the only valuable part) have often already been sold. Who is going to want that land? The real estate which is actually valuable might not be profitable to sell, either. Remember that if the MCRD San Diego was sold it would necessitate constructing an entirely new facility someplace else, which would likely devour the profits thereby gained.

Also you studiously avoided talking about the things that make up the bulk of the federal budget: social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance, and so on. These programs would have to be aggressively slashed to bring down the deficit without raising taxes, and that would probably be a bad idea. From a simplistic point of view, cutting programs saves money, but one can't forget that the problem the program is designed to address does not go away. It's been extensively proven on these forums that the cost of government inaction on health care is vastly higher than the costs that would be incurred if the problem was tackled directly. A smaller example of this principle: the societal cost of maintaining a homeless person on the street is higher than that of simply providing housing (this Forbes article claims a savings of $3 billion dollars nationally). This kind of thing appears counter-intuitive but is not really open to dispute.

[Samuel]

Close foreign bases, especially those in Western Europe. Do we really need to have soldiers, sailors, airmen and bases in Europe? Shit, World War II ended 64 years ago near enough. There's a savings. Aside from Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea, do we need other overseas bases? I include South Korea because we have an armistice with North Korea, not an end to the conflict. Why do we have a base in Japan, or Turkey for that matter, if Russia isn't a strategic threat? More savings.

Because they border Iraq and Syria and are in close proximity to Iran. Also, do we have bases there? I thought they refused us access after we boosted the Kurds.

[Darth Wong]

Unlike Pablo Sanchez, who put significant thought into his posts, from what I've read you've just been sniping and generalizing in your posts in this thread.

Demanding that you back up your shit is not "sniping", you stupid asshole.

I blame myself for getting pissed at what the Republicans say they'll do and what they've done, shame on me, but at least I put a little thought into my replies. Live up to your own standards for once.

Quality of thought is not determined by word count, moron. You have put ZERO thought into your posts in this thread. By your own admission, you idiotically posted about Republican "core principles" without even bothering to find out what those principles were, dipshit. The fact that I don't waste words pointing out the flaws in your arguments does not mean that I'm failing to live up to a standard. This isn't Victoria-era law, where you get paid by the word.

This one may be off the wall, but it came to me this morning: a GOP candidate could push for the legalization of marijuana, just like California's considering!

How is that a Republican issue? Democrats have no more ideological opposition to that idea than Republicans do, and possibly less.

This also dovetails into the last point in the Republican party platform:

The one that you previous screamed at the Republicans for ignoring? There's a reason they ignore it: it's no more important to them than a typical corporate "mission statement". It's feelgood boilerplate, which has little or no relation to actual policy. Moreover, it's vague and insubstantial, just like corporate mission statements. It's easy to write things like "rule of law", but that doesn't help you determine which laws are important and which ones aren't.

A smart Republican candidate could possibly garner new voters, and still keep the GOP base in his/her district, by advocating and pushing for the following modifications:

• Eliminate ALL provisions for indefinite detentions; fall back to police or FBI standards, or at least set a maximum amount of time to hold a person without charges;
• Eliminate the use of National Security Letters, which allow for wiretaps and surveillance without judicial review. Striking the National Security Letters should be done as a matter of principle, if for no other reason; frankly, warrantless wire taps and surveillance are a 14th Amendment violation, the very amendment cited for privacy rights in Roe vs. Wade. Replace it with the requirement for a Federal judge to authorize any wiretaps or surveillance of suspect, and end fishing expeditions.

Again, what about these ideas is particularly Republican? What's to stop a Democrat from adopting these same positions, or more?

The current financial crisis has its roots partially in the allowing of banks to engage in market investments, including derivative investments, in 2001 IIRC.

Also allowing hedge funds to run wild, and break down the walls between banks, insurance companies, etc.

We're all familiar with the consequences of that and other decisions. One thing the press has downplayed, however, is that the Treasury and SEC already had laws in place to prevent this mess from happening, and chose NOT to enforce their own laws.

Of course not, because of the general small-government anti-regulation sentiment which has been promoted by conservatives and the Republican Party since 1980. You know, the same "small-government" rhetoric that you promote regularly. You can't promote "small government" for years and then try to wash your hands of the results when government bureaucracies stop doing their jobs. That's exactly what "small government" is all about: reducing "government interference in private enterprise". When you appoint anti-regulation people to run regulatory agencies, just what do you think will happen?

As an example, there were numerous calls to investigate Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme hedge fund for nearly 10 years before any action was taken!

See above.

Any GOP'er who runs with enforcement of securities law and bank regulations, and follows through with it, will become and remain popular.

It doesn't matter. Even if he claims to run on such policies, he will promote the same "small government" mentality and this mentality will eventually lead to a weakening or non-enforcement of regulations. This problem is endemic to any platform which claims to fight "government interference". Again, you're pushing a "have your cake and eat it too" solution: you want "small government" but you also want strict and pervasive regulatory presence. What you don't seem to understand is that the two ideas are mutually contradictory.

It would be childishly simple to explain, too: I have a mortgage, so I have incurred a debt to repay over time. If, however, I don't make enough money to live the way I'd like to and borrow to buy things I want or need, like putting my groceries and utility bill payments on my credit cards, I've run up a deficit. If I do this for too many months or years, I'm screwed. This is so simple that even mouth-breathers would comprehend it.

Unfortunately, the solution of simply "spending less money" is far easier to say than to do. It's easy to say "we'll spend less money!" It's not as easy deciding what to cut out of the budget, especially if you don't actually spend as much on frivolities as you thought you did.

The only way the debt can be paid down while keeping the federal government at its current size is, as you stated, to increase taxes. Or to slough off the debt to our children. Personally speaking, I'd prefer to keep the tax rates as they are and reduce federal spending so my son does NOT have to pay off a debt incurred in my name.

See above.

