GOP congressman: Republican Party has become too extreme, incapable of governing

[BigSkyBob]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

The fact that you are incredulous about the notion of the electorate saying, "Enough, we are choosing not to pay higher taxes!," just means you are one of the people whom has to be politically defeated, else taxes will rise to the point that people can't pay them any more.

One of those two limits is going to be reached. It might as well be the electorate choosing not to pay higher taxes.

With respect, I don't think you understand which part of your argument it is that I'm incredulous about.

Again, my point seems to have completely eluded you. I'm fairly confident that if the electorate took the decision to prefer choosing not to pay any higher taxes rather than waiting until they are unable to pay any higher taxes many in the political class would take the attitude that this is just a phase that the electorate is going through and that they need merely wait them out before raising taxes yet again. The electorate has to take this into account.

Either taxes really reach a political limit, or it is subject to renegotiation.  If the electorate continues to renegotiate with the political class, taxes will inevitably rise to the point that the citizenry simply cannot pay more. Again, I am arguing that the electorate choosing a limit for the political class is the rational political choice. If the electorate doesn't stick that political limit then it simply isn't a limit.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Remember when the Koch Brothers and bunch of other climate skeptics funded the only credible source of denial (Richard Mueller) who then proceeded to confirm the worst fears of climatologists with the caveat that his findings predicted worse results than their climate models? The consensus is unanimous: anthropogenic global warming is real and is already creating severe problems. On top of the huge droughts that have been afflicting us over the past few years, southern Russia has consistently had precipitation problems and India is facing problems with their monsoon (as predicted).

You can try to wiggle your way out of this issue all you want because the results seem far-fetched and damaging to your ideology but the verdict is in: global warming isn't going away. If we put this issue off for another decade, the damage will be done and the positive feedback loop will run away from us. Minute amounts of methane trapped in the permafrost of the arctic circle are already beginning to be released, over ten years ahead of schedule.

Torie is ignoring the models and the findings:

A couple of points about the graph above. First, the temperatures before 1850 are wild-ass guesses, and the black line is merely kinda the center of a series of wild-ass guesses. The next fifty years aren't particularly well documented either. Only the twentieth century is well documented. Since the temperature trend of the twentieth century is pretty uniform, it is fairly easy to "model." That doesn't prove the validity of the model since the model is based on past data points. The validity of the model is tested by its predictive value going forward. The reality is that in the last few years the model has broken down. Temperature increases predicted by the model simply have not occurred.

Uh, no they are not "wild-ass" guesses. There is a very secure methodology that is based around a variety of factors: tree rings, ice cores, glacial areas etc. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Remember when the Koch Brothers and bunch of other climate skeptics funded the only credible source of denial (Richard Mueller) who then proceeded to confirm the worst fears of climatologists with the caveat that his findings predicted worse results than their climate models? The consensus is unanimous: anthropogenic global warming is real and is already creating severe problems. On top of the huge droughts that have been afflicting us over the past few years, southern Russia has consistently had precipitation problems and India is facing problems with their monsoon (as predicted).

You can try to wiggle your way out of this issue all you want because the results seem far-fetched and damaging to your ideology but the verdict is in: global warming isn't going away. If we put this issue off for another decade, the damage will be done and the positive feedback loop will run away from us. Minute amounts of methane trapped in the permafrost of the arctic circle are already beginning to be released, over ten years ahead of schedule.

Torie is ignoring the models and the findings:

A couple of points about the graph above. First, the temperatures before 1850 are wild-ass guesses, and the black line is merely kinda the center of a series of wild-ass guesses. The next fifty years aren't particularly well documented either. Only the twentieth century is well documented. Since the temperature trend of the twentieth century is pretty uniform, it is fairly easy to "model." That doesn't prove the validity of the model since the model is based on past data points. The validity of the model is tested by its predictive value going forward. The reality is that in the last few years the model has broken down. Temperature increases predicted by the model simply have not occurred.

Uh, no they are not "wild-ass" guesses. There is a very secure methodology that is based around a variety of factors: tree rings, ice cores, glacial areas etc. You don't know what you're talking about.

