Sequester: Final Death Throes for Republiconomics -- and Republican Party

[unhappycamper]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/sequester-republicans_b_2706816.html

Sequester: Final Death Throes for Republiconomics -- and Republican Party
Paul Abrams
Posted: 02/17/2013 1:04 pm

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) declared that he has been in the House for 22 years and that we have never cut spending. This from the man who tried to spend $3 billion on an alternative jet engine the military did not want, and never specifies any of the cuts he says are required.

Now, it appears, Republicans will get their sequester. They will also, in the process, shatter any doubt that government spending indeed creates jobs, the only remaining myth that has not been thoroughly debunked by events, at least since 1937-8.

Republicans have perpetrated four major myths about economic policy, aka "RepubliCONomics." These myths have served their paymasters' interests, but have brought down a once prosperous country with a large, strong middle class to a nation beset with a shrinking and struggling middle-class and increased concentration of wealth and power at the top.

The first was that cutting taxes on the wealthy fostered economic growth and job creation. That was launched by President Reagan, but all he proved was that cutting taxes + tripling the deficit, about as Keynesian as one can be, may stimulate the economy. Indeed, it is arguable that the impact of low taxes on the wealthy alone is quite the opposite -- their idle wealth squirreled away (these days) in off-shore tax havens, extracted from the economy and not doing anything, was one of the causes Galbraith proposed for the Depression (The Great Crash, 1929).

[retired rooster]

1. Good riddance and...

... be careful of that door as you slink away into history's dustbin.

[AnnieK401]

2. They're already trying to blame Obama.

Not sure how much success they will have with that though. We'll see.

[Ganja Ninja]

5. They voted for it, it's theirs.

vote by party: Yea/Nay/NV/Total
Democrats: 95/95/3/193
Republicans: 174/66/0/240
Total: 269/161/3/433

[HiPointDem]

17. half the democrats voted for it too, apparently. if they hadn;t vote would have been 256 against,

174 for.

so it don't just belong to the Rs.

[freshwest]

18. Yep. Full court repig coverage on MSNBC. I turned the liars off. They're all there in prime time.

The media is so unfair to Democrats and Obama in particular, they give these jerks all the time they can possibly give them on every issue. And shout down anyone who tries to point it out. Goes to show that the conservative millionaire owned media is against getting anything done for anyone in this country but themselves. Sick.

[libdude]

3. Goodbye Republicans

Perhaps a little premature, but goodbye to the Republican Party. As they diminish as a viable governing party, obstruction will continue but will ultimately bring about the same results, the continued drift to irrelevancy. Democrats, take this as a lesson, now is the time for boldness of action on those matters of importance to the American people.

[liberal N proud]

4. ABFT

About FUCKIN' TIME!

[Meshuga]

6. I have my doubts Republicans will be hurt

The corporate media won't let it happen and they will come up with some bullshit myth to blame use as reason for the negative effects from the sequester (i.e., "the tax hike on the wealthy caused it&quot . Just watch. The fiasco with the Republican damaging debt ceiling threats was not enough to finish them so I have my doubts that republiconomics will go away anytime soon. Maybe it will go away when it is too late.

[mountain grammy]

7. Until it's in the corporate media's best interest to truthfully report the news,

real news with real facts, and challenge the lies that fall out of Republican mouths, they simply won't do it. They will continue to report nonsense and idiocracy with bits of news inserted because they're more interested in ratings than reporting.

[Blanks]

8. We need republicans...

We just need for them to not be in control of the government.

They are the opposition party. Without them; there is nobody to bring up the bad points to any kind of government expansion. We need to have about 40 republican senators and a little less than half of the house filled with republicans.

It doesn't hurt anything to have a republican president every once in a while as long as they don't control congress.

We have a lot of stuff to turn around so democrats need to control the government for a couple of years, but we need an opposition party.

Once the republicans lost control of the government after the Great Depression; they didn't get it back (except a short stint) for a really long time.

The more they argue for this austerity bullshit; the longer they will be out of power - once they've lost power. They aren't going anywhere; they are just going to be out of power.

[ProSense]

9. No,

"We need republicans..."

...we don't.

"We need to have about 40 republican senators and a little less than half of the house filled with republicans. "

No, we don't.