Simple-minded math indicates that the Fed take from income taxes would have to double to fund our current government without a deficit, yet income tax receipts are down double digits. That happens in a depression (or recession). If you really think any significant portion of the American electorate, Democrat or Republican, would go along with a 25% or 50% increase in the federal taxes they pay, I want some of what you're smoking! Uh uh; won't work and, to quote G.H.W. Bush, doing that "wouldn't be prudent."

The wealthy can afford a 25% or 50% federal tax increase. Multi-national corporations as well: particularly those that have been evading taxes. Did you know that many companies which received TARP money are using overseas tax shelters to avoid paying taxes?

Any more dumb challenges you want to make?

Close foreign bases, especially those in Western Europe. Do we really need to have soldiers, sailors, airmen and bases in Europe? Shit, World War II ended 64 years ago near enough. There's a savings. Aside from Iraq, Afghanistan and South Korea, do we need other overseas bases? I include South Korea because we have an armistice with North Korea, not an end to the conflict. Why do we have a base in Japan, or Turkey for that matter, if Russia isn't a strategic threat? More savings.

They've been closing down bases. But in the militaristic social climate promoted by Reagan in the 1980s, nobody can talk about downsizing the military without being branded "weak on defense". Who are you going to blame for this? It's virtually conservative dogma that the military must be continually enlarged. And worshipped.

Why can't the Post Office go to four days for delivery, close branches, or take other measures to operate in the black? E-mail's taken a big bite from their revenues; a lot of people pay their bills online, so there's no need for statements to be mailed. More savings; minor in the overall scheme of things, but still a valid example in my opinion.

The Post Office is a public service. Denial of service to small rural communities would save a lot of money, but it isn't done because the Post Office is not in this to make money. It's in this because mail delivery is considered an important public service; do you honestly not see why? Four-day delivery would also hurt the tens of thousands of companies which rely on USPS for mail order sales.

Sell off Federal land holdings. The government owns a HUUUGE amount of land out West; 50% of San Diego County, for example, was state-or Fed-owned when I lived out there. We're talking millions of acres. Keep what's needed for park land or military use, and sell off the rest. For that matter (and I may be dredging up something the Duchess noted) why does the Navy still own the Presidio in San Francisco? That's prime land. For that matter, MCRD San Diego is right downtown too; why not move it to Otay Mesa where the land's cheaper?[/list]I'm sure these examples are fraught with what-ifs, can't dos and "it'll piss off my voting base" objections, but an inability to cut budget expenditures looks like a lack of will to me.

In order to sell the land, you must make it safe for civilian use (many military bases would cost more to clean up than you could possibly make from sale), and you must also have buyers lined up ready to pay. And it had better be big bucks, otherwise it's not worth it.

And back to the original point, could the GOP revitalize themselves by taking these positions?

You don't seem to realize that none of these positions have a particularly "Republican" flavour to them. There is absolutely nothing to stop a Democrat from adopting any or all of these positions. Your ideas for revitalizing the GOP basically boil down to "move to the centre", but I doubt they're going to do that, since the Democrats are already occupying that territory. They might have a shot at making it work if they can claim to be more trustworthy in implementing centrist policies than the Democrats, but that would be a tough claim to make, since they don't exactly have a history of living up to their rhetoric anyway.

[Darth Wong]

Want to save real money? Raise the retirement age, downsize the military (the US spends more on the military than every other country in the world combined), and institute universal health care (Medicare/Medicaid already provide it to the most expensive patients anyway, and it would cut the currently ridiculous overhead costs incurred by a small galaxy of insurance companies and HMOs providing duplicate services).

But that's not enough. Here's the bitter pill: they need to make some serious cuts in health-care costs by instituting price controls on pharmaceuticals, prescription guidelines for doctors (specifically, all of those doctors who prescribe expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper generics could be easily substituted need to be taken to task, especially when they've been getting perks from those brand-name companies), and (and here's the really bitter pill) rationing use of the most expensive procedures. It's been said that people will use up more health-care money in their last 60 days than they did in their entire lives before that point. I wonder how much money was wasted keeping Terri Schiavo alive for all that time even though she was nothing more than a vegetable.

People would howl about this. But it needs to be done. Or you could just adopt Chocula's hand-waving solution of declaring that you just need "the will", without daring to give examples of specific cuts that would actually require such will. They always suggest cost-saving ideas which will magically save money without sacrificing anything whatsoever: a very easy thing to suggest.

[Stark]

People really hate that idea; that sustaining a single person with massive systemic problems for a few days means you burnt enough money to heal a bunch of injured kids.

[Adrian Laguna]

People really hate that idea; that sustaining a single person with massive systemic problems for a few days means you burnt enough money to heal a bunch of injured kids.

The chief problem is that the people who hate the idea the most, old people with a foot in death's door, vote very consistently, so politicians can't really afford to institute such policies. This will get worse as the baby boomers age enough to need these procedures, but not enough to die in such numbers that their demographic influence ebs.

[Patrick Degan]

Your ideas for revitalizing the GOP basically boil down to "move to the centre", but I doubt they're going to do that, since the Democrats are already occupying that territory. They might have a shot at making it work if they can claim to be more trustworthy in implementing centrist policies than the Democrats, but that would be a tough claim to make, since they don't exactly have a history of living up to their rhetoric anyway.

It seems the far bigger hurdle for the GOP isn't to demonstrate that they could be trusted to implement centrist policies but that they're competent enough to implement any policy at all.

[Count Chocula]

To be perfectly honest, any GOP candidate who actually endorses the positions you outlined would probably end up defecting from the party, and become either a Democrat or a Libertarian, due to the intense backlash they will face from the extreme right fundamentalist base.

Ya know this was in the back of my mind when I posted but I went with it anyway, based on personal experience. I did a little digging and I found this article from 2003 by PublicEye which examined the voting habits of evangelical Christians.

About 14 percent of the electorate in 2000 identified itself as part of the "Christian Right," with 79 percent of this sector voting for George W. Bush.