Well, it's the Boob we are talking about.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

The fact that you are incredulous about the notion of the electorate saying, "Enough, we are choosing not to pay higher taxes!," just means you are one of the people whom has to be politically defeated, else taxes will rise to the point that people can't pay them any more.

One of those two limits is going to be reached. It might as well be the electorate choosing not to pay higher taxes.

With respect, I don't think you understand which part of your argument it is that I'm incredulous about.

Again, my point seems to have completely eluded you. I'm fairly confident that if the electorate took the decision to prefer choosing not to pay any higher taxes rather than waiting until they are unable to pay any higher taxes many in the political class would take the attitude that this is just a phase that the electorate is going through and that they need merely wait them out before raising taxes yet again. The electorate has to take this into account.

Either taxes really reach a political limit, or it is subject to renegotiation.  If the electorate continues to renegotiate with the political class, taxes will inevitably rise to the point that the citizenry simply cannot pay more. Again, I am arguing that the electorate choosing a limit for the political class is the rational political choice. If the electorate doesn't stick that political limit then it simply isn't a limit.

Oh, I see what's going on here. You're positing a form of class struggle ('electorate' vs. 'political class' over taxes, which the former always wants as low[/flat?] as possible and the latter always wants as high[/progressive?] as possible) which doesn't actually bear much resemblance to reality at all, although to be absolutely fair it's somewhat more sensible than some other dialectics I've seen people come up with. You don't appear to view the dynamic as one in which taxes are raised and lowered according to real or perceived macroeconomic utility and such policies are argued to the public based upon either their merits or common rhetoric (you likewise don't seem to view taxation as a macroeconomic policy choice of any kind so much as some complicated form of embezzlement, which may explain your apparent inability to understand the import of the fact that income tax rates have been relatively low for several decades now).

Okay, I got your point and understand exactly what was so baffling to me about it. Thank you.

[BigSkyBob]

Remember when the Koch Brothers and bunch of other climate skeptics funded the only credible source of denial (Richard Mueller) who then proceeded to confirm the worst fears of climatologists with the caveat that his findings predicted worse results than their climate models? The consensus is unanimous: anthropogenic global warming is real and is already creating severe problems. On top of the huge droughts that have been afflicting us over the past few years, southern Russia has consistently had precipitation problems and India is facing problems with their monsoon (as predicted).

You can try to wiggle your way out of this issue all you want because the results seem far-fetched and damaging to your ideology but the verdict is in: global warming isn't going away. If we put this issue off for another decade, the damage will be done and the positive feedback loop will run away from us. Minute amounts of methane trapped in the permafrost of the arctic circle are already beginning to be released, over ten years ahead of schedule.

Torie is ignoring the models and the findings:

A couple of points about the graph above. First, the temperatures before 1850 are wild-ass guesses, and the black line is merely kinda the center of a series of wild-ass guesses. The next fifty years aren't particularly well documented either. Only the twentieth century is well documented. Since the temperature trend of the twentieth century is pretty uniform, it is fairly easy to "model." That doesn't prove the validity of the model since the model is based on past data points. The validity of the model is tested by its predictive value going forward. The reality is that in the last few years the model has broken down. Temperature increases predicted by the model simply have not occurred.

Uh, no they are not "wild-ass" guesses. There is a very secure methodology that is based around a variety of factors: tree rings, ice cores, glacial areas etc. You don't know what you're talking about.

Apparently, you can't even read your own graph. The graph clearly shows the 95% confidence level for the early years varying from 7.5 C to 9.5C. What science has to say about average global temperatures during that time frame is, "We are 95% certain that it was between 7.5-9.5C." That is to say they don't really know for sure.

What you are claiming is akin to taking a scientific political poll of fifty voters and representing it as an accurate reflection of the electorate, never mind the poll comes with a margin of error of plus-or-minus 15%.

[BigSkyBob]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

The fact that you are incredulous about the notion of the electorate saying, "Enough, we are choosing not to pay higher taxes!," just means you are one of the people whom has to be politically defeated, else taxes will rise to the point that people can't pay them any more.

One of those two limits is going to be reached. It might as well be the electorate choosing not to pay higher taxes.

With respect, I don't think you understand which part of your argument it is that I'm incredulous about.