"It doesn't hurt anything to have a republican president every once in a while as long as they don't control congress."

Yes, it does.

Solution: Let them be the opposition party out of power for a very long time, 16 to 20 years, with a Democratic majority of at least 65 Senators.

[Blanks]

11. You trust the democrats more than I believe they can be trusted.

Perhaps a larger number of democrats and a smaller number of republicans as you suggest (and for a longer time), but while the democrats have a better track record; the democrats come up with programs that don't work too.

I think we're better off with a closer balance. Of course I used to believe the conservatives had a legitimate philosophical difference with the liberals; they aren't doing much to seem sane - let alone have a legitimate philosophy.

Eisenhower was a good president and while Nixon had his problems; he signed the Clean Water Act and the legislation that created the EPA. It provides some balance to the government to have a republican signing democratic bills.

It doesn't work worth a damn the other way around, but there needs to be some level of balance.

[ProSense]

12. Wait,

"You trust the democrats more than I believe they can be trusted."

...the solution is keeping despicable obstructionist assholes?

"I think we're better off with a closer balance. Of course I used to believe the conservatives had a legitimate philosophical difference with the liberals; they aren't doing much to seem sane - let alone have a legitimate philosophy."

I was never a fan of Republicans. Here's my balance: Obama and Elizabeth Warren vs. Clinton and Lieberman (that's as far right as I'm willing to accept to strike a balance.

That ought to keep the country out of the hands of the likes of Reagan and Bush Sr., and definitely out of the hands of another Bush Jr. and Rand Rubio.

[Blanks]

13. These particular republicans need to go.

Republicans are supposed to represent fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

Any time we (as democrats) try to expand the role of the government; that expansion should be challenged. The current republicans expand the government and then pretend that someone else did it.

The fact that we've had bat-shit crazy republicans for the past couple of decades shouldn't change the fact that we need an opposition party. The democrats haven't been doing as good as job as they could either.

I'm not a fan of republicans either, but their role should be to point out the down side to any legislation that the majority party is proposing. That's what we need.

[ProSense]

14. Disagree.

Republicans are supposed to represent fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

Any time we (as democrats) try to expand the role of the government; that expansion should be challenged. The current republicans expand the government and then pretend that someone else did it.

The fact that we've had bat-shit crazy republicans for the past couple of decades shouldn't change the fact that we need an opposition party. The democrats haven't been doing as good as job as they could either.

I'm not a fan of republicans either, but their role should be to point out the down side to any legislation that the majority party is proposing. That's what we need.

You seem to think that the best thing for American progress is a constant tug of war between "fiscal responsibility and smaller government," as defined by Republicans, and Democrats who are trying to "expand the role of the government" (the RW's cariacature of Democrats).

This hasn't just been a problem with "bat-shit crazy republicans," it was a problem with Reagan. Yes, they do expand government, but it's ususally in the areas that benefit defense. They are anti-regulation (they'd kill the EPA if they could) and eager to destroy social programs.

Again, there are enough conservative Democrats who can fill the role of counter balance without trying to squeeze the government to death.

[Blanks]

15. What makes you think Reagan wasn't among the 'bat shit crazy'?

Yes, I think We should have a constant tug of war in congress over how much the government should grow and how we should pay for that growth. That's what congress should do. While it may seem like we can have conservative democrats to carry the republicans water; I don't think that's an improvement. If they're conservative; they should be a republican. IMHO

As far as all of the things that the republicans are opposed to now; that's why they're losing. They need to adjust some of their positions on the issues. Obviously, they're insane when it comes to defense spending and their position on the environment is indefensible, but there is a lot of negotiating room to determine what the priorities are; and that needs debated by people who are not only representing their district, but they are also fighting for their party.

Conservative positions make more sense when they are in the minority and they are the opposition party. Environmental improvements cost money and in some cases they slow down the economy; businesses need to have a voice and that's what the republicans are there for.

Corporations shouldn't be writing the regulations, but they still should have a voice. That's just part of the balance that we don't have now.

[madville]

16. Either party in 100% control is scary

Either party in 100% control is scary in different ways. Power corrupts and no checks and balances will always turn out bad.

[NightWatcher]

10. Repukes will burn the place down just so they can blame Obama

And I just hope they don't get away with it. They are already running against whichever Dem we pick to run in 4 years.