(that same article, by the way, noted that 52% of evangelical Christians Did. Not. Vote. in 2000). Based on InfoPlease 2000 election figures, 104,338,994 people voted for President; 50,456,002 voted for Bush. 14% of 104 million is 14,607,000 in round numbers. 79% of that is 11.54 million, or just about 22.7% of all votes cast for Bush! Damn, that's a lot more than I expected. Let's see if I can salvage my argument...

• On abortion: yep, I think my hypothetical candidate would lose here. The Bible has several passages on abortion which condemn it. Heck, fundies would probably say no based on this passage alone: "Thus says the LORD, "For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon and for four I will not revoke its punishment, Because they ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead In order to enlarge their borders." (Amos 1:13)" Shucks.
• On pot: I still think this could get traction, or at least laughing agreement, in the fundie world. Here's a relevant citation, one of several:

  The hemp plant (scientific name: cannabis, slang: marijuana) is one of the many useful herbs "yielding seed after its kind" created and blessed by God on the third day of creation, "and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:12) He gave hemp for people to use with our free will.
  
  God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth.…To you it will be for meat." … And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. (Genesis 1:29-31) The Bible predicts some herb's prohibition. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times, some shall … speak lies in hypocrisy … commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (Paul: 1 Timothy 4:1-3)
  
  The Bible speaks of a special plant. "I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more." (Ezekiel 34:29) A healing plant. On either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare 12 manner of fruits, and yielding her fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (Revelations 22:1-2) A gift from God.
  
  How was cannabis used in Biblical times and lands?
  Cannabis was used 12 ways: clothing, paper, cord, sails, fishnet, oil, sealant, incense, food, and in ceremony, relaxation and medicine. For so the Lord said unto me, "I will take my rest and I will consider in my dwelling place like a clear heat upon herbs. For afore harvest, when the bud is perfect and the sour grape is ripening in the flower, he shall cut off the sprigs with pruning hooks and take away and cut down the branches." (Isaiah 18:4-5)

  Simply say God Says Pot Is Doubleplusgood and the literal-minded will likely nod their heads, while the skeptics would likely smirk and grant you rhetorical points...not a lose in my opinion.
• On the Patriot Act: the Bible does not really go into infringements per se, likely because governments at that time did not have the means to spy on communications as they do now. From what I recall, mainly Job's trials, the Bible relays stories of wrongful imprisonment without really passing judgement other than to say they're "God's trials to the faithful." Pretty sadistic, but off topic. My guess is it would come down to the individual fundie's feelings, and now I'm in the realm of speculation. I concede the third point.
• On rule of law: I disagree strongly with your conclusion. The Bible, both Old and New testament, is chock(ula) full of laws and rules and "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots;" hell, the foundations of Western jurisprudence are still based largely on the Ten Commandments. A GOP candidate who runs on a partial platform of identifying and punishing those individuals who caused the financial mess, whether private or federal, would in my opinion get a lot of support from both evangelicals and fundamentalists. After all, Jesus drove the moneychangers from the temple and the Jubliee is ensconced in Biblical canon, specifically Deuteronomy.

So, overall, two wins and two losses; with the wins and losses equally weighted (abortion vs. rule of law) IMO. Hey, a 50% chance of winning over 20% of your voting base is better than the current position of "none," right?

[Count Chocula]

This is not different from anything the GOP is already doing; Roe v. Wade ensures that abortion cannot be outright banned by any state, but on a state-by-state basis the right wing has undertaken attempts to limit access to abortion or make it more inconvenient--check out the Parental Consent, Informed Consent, and Waiting Period laws that most conservative-leaning states have already enacted.

I admit I'm not familiar with those laws, other than the broad brush strokes that they seem to be designed to pressure minors into telling their parents they had sex, got pregnant, and want to end it before a baby pops out the input. In other words, moral suasion enforced by the state, not the parents (who apparently didn't know or care what their kids were doing). I'll admit to a conundrum here: my opinion is that if the states had their own laws regarding abortion, it would be one aspect of the republican principles of America's founding - that of the right of the separate states to have their own particular rules, and thus attract people who are attracted by those rules, while conforming to laws and treaties set by the Federal government. Theoretically, my pregnant 16-year-old (hypothetical, he's four and duh a boy) could drive from a no-abortion state to a yes-abortion state, do the deed, then go home. I'll admit I haven't thought about the effects on a teen who could not afford such a trip, could not make such a trip, or is too young to make such a trip. I concede your point.

[on marijuana legalization]Totally unrealistic because marijuana legalization is a secondary issue that could only determines the political allegiance of a tiny number of people--there are virtually no single-issue marijuana legalization voters. Switching stances on this issue is also risky, because the GOP has run as the tough-on-crime party since the 1960s; by moderating their stance on drugs they would effectively be ceding one of their few remaining strengths. Worse, once the GOP started to soften on legalization the Democrats would almost certainly do the same, making the entire issue a wash.

As for California specifically, don't kid yourself. California's demographics are heavily skewed to urban areas and minorities, more so than any state save Hawaii. Legal pot is not going to deliver that state for the GOP.

There are persistent rumors that George W. Bush used marijuana and cocaine when he was younger (reference from Wiki, but the citations in the article are solid). Yet he had two terms as President. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican, has admitted to marijuana use in his youth, and is now open to debate on legalizing (and taxing, natch!) the demon weed. Of course, he's "not saying we should. I'm just saying, you know, hey, whatever. I oppose it. But we should talk about it." Win-win!

This does have precedent, with Prohibition. Alcohol went from legal to illegal with the final governor's signature on the amendment, and led to widespread flouting of the law, disrespect for police and law enforcement, and the sudden creation of a criminal underclass with the money to corrupt the courts and police. Sound familiar? If it's no longer a crime, the Republicans still have a lot of other crimes they could still be "tough on" like larceny, fraud, theft and murder. I don't think it would really dent their reputation that much if a GOP candidate acknowledged that the social and financial costs of marijuana criminalization are more costly than their benefits. Plus, I would not expect a serious candidate to propose this as one of their top ten things to do. Still, it would signal a willingness of the GOP to let people decide what they want to ingest for recreation...and telling voters that "if it makes you feel good, I'm okay with that!" is rarely a losing proposition.