Again, my point seems to have completely eluded you. I'm fairly confident that if the electorate took the decision to prefer choosing not to pay any higher taxes rather than waiting until they are unable to pay any higher taxes many in the political class would take the attitude that this is just a phase that the electorate is going through and that they need merely wait them out before raising taxes yet again. The electorate has to take this into account.

Either taxes really reach a political limit, or it is subject to renegotiation.  If the electorate continues to renegotiate with the political class, taxes will inevitably rise to the point that the citizenry simply cannot pay more. Again, I am arguing that the electorate choosing a limit for the political class is the rational political choice. If the electorate doesn't stick that political limit then it simply isn't a limit.

Oh, I see what's going on here. You're positing a form of class struggle ('electorate' vs. 'political class' over taxes, which the former always wants as low[/flat?] as possible and the latter always wants as high[/progressive?] as possible) which doesn't actually bear much resemblance to reality at all, although to be absolutely fair it's somewhat more sensible than some other dialectics I've seen people come up with. You don't appear to view the dynamic as one in which taxes are raised and lowered according to real or perceived macroeconomic utility and such policies are argued to the public based upon either their merits or common rhetoric (you likewise don't seem to view taxation as a macroeconomic policy choice of any kind so much as some complicated form of embezzlement, which may explain your apparent inability to understand the import of the fact that income tax rates have been relatively low for several decades now).

Okay, I got your point and understand exactly what was so baffling to me about it. Thank you.

Sorry, you simply didn't get it. The size of government at all levels has grown consistently over the last century precisely because government has internal biases towards growth. The natural progression of such a system is for taxes to rise until the electorate is no longer capable of paying more taxes. The best way to change that bias is not from within the system. The best way to change that bias is for the electorate to place a limit to that growth, and stick to that limit. I reject just about every buzzword you have assigned to me as examples of your fundamental inability to put aside your ideological blinders to  observe the objective world as it actually exists.

As to your claim as to taxes being "relatively low for several decades" I would merely refer you to the "tax freedom day" which is calculated by comparing total income against total taxes at every level of government. It simply hasn't shown the trend you have claimed.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

The fact that you are incredulous about the notion of the electorate saying, "Enough, we are choosing not to pay higher taxes!," just means you are one of the people whom has to be politically defeated, else taxes will rise to the point that people can't pay them any more.

One of those two limits is going to be reached. It might as well be the electorate choosing not to pay higher taxes.

With respect, I don't think you understand which part of your argument it is that I'm incredulous about.

Again, my point seems to have completely eluded you. I'm fairly confident that if the electorate took the decision to prefer choosing not to pay any higher taxes rather than waiting until they are unable to pay any higher taxes many in the political class would take the attitude that this is just a phase that the electorate is going through and that they need merely wait them out before raising taxes yet again. The electorate has to take this into account.

Either taxes really reach a political limit, or it is subject to renegotiation.  If the electorate continues to renegotiate with the political class, taxes will inevitably rise to the point that the citizenry simply cannot pay more. Again, I am arguing that the electorate choosing a limit for the political class is the rational political choice. If the electorate doesn't stick that political limit then it simply isn't a limit.

Oh, I see what's going on here. You're positing a form of class struggle ('electorate' vs. 'political class' over taxes, which the former always wants as low[/flat?] as possible and the latter always wants as high[/progressive?] as possible) which doesn't actually bear much resemblance to reality at all, although to be absolutely fair it's somewhat more sensible than some other dialectics I've seen people come up with. You don't appear to view the dynamic as one in which taxes are raised and lowered according to real or perceived macroeconomic utility and such policies are argued to the public based upon either their merits or common rhetoric (you likewise don't seem to view taxation as a macroeconomic policy choice of any kind so much as some complicated form of embezzlement, which may explain your apparent inability to understand the import of the fact that income tax rates have been relatively low for several decades now).

Okay, I got your point and understand exactly what was so baffling to me about it. Thank you.

Sorry, you simply didn't get it. The size of government at all levels has grown consistently over the last century precisely because government has internal biases towards growth. The natural progression of such a system is for taxes to rise until the electorate is no longer capable of paying more taxes. The best way to change that bias is not from within the system. The best way to change that bias is for the electorate to place a limit to that growth, and stick to that limit. I reject just about every buzzword you have assigned to me as examples of your fundamental inability to put aside your ideological blinders to  observe the objective world as it actually exists.

