Welcome to PatsFans.com

One Republican Staffer's Observations

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,106
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +326 / 6 / -8

    Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult | Truthout

    This gentleman has a particularly trenchant eye for the value to the Republican Party of "A Pox on Both Your Houses." While he acknowledges that both parties do have issues, he identifies tendencies on the Republican side that militate for comparative analysis, as opposed to a response of pure inchoate exasperation.

    I'd be interested in thoughtful responses to this man's 3 decades' experience as a staffer on the (R) side of the aisle.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2011
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,621
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +124 / 7 / -13





    This is the sort of big government pub who is part of the problem, thank goodness he is leaving. The attitude shown here towards spending is why we are broke. Glad he is gone.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2011
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +332 / 1 / -9

    Good riddance, we're not all perfect.
  4. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    People who can not see a way to make a profit in a certain sector, tend to jump ship.

    When being a politician is no longer a real way to become a mill/billionaire, we might get some quality leadership.
  5. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,812
    Likes Received:
    83
    Ratings:
    +184 / 3 / -10

    I wish there was a litmus test for "Motivation" so we could eliminate any person seeking public office in order to become financially successful beyond what each elected position pays.

    If you're seeking mill/billions, we don't want you representing us. If you already have that kind of financial success prior to seeking office, I don't see that as a negative.
  6. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I'd say deliberate profiting off of legistlation should be illegal. The fact that its not, speaks volumes of our system of "representative government"



    Our 'representative' governemnet is composed MOSTLY of lawyers and millionaires... not exactly representative, is it?
  7. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    You can always tell when the text at the link is too long.

    Hint for those that didn't read: the author never held or even ran for any political office beyond student body president. So saying that he ran for office to make money is stupid.

    He does provide some interesting insight into the GOP.
  8. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    It's still valid, when being in Washington's Political system is no longer more profitable than doing other things, people will typically do other things. You don't have to be elected to be a cog int he system, and honestly the staffers are probably worse than the elected officials.
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,106
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +326 / 6 / -8

    You guys ought to read it, at least as long as you can get through. He's a long-time insider basically making observations of what he's seeing now, as a Republican, on the Republican side of the aisle.

    I'll reply to thoughtful responses.
  10. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Here's rock-solid proof that the whole UNSUSTAINABLE business is bunk. That cutting spending is really about cutting spending that the Democrats like so there's more for things the Republicans like.
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +296 / 4 / -2

    Right, cuz hundreds of billions to trillion dollar a year deficits are certainly sustainable. :rolleyes: That one party wants to cut out the spending of the other, is Washington 101, and has been since the inception of politics. The sustainability of trillion dollar deficits isn't politics. It's simple mathematics.
  12. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    So why not let taxes on the rich move slightly closer to the Regan era level if it means getting a much bigger cut in spending?
  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,106
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +326 / 6 / -8

    RW, any goddam real economist will tell you that you spend in a recession. That's what Bush did (though he didn't stop with the recession.) That's what everybody else has done. And that's what got us out of the Great Depression. The current "OMG the sky is falling deficits deficits!" rubbish is the usual self-centered dumbasses trying to get something for nothing.

    Economic pain hurts. That's why it's called pain. A percent or two of tax money going into the programs we all need (except the very rich) spreads that pain out rather than concentrating it among the unemployed.

    Dupes continue to fall for the divide-and-conquer strategy: Complain that the unemployed are all lazy or useless. Complain that the minimum wage worker should never get a raise - he should be happy he even has a job. Complain that middle class union workers haven't been pushed far enough toward poverty; after all, look at all the minimum wage people! Complain that government workers have too many benefits, and compare their wages on various unrealistic scales to "prove" they're allllll overpaid.

    On the other side, complain that 250K per year isn't really "rich" if we're talking about tax rates.

    The current push is to add a few hundred thousand government employees -- primarily state and local -- to the unemployed, which of course, is this wonderful "hurrah!" thing for pubbies. But it's still hundreds of thousands more unemployed. Government employees aren't second-class citizens just because they're in the public sector - it matters if they're unemployed. They'll compete for the private sector jobs remaining, obviously. But the whole pubbie idea is to keep unemployment high, keep labor cheap, beat down workers and keep jobs scarce until it's absolutely necessary for pocket-lining purposes to employ somebody... and of course never, ever, take a penny from someone who has prospered from the growing divide between rich and poor. That's socialism.

    We're now setting the stage for an era of elderly poverty such as we haven't seen since the 40s. Hurrah! And as if by magic, we're doing it at the same time that we're killing America's economic vitality.

    But obviously, while complaining about it and running on it, unemployment is a neutral from a Republican standpoint. You want labor cheap just like you want oil cheap, to please "the job creators."

    In other words, the goal is for America to become an economically bifurcated third-world nation.

    Good luck with the alpo.

    PFnV
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,621
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +124 / 7 / -13

    Yeah the spending approach has been working so well.....


    Keynesian economics doesn't can't work. But gov employees want to preserve their golden parachutes....
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,106
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +326 / 6 / -8

    First of all, if it doesn't can't work, that means it does can work - whatever that means. I suppose it's like the "I might could" construction popular south of the mason Dixon line.

    Secondly, bumper stickers are not arguments. As stated above, you spend in a recession. I offered examples. "Nut uh" isn't a rebuttal
  16. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Prior to the Great Depression the Austrian