I'll repeat that Schwarzenegger is a Republican. This minor issue could be enough to swing a few more votes towards the Republicans. Besides, if the GOP leads with this and the Democrats follow suit, potheads of all parties would rejoice! And Amsterdam would mourn.

On this issue I think you're correct, because just as happened after the Great Depression, a retrenched and improved regulatory framework is going to have to be part of the political consensus going forward, because people have been made painful aware of the consequences of unfettered capitalism.

Agreed with a minor caveat. America has not had unfettered capitalism since the J.P. Morgan days and the antitrust legislation enacted as a result of Teapot Dome IIRC and Morgan's shit-ass behavior. What we have, in my opinion, is the consequences of collusion, cronyism and lax enforcement among government regulatory agencies, chartered banks, derivatives brokers of all stripes, and Congress. Here's a commentator who does a superb job of explaining the transgressions of all parties involved in our current mess; if I remember correctly, I followed a link J Snuggly Swimmer Babe provided in one of her posts 4-5 months ago. The current crisis looks like it arose from the removal of safeguards, notably Glass-Steagal and willful blindness and/or collusion at the New York Fed, Treasury, and Federal Reserve. And aside from Andrew Cuomo, I don't see any Democrats pushing for investigations or disclosure. Barney Frank has been notable by his absence this past month or so, after his IMO false outrage over AIG's bankruptcy and bailout. He also opined that Fannie and Freddie were fundamentally sound in July 2008...just before they went tits-up in September.

Shit I have to get up in four hours for work. I'll address the rest of your points on the morrow.

[Darth Wong]

telling voters that "if it makes you feel good, I'm okay with that!" is rarely a losing proposition.

You know they've spent the last 30 years telling people that it's a liberal idea to say "if it makes you feel good, it's OK", right? They mock that kind of thinking, and declare themselves to be more righteous than that. This would not be a small change; it would be a huge one. You can point to the fact that Schwarzenegger and Bush have done drugs, but that's in the "wild shit I did in my youth" category.

[Count Chocula]

Simple-minded math indicates that the Fed take from income taxes would have to double to fund our current government without a deficit, yet income tax receipts are down double digits. That happens in a depression (or recession).

We're spending more money and taking less money in right now because we're spending our way out of a depression; it doesn't follow that this debt-revenue ratio is going to continue indefinitely, even after an economic recovery.

You're correct that we're taking in less and spending more right now since we're in a big D depression despite what Bubblevision says; however, what we're seeing in the deficits brought to us by both parties is a much more extreme reaction than our last big recession, back in 1982-84. Here's a chart from this site comparing the median duration of unemployment, one measure of health.


Graph is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, follow the link above for more charts. Unemployment is a bit over 2% higher than our last recession, but it's a lagging indicator so that number will probably climb. So, our unemployment rate in the US could get as much as 30% worse than our last major recession. Simple logic, which is all I'm qualified to apply on this topic, would imply that the government's reaction should be 30% greater than last time around; but, since we have so many derivative bombs sputtering to detonation, I'll grant that the reaction should be twice as strong.

The Fed budget in 1982 was $740 billion in 1982 and $819 Billion in 1983 (it went up from there, too). FY2009's budget was originally $3.1 trillion, less the bailout and other expenditures (add a trillion?). The FY2010 proposal is for a $3.6 trillion federal budget. The Congressional Budget Office uses deficit as a percent of GDP as a measure of its magnitude; the last time around in 1982-3 Reagan's deficit got to 6% of GDP. For 2009-2010, we're looking at a deficit of 11% to 12% of GDP. The 2010 GDP is estimated at $14.7 trillion. Per the Minneapolis Fed's inflation calculator, the 1982 GDP adjusted for inflation works out to around $7.3 trillion. The estimated 2009 GDP is $14.7 trillion. So, the 2009-2010 deficit is four times the magnitude of the measures taken in the last recession! And so far in the past six months, all this deficit spending has done squat to improve the bottom line of anyone but the banks (US and foreign), investment houses, and manufacturers that got bailout money.

The debt-revenue ratio won't continue according to CBO calculations, but I place little stock in their projections. They have the deficit going to "just" $331 billion by 2012, but they also forecast a reduction of GDP of only 3% in 2009; we're already on track for a 6.1% decline in US GDP this year. I fully expect the debt/revenue ratio to remain bad or worsen, unless Congress takes drastic actions. Given the Democrat party's historical preference for federal programs and spending, and their majority in the House and Senate, I don't expect any drastic actions to be taken. I fully expect Congress to play three monkeys until we run out of buyers of US debt, and then...maybe...they'll cut expenditures.

If you really think any significant portion of the American electorate, Democrat or Republican, would go along with a 25% or 50% increase in the federal taxes they pay, I want some of what you're smoking! Uh uh; won't work and, to quote G.H.W. Bush, doing that "wouldn't be prudent."

Because of the dramatically unequal distribution of wealth in the United States the portion of the American electorate that faces dramatically higher taxes will be a small fraction, population-wise. Most Americans up through the "middle class" would see a moderate increase in their taxes, while upper brackets will pay progressively more the wealthier they are. These are all sensible changes that are known to function well in other countries with comparable standards of living.

There's only so much you can squeeze from the wealthiest Americans. According to stats reported in this 2008 article, the upper 1% of income earners in 1980 paid 19% of all income taxes. In 2005, the top 1% of income earners accounted for almost 40% of all income tax collected. That's right, the evil rich paid more under Bush than under Carter! Getting back on point, 2008 federal revenues from income taxes were $1.146 trillion (pie chart here). Just WAGing off the 2005 figures, the top 1% paid $446 billion in income taxes; even if you DOUBLED the taxes on the top 1% and they kept working just as much to make money, you still wouldn't bring in enough to make up for projected deficits for the next two years. On paper you could get a surplus from 2012 forward (assuming the current rosy projections hold), but it would still take decades to pay back the debt we already have as a result of 40 years of deficit spending.