As to your claim as to taxes being "relatively low for several decades" I would merely refer you to the "tax freedom day" which is calculated by comparing total income against total taxes at every level of government. It simply hasn't shown the trend you have claimed.

Okay, so you see taxation as some sort of tumorous growth, not some sort of embezzlement. Too bad the rest of what you're saying has no basis in reality because 'size of government' isn't a particularly meaningful measure except in the context of the nonexistent class struggle that you keep talking about.

I'm aware of Tax Freedom Day. The averages that it comes out with are consistently misinterpreted for use as talking points and it doesn't do what you claim it does because it measures capital gains tax but not capital gains. It also hasn't moved outside of a relatively narrow belt since the 1960s, which kind of puts the lie to your quixotic notion of the tax burden inexorably spreading like mesothelioma or the apostolic succession, doesn't it?

I have been referring, of course, to the tax burden on any given actual flesh-and-blood American, not the undifferentiated Frankfurt School-esque masses that seem to interest you more.

[Smid]

He is probably burnishing his credentials as a mavericky, pragmatist for the general election now that the primary is over.

Yes, I think someone may have had some polling done and realised that he wasn't doing so well with moderates/independents, or some such.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Hanna's said stuff like this before, though.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I think Hanna is a genuine moderate.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Of course the GOP is too extreme/incapable of governing.

That's what happens when an ideology that is cynically hostile to public service takes over a major political party.

[Sbane]

http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-congressmen-criticize-their-party-s-failure-to-compromise

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We can assign blame to both parties if we want, and it's definitely true there is blame to go around, but Republicans collectively suck more. At least moderate Democrats aren't purged out of the party, even if the majority of the party isn't interested in entitlement reform.

[Person Man]

Well, since Ronald Reagan the average American has been brought into this neoliberal nationalist folklore and of of course the Republicans are seeing how far they can run with it. Barack Obama has been very peculiar about getting a lot done in this environment but not changing it. I suppose, in a way, he is like Nixon 2.0 and in a way this is a lot like the early 70s where one party is going off the deep end and the other is just begining to get its act together...or it could be like WWI where the out party simply got lucky because of some crises in leadership and that when things start to get better, the establishment will be roaring back with such a vengance that its excesses will cause a problem that is so pervasive that the other party will become more than just a protest vote or a short term solution.

I'm guessing it will be 1) rederegulating the Healthcare System and causing another deregulation bubble, 2) the final collapse of the student loan bubble as more 20somethings still cant find work after having to retrain after their first dog didn't hunt (the first two are basically the 20s), 3) a neoconservative or nationalist  administration gets us into a war that escalates or at least can't easily be won or 4) there is a period of miscalculated forced cultural engineering . (the latter are basically the 60s...but 4 could just as easily apply to the 20s)

[BigSkyBob]

Sorry, you simply didn't get it. The size of government at all levels has grown consistently over the last century precisely because government has internal biases towards growth. The natural progression of such a system is for taxes to rise until the electorate is no longer capable of paying more taxes. The best way to change that bias is not from within the system. The best way to change that bias is for the electorate to place a limit to that growth, and stick to that limit. I reject just about every buzzword you have assigned to me as examples of your fundamental inability to put aside your ideological blinders to  observe the objective world as it actually exists.

As to your claim as to taxes being "relatively low for several decades" I would merely refer you to the "tax freedom day" which is calculated by comparing total income against total taxes at every level of government. It simply hasn't shown the trend you have claimed.

Okay, so you see taxation as some sort of tumorous growth, not some sort of embezzlement. Too bad the rest of what you're saying has no basis in reality because 'size of government' isn't a particularly meaningful measure except in the context of the nonexistent class struggle that you keep talking about.

I'm aware of Tax Freedom Day. The averages that it comes out with are consistently misinterpreted for use as talking points and it doesn't do what you claim it does because it measures capital gains tax but not capital gains. It also hasn't moved outside of a relatively narrow belt since the 1960s, which kind of puts the lie to your quixotic notion of the tax burden inexorably spreading like mesothelioma or the apostolic succession, doesn't it?