Every economic, financial, and budgetary datum I read just screams that our federal expenditures are NOT sustainable, have not been sustainable for the past 20 years, and that we're dangerously close to an Argentina or Iceland-style federal bankruptcy. Okay, maybe not Iceland, Zimbabwe! If the sitting Republicans, who claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility (although it's not in their official declaration) just ignored distractions like Dijongate, Bowing to the foreign king-Gate, hugging the Queen Mother-Gate, Giving-his-first-media-interview-to-an-Arab-outlet-Gate, and just pounded and pounded and POUNDED on the numbers that show just how bad it will be if the Feds keep spending the way they are, they would actually have a chance to shape the debate. Right now, they're just reacting to every little possibly controversial issue like a dog barking at a tree because the leaves are moving.

Pelosi's under fire now for hypocrisy and lying (shocker!) because she called for Bush-era torture investigations, yet knew in 2003 what was going on. She was briefed and didn't say boo, but now her dander's up? Umm, no...it looks like the Democrats are going to throw her under the bus for her political stupidity. Even so, that's a side show. Nobody in Congress has grown stones and called for an SEC criminal investigation of the 2004 decision to effectively remove investment banks' leverage limits. Maybe the GOP'ers are reluctant because it was freak-man Paulson, Bush's man, who persuaded the SEC, but wrong is wrong. If the Republicans (and as I posited earlier it will likely have to be new blood) pushed for prosecution of ALL the people responsible for the current financial mess, they'd gain a solid backing on the last two points of the Republican party platform and prove to be a clear alternative to the Democrats.

(close foreign bases) How much money will this actually save?

(cost cutting at the Post Office) It's a valid example, sure, but of what? Are you proposing that every government service should be slashed by 20%?

(sell off federal lands) To who? The vast majority of Federal holdings are wilderness of marginal value, whose mineral rights (the only valuable part) have often already been sold. Who is going to want that land? The real estate which is actually valuable might not be profitable to sell, either. Remember that if the MCRD San Diego was sold it would necessitate constructing an entirely new facility someplace else, which would likely devour the profits thereby gained.

I'm really not sure, but I'll take a wild-ass guess. Let's assume each base has 10,000 soldiers/pilots/support staff, at an average salary plus benefits of $25k/year. Assume they'll be RIF'ed (yes I know that's cold): that's a $250 million savings each year. Or two F-22s . Assume each base has 4 squadrons of planes and choppers, flying 50 hours a month each with an average cost of $3,000 per hour to operate. 48*50*3000*12= $86,400,000 per year. Utilities, supplies, maintenance, hell let's just say $25 million a year. Sell the base back to the host country for, say, another $25 million. We now have just under $400 million in recoverable costs per base. A significant amount.

I'm not proposing that every federal department's budget be cut by 20%; some may need 100% cuts! Seriously, I don't see how we can avoid cuts in every non-entitlement program if we are to afford the government we have. I don't know how it would break down, but the largest corporation in the world, the US federal government, inevitably has hundreds of offices, bureaus or departments all doing the same thing for different cohorts. As a former worker for a multinational (I stayed in Florida when they asked me to move to Pittsburgh) I'm aware that there are many, many ways to provide benefits and services (and policies) for a large number of people without having two Accounts Payable departments, for example. And sometimes, those departments take action themselves; it hit the wires this week that the Post Office has cut 25,000 jobs, eliminated some carrier routes, raised prices, and are seeking benefits reductions from Congress to help reduce their projected losses. Full article is at the link, I've quoted enough in this post already.

The real estate which is actually valuable might not be profitable to sell, either. Remember that if the MCRD San Diego was sold it would necessitate constructing an entirely new facility someplace else, which would likely devour the profits thereby gained.

You make a valid point. Any property considered for sale would have to be appraised...hopefully NOT by the folks who inflated appraised residential real estate in the past 7 years! Where it makes sense, put it up for sale. As an example, the Air Force could easily sell off a mile or so of prime beach property at Tyndall Air Force Base in the Panhandle. There is always, always, always a market for beach property. As for selling the Presidio property and buildings and relocating, I presume the DoD would have to ensure that the missions and tasks done at Presidio could be as effectively done either by co-locating in an existing DoD base or finding a place where the land and build-out would still result in a net profit from the sale. Regarding MCRD: the base is down to ~479 acres in size.Camp Pendleton, about an hour up I-5 from San Diego, on the other hand, encompasses > 250,000 acres and 200 square miles of terrain! MCRD would disappear into Pendleton, and that's a logical place to move the Recruit Depot. What better place for the rifleman's service to train recruits than the location of the Marines' sniper school, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? If you and I can, as laymen, think of objections and options to save federal funds, I'm sure bean-counters in D.C. can do the same thing. The lack of action baffles, no, infuriates me.

Also you studiously avoided talking about the things that make up the bulk of the federal budget: social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance, and so on. These programs would have to be aggressively slashed to bring down the deficit without raising taxes, and that would probably be a bad idea. From a simplistic point of view, cutting programs saves money, but one can't forget that the problem the program is designed to address does not go away. It's been extensively proven on these forums that the cost of government inaction on health care is vastly higher than the costs that would be incurred if the problem was tackled directly. A smaller example of this principle: the societal cost of maintaining a homeless person on the street is higher than that of simply providing housing (this Forbes article claims a savings of $3 billion dollars nationally). This kind of thing appears counter-intuitive but is not really open to dispute.

You're right, I haven't. I have a few ideas, but I have to let them swirl around the bowl before I flush them out of my mouth. Plus, I told Mike I'd respond to his post today (looks at clock...shit, yesterday!). I'll address a couple of Mike's points before I sign off, then get back to your point tomorrow. I must admit, and that's most of the reason I'm still thinking about it, I'm not sure what the GOP could do about entitlements right now that would be different from the Dems. But I'll take a stab at it.

[Starglider]

There's only so much you can squeeze from the wealthiest Americans. According to stats reported in this 2008 article, the upper 1% of income earners in 1980 paid 19% of all income taxes. In 2005, the top 1% of income earners accounted for almost 40% of all income tax collected.

In 1980 the top 1% of earners accounted for 7.8% of all income earned. In 2005, they took home 14.9%. So in actual fact their effective taxation rate stayed the same. I would note that the top marginal rate in 1980 was 70% - it peaked (along with the bottom marginal rate) at 92% in 1952. I don't know how conservatives explain the fact that this did not cause mass riots, social disintegration or communism to break out. The US top income tax bracket was in fact above 60% from 1932 to 1981, and remained at 50% until 1987 (when Regan reduced it to 28%). Interestingly enough this is exactly when you claim Federal spending became 'unsustainable'.

[Count Chocula]

Quality of thought is not determined by word count, moron. You have put ZERO thought into your posts in this thread. By your own admission, you idiotically posted about Republican "core principles" without even bothering to find out what those principles were, dipshit. The fact that I don't waste words pointing out the flaws in your arguments does not mean that I'm failing to live up to a standard. This isn't Victoria-era law, where you get paid by the word.

I've long had a general idea of what I thought Republican core principles were, namely "God and Country" patriotism, fiscal restraint, a smaller federal government, a strong national defense (whatever that is) and charity for the truly needy, not the promulgation of a welfare proletariat. I absorbed most of these by osmosis, growing up in the D.C. metro area and by watching the various political campaigns over the past too many few years. My first voter registration was Libertarian because growing up in DC taught me a certain skepticism about both parties, but to be honest my research for my posts on this thread was the first time I actually looked at what the Republican platform said. I read it last September, along with the Demo platform, but it didn't sink in until I looked at the platform again.

As for zero thought, no. There's no fucking way you're going to get away with marginalizing my posts like that. It's not fucking possible to write a paragraph about anything without putting some thought into it. My thoughts are obviously not consonant with yours, and I don't expect them to be. If my conclusions are demonstrably false, call me on them; if you don't agree with my conclusions and don't like the sources I cite, then point out significant opposing data.

How is that a Republican issue? Democrats have no more ideological opposition to that idea than Republicans do, and possibly less.

It could be a secondary Republican issue if they chose to make it one. You're right on the lack of ideological opposition; as a whole, on less overarching questions like the federal government's role and powers, Demo and Repub voters have a lot in common, as you would expect from a monocultural society like America's (or Canada's, or France's). Democrats aren't even talking about the discussion in California on legalization.

In my opinion, supporting legalization is the kind of off the wall, hair up the ass, unexpected kind of tactic that would get the GOP some great publicity, plus it could be seen as GOP support for monster-influential California's embattled Republican governor. At the very least, it's more fun than talking about the kind of mustard Obama put on his burger.

The one that you previous screamed at the Republicans for ignoring? There's a reason they ignore it: it's no more important to them than a typical corporate "mission statement". It's feelgood boilerplate, which has little or no relation to actual policy. Moreover, it's vague and insubstantial, just like corporate mission statements. It's easy to write things like "rule of law", but that doesn't help you determine which laws are important and which ones aren't.(emphasis added)

I disagree. I don't think it's vague at all. I don't think it's unimportant at all. It's one of the two planks I saw that can actually be checked against the oath that Congressmen and Presidents swear to uphold. I was pissed that the Republicans ignore the rule of law, examples of which I've already cited, but my pissitude and their flouting does not invalidate the plank. They need to put up or shut up.

Again, what about these ideas is particularly Republican? What's to stop a Democrat from adopting these same positions, or more?

There's nothing to stop the Democrats from adopting them. As for their being Republican, it applies directly to the last two GOP planks. Arresting someone without charging them with a crime is certainly "interference in people's lives," and warrantless wiretaps and surveillance is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment as I previously averred. If the GOP is first out of the gate on this issue, they'd reaffirm their stated principles AND garner some favorable opinions from the Democrats who opposed the Act in the first place.

Also allowing hedge funds to run wild, and break down the walls between banks, insurance companies, etc.

I agree 100%.

Shit, it's too late again. See you for the rest tomorrow.

[Surlethe]

We're spending more money and taking less money in right now because we're spending our way out of a depression; it doesn't follow that this debt-revenue ratio is going to continue indefinitely, even after an economic recovery.

It doesn't follow immediately, but something like that is going to happen: Obama's budget is projected [pdf] to run significant deficits after the recovery is over.

[Pablo Sanchez]

]Plus, I would not expect a serious candidate to propose this as one of their top ten things to do. Still, it would signal a willingness of the GOP to let people decide what they want to ingest for recreation...and telling voters that "if it makes you feel good, I'm okay with that!" is rarely a losing proposition.

Oh, you mean like gay marriage? The Republican Party's lock on the religious conservative base that has delivered all it's electoral victories in the past 15-20 years is in fact based on the explicit rejection of the idea you're talking about. The GOP turning on to legalization will be seen as going soft on crime by a large number of their supporters. I don't see it gaining more votes than it loses by driving troglodytes away from the polls.

The current crisis looks like it arose from the removal of safeguards, notably Glass-Steagal and willful blindness and/or collusion at the New York Fed, Treasury, and Federal Reserve. And aside from Andrew Cuomo, I don't see any Democrats pushing for investigations or disclosure. Barney Frank has been notable by his absence this past month or so, after his IMO false outrage over AIG's bankruptcy and bailout. He also opined that Fannie and Freddie were fundamentally sound in July 2008...just before they went tits-up in September.