I have been referring, of course, to the tax burden on any given actual flesh-and-blood American, not the undifferentiated Frankfurt School-esque masses that seem to interest you more.

First of all, may I suggest that you cease trying to characterize my position since you have shown a fundamental inability to read correctly what I have written. I have repeated noted that government has an internal bias towards growth, and that end point of that growth is either taxes rising to the point people won't pay any more or can't pay any more. And, I have consistently noted that that one of biases towards government growth is corruption: marginal increases in spending creates opportunities for the political class to take graft in the forms of campaign contributions, future consideration such as lobbying jobs, and, in the case of Duke Cunningham, outright theft. So, I have characterized government as both as a tumor and, as you put it, a mechanism for "embezzlement."

I am stunning at the level of denial in your claim, "'...size of government' isn't a particularly meaningful measure..." because we were referring to total governmental spending. The total number of dollars spent by government at all levels isn't just a "meaningful measure" of government spending, it is the best metric.

As to Tax Freedom Day, whether, or not, it has been "misrepresented," in some circumstances, I will simply note that it measures totals taxes paid versus total income derived. In response to the claim that, "taxes have been relatively low for several decades," it is an entirely accurate "representation" of taxes, unless, of course, you wish to suggest radical changes in income have distorted the ratio.

Your formulation "it measures capital gains tax but not capital gains" is simply wrong. The correct formulation is "it measures capital gains and capital gains tax, but not deferred capital gains and deferred capital gains tax." So what? Are you claiming deferred capital gains/taxes have radically changed over the past several decades?

The graphs you can find http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/charts.html show that total government spending has doubled in less than fifteen years. No matter how mocking your tone, government seems to be growing at a geometrical rate. What we know for sure is that your claim "taxes have been relatively low for several decades" is plain wrong.

Since you claim to reject macro analysis in favor of  analyzing "flesh-and-blood" people, would you care to elaborate exactly what your claim is about the tax rate of "flesh-and-blood" people, and why you believe that their taxes "have been relatively low for several decades?"

[MaxQue]

Well, at equal tax rates, the government revenues and spending should both increase, given the inflation. The wages are also increasing.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Remember when the Koch Brothers and bunch of other climate skeptics funded the only credible source of denial (Richard Mueller) who then proceeded to confirm the worst fears of climatologists with the caveat that his findings predicted worse results than their climate models? The consensus is unanimous: anthropogenic global warming is real and is already creating severe problems. On top of the huge droughts that have been afflicting us over the past few years, southern Russia has consistently had precipitation problems and India is facing problems with their monsoon (as predicted).

You can try to wiggle your way out of this issue all you want because the results seem far-fetched and damaging to your ideology but the verdict is in: global warming isn't going away. If we put this issue off for another decade, the damage will be done and the positive feedback loop will run away from us. Minute amounts of methane trapped in the permafrost of the arctic circle are already beginning to be released, over ten years ahead of schedule.

Torie is ignoring the models and the findings:

A couple of points about the graph above. First, the temperatures before 1850 are wild-ass guesses, and the black line is merely kinda the center of a series of wild-ass guesses. The next fifty years aren't particularly well documented either. Only the twentieth century is well documented. Since the temperature trend of the twentieth century is pretty uniform, it is fairly easy to "model." That doesn't prove the validity of the model since the model is based on past data points. The validity of the model is tested by its predictive value going forward. The reality is that in the last few years the model has broken down. Temperature increases predicted by the model simply have not occurred.

Uh, no they are not "wild-ass" guesses. There is a very secure methodology that is based around a variety of factors: tree rings, ice cores, glacial areas etc. You don't know what you're talking about.

They certainly aren't "wild-ass guesses," but on the other hand, I wouldn't call the methodology of forming climatological records based on historical biological/chemical data to be "secure".  There's a lot of assumption that goes into those methods, and factors other than temperature can affect whatever it is that we're basing temperature off of as well.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Bob, the problem isn't necessarily that your numbers are wrong on their own terms. The problem is that you're missing the point because you don't seem to be able to distinguish between different social classes, except when they're social classes that you made up, or between different systems of government, or between different types of spending, except when they're differences that Grover Norquist made up. The way to shift the burden on people of flesh and blood is to shift the burden, not to ruthlessly slash services.