Since the Clinton period there has been a firm pro-business consensus between both parties. I mean, Clinton actively colluded in the removal of a lot of regulations while he was president. I don't think Frank's outrage over the bailout was fake, I just think that the party leadership made the decision to sideline him because they had already committed themselves, and in the future they want to be able to claim that everybody made the same mistake together, just as Republicans were fond of saying when the Iraq War was going badly. I agree that it's past time for the pro-business consensus to break, I just HIGHLY doubt that the GOP will be the ones to do it.

Given the Democrat party's

Is this a typo or are you being a dipshit?

historical preference for federal programs and spending, and their majority in the House and Senate, I don't expect any drastic actions to be taken. I fully expect Congress to play three monkeys until we run out of buyers of US debt, and then...maybe...they'll cut expenditures.

Again, this whole mess you posted has no point, because no one in here was actually arguing that huge yearly increases in national debt were sustainable, because they aren't; the argument you have to address is that the problem can be dealt with through higher taxes, mostly on the wealthy.

There's only so much you can squeeze from the wealthiest Americans.

We know from the experience of other countries at similar standards of living to our own, as well as our own recent history, that we can get a great deal more from them than we do now. The idea that we're squeezing them is ludicrous; they're currently sitting pretty with a huge share of national wealth and an extremely low top marginal rate. During the greatest period of prosperity in American history (the late 1940s to early 1960s boom) they were eating more than a 90% top marginal rate.

According to stats reported in this 2008 article, the upper 1% of income earners in 1980 paid 19% of all income taxes. In 2005, the top 1% of income earners accounted for almost 40% of all income tax collected. That's right, the evil rich paid more under Bush than under Carter!

I don't consider this unfair at all, considering that the top 1% of earners controlled 38.1% of all wealth in 1998, and this number is likely to have gone up rather than down in the intervening period. Libertarians also like to throw statistics minus context around as if they show anything, because we're supposed to see 1% of people paying 40% of taxes, automatically believe that this is unfair, and shed bitter little tears for them. The question is not how much they pay now but what they can afford to pay, and whether the balance of the obligations they pay and the luxury they enjoy from their immense wealth is equitable. Right now, I would argue that this balance is incredibly, inequitably, and appallingly skewed to luxury for them. Also see Starglider's post.

Getting back on point, 2008 federal revenues from income taxes were $1.146 trillion (pie chart here). Just WAGing off the 2005 figures, the top 1% paid $446 billion in income taxes; even if you DOUBLED the taxes on the top 1% and they kept working just as much to make money, you still wouldn't bring in enough to make up for projected deficits for the next two years.

Don't be daft, we wouldn't just be increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1%, we'd be progressively increasing the rates on the top three tax brackets (people earning $78,851 and up). The top marginal rate would undoubtedly see the largest increase, perhaps a doubling as you say from 35% to 70%--or even more. Of course we know from history that we have often had both a high marginal rate and a robust economy. We would also probably introduce a VAT to raise more revenue.

On paper you could get a surplus from 2012 forward (assuming the current rosy projections hold), but it would still take decades to pay back the debt we already have as a result of 40 years of deficit spending.

The result that we could have a theoretical surplus even with the absolute minimum tax increase you used (only increasing taxes on the very top earners) shows that the problem is not at all insurmountable with the provision of a sensible tax code.

Every economic, financial, and budgetary datum I read just screams that our federal expenditures are NOT sustainable,

Not without raising taxes, anyway, but let's not talk about that because obviously it makes you uncomfortable to think about rich people paying their way.

If the Republicans (and as I posited earlier it will likely have to be new blood) pushed for prosecution of ALL the people responsible for the current financial mess, they'd gain a solid backing on the last two points of the Republican party platform and prove to be a clear alternative to the Democrats.

They would also be throwing their financial base under the bus and losing their support for all time. The actual purpose of the Republican Party for 80 years, leaving aside what they have at various times claimed to be about, has been supporting business. Hence their calling for tax cuts, cuts in the capital gains tax, loosening of regulations, or whatever, every time anything happens, good or bad. What you're talking about is a total realignment of the entire party. I applaud your ambition, because that is what is probably necessary to save the party, but I doubt whether it's feasible.

I'm really not sure, but I'll take a wild-ass guess.

I don't accept your estimate because it is entirely fictional.

I'm not proposing that every federal department's budget be cut by 20%; some may need 100% cuts! Seriously, I don't see how we can avoid cuts in every non-entitlement program if we are to afford the government we have. I don't know how it would break down, but the largest corporation in the world, the US federal government,

Cute.

inevitably has hundreds of offices, bureaus or departments all doing the same thing for different cohorts. As a former worker for a multinational (I stayed in Florida when they asked me to move to Pittsburgh) I'm aware that there are many, many ways to provide benefits and services (and policies) for a large number of people without having two Accounts Payable departments, for example. And sometimes, those departments take action themselves; it hit the wires this week that the Post Office has cut 25,000 jobs, eliminated some carrier routes, raised prices, and are seeking benefits reductions from Congress to help reduce their projected losses. Full article is at the link, I've quoted enough in this post already.

President Obama has already made a couple of jabs at increasing efficiency in the federal government, for which he's actually taken heat from critics because the savings are proportionally pretty small. As a project reducing redundancies and increasing efficiency in government is laudable, but it's not going to save enough money to turn everything about. Again it goes back to either tax hikes or immense cuts to social programs that will have incalculable consequences.

If you and I can, as laymen, think of objections and options to save federal funds, I'm sure bean-counters in D.C. can do the same thing. The lack of action baffles, no, infuriates me.

You're getting lost in these nitpicking details about how to achieve laughably tiny gains. Selling what federal properties can be sold profitably is a one time gain of probably not more than a few billion dollars, after all the costs are taken into account.

[Pablo Sanchez]

[It doesn't follow immediately, but something like that is going to happen: Obama's budget is projected [pdf] to run significant deficits after the recovery is over.

As above, I'm in favor of raising taxes to increase revenue to pay our way. I've no idea whether this will actually happen, but I'm hopeful.

[Count Chocula]

In 1980 the top 1% of earners accounted for 7.8% of all income earned. In 2005, they took home 14.9%. So in actual fact their effective taxation rate stayed the same. I would note that the top marginal rate in 1980 was 70%

the upper 1% of income earners in 1980 paid 19% of all income taxes. In 2005, the top 1% of income earners accounted for almost 40% of all income tax collected.

Thanks for the links, Starglider.

1980 ---> top 1% earned 7.8% of all income. They paid 19% of all income taxes.
2005 ---> top 1% earned 14.9%, almost twice as much. They paid ~40% of all income taxes, twice as much as in 1980.

The 1980 top taxation rate was 70%.
The 2005 top taxation rate was 35%.

So, looking at the numbers again, the top 1% of income earners paid the same proportion of income tax collected in 1980 and 2005, despite the wild variance in tax rates. How does this prove that a higher income tax rate will increase federal income tax revenues? You didn't argue for it, but Darth Wong and Pablo Sanchez have both opined that raising taxes is necessary to pay off the federal debt. Pablo also thinks that the tax increases will have to extend farther down the charts to raise the money needed. I'm not convinced that argument will boost federal revenues either. Page 6 of the Internal Revenue Service's "Special Studies in Federal Tax Statistics, 2006" charts the % of income tax paid by each bracket. The top 10% of income earners in 1980 paid ~31% of all income tax collected. In 2004, the last year for data in the report, the top 10% paid...wait for it...about 32.5%!

Three referenced sources on the percent of income taxes collected by the top 1% and 10% in 1980 and 2004-5 show little to no difference, despite the higher 1980 tax rates. By the numbers, raising income tax rates will not increase federal revenues. Proposing it as a solution is simple-minded thinking and ignores the underlying issue, which has not been denied by anyone posting yet, that the US government is spending money at an unsustainable rate.

I'll try to tie this in a little better to the OP, and answer Pablo on the big ticket items, tomorrow.

[Pablo Sanchez]

2005 ---> top 1% earned 14.9%, almost twice as much. They paid ~40% of all income taxes, twice as much as in 1980.

[SNIP]

In 2004, the last year for data in the report, the top 10% paid...wait for it...about 32.5%!

You are of course aware that these numbers contradict one another entirely; given that the top 10% automatically includes the top 1%, logic dictates that the top 10% must have paid more than 40% of all income taxes, unless you are grossly misusing these numbers in some way.

[Darth Wong]

I've long had a general idea of what I thought Republican core principles were, namely "God and Country" patriotism, fiscal restraint, a smaller federal government, a strong national defense (whatever that is) and charity for the truly needy, not the promulgation of a welfare proletariat. I absorbed most of these by osmosis, growing up in the D.C. metro area and by watching the various political campaigns over the past too many few years. My first voter registration was Libertarian because growing up in DC taught me a certain skepticism about both parties, but to be honest my research for my posts on this thread was the first time I actually looked at what the Republican platform said. I read it last September, along with the Demo platform, but it didn't sink in until I looked at the platform again.

How does this refute my charge that you shot your mouth off about Republican "core principles" without bothering to learn what they are, if anything? It looks like you're admitting to it, yet still denying that you're guilty of trying to bullshit your way through the thread.

As for zero thought, no. There's no fucking way you're going to get away with marginalizing my posts like that. It's not fucking possible to write a paragraph about anything without putting some thought into it.

So that's your defense? You were able to construct paragraphs? The fact that you can spew water-cooler wisdom in paragraph form does not mean you were putting real thought into it, pal.

It could be a secondary Republican issue if they chose to make it one. You're right on the lack of ideological opposition; as a whole, on less overarching questions like the federal government's role and powers, Demo and Repub voters have a lot in common, as you would expect from a monocultural society like America's (or Canada's, or France's). Democrats aren't even talking about the discussion in California on legalization.

Since when do America, Canada, or France have monocultural societies? They may not be as diverse as the entire human population, but there is plenty of diversity. In any case, that's irrelevant to the point, which is that your pot legalization idea is not a particularly Republican idea (if anything, it's an anti-Republican idea), and therefore is not a viable idea for revitalizing the GOP.

In my opinion, supporting legalization is the kind of off the wall, hair up the ass, unexpected kind of tactic that would get the GOP some great publicity, plus it could be seen as GOP support for monster-influential California's embattled Republican governor. At the very least, it's more fun than talking about the kind of mustard Obama put on his burger.

No it won't. It will weaken support from their base while being seen by liberals as a transparent attempt to pander to the youth demographic after spending the last decade urinating on it.

I disagree. I don't think it's vague at all. I don't think it's unimportant at all. It's one of the two planks I saw that can actually be checked against the oath that Congressmen and Presidents swear to uphold. I was pissed that the Republicans ignore the rule of law, examples of which I've already cited, but my pissitude and their flouting does not invalidate the plank. They need to put up or shut up.

Worthless. Since the Democrats have never said that they intend to flout the rule of law, and the Republicans actually have a much worse record of flouting the law in recent history, this is once again not a winning issue for them.

There's nothing to stop the Democrats from adopting them. As for their being Republican, it applies directly to the last two GOP planks. Arresting someone without charging them with a crime is certainly "interference in people's lives," and warrantless wiretaps and surveillance is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment as I previously averred. If the GOP is first out of the gate on this issue, they'd reaffirm their stated principles AND garner some favorable opinions from the Democrats who opposed the Act in the first place.

Still not a winning issue. The Democrats are already occupying this territory, and the GOP cannot lay claim to it without being laughed at since they're the ones who committed the crimes against it in the first place. If the GOP is revitalized, it will be due to right-wing propaganda, lies, and smear campaigns. The same method they used against Clinton.

Also allowing hedge funds to run wild, and break down the walls between banks, insurance companies, etc.

I agree 100%.
Shit, it's too late again. See you for the rest tomorrow.

I guess that got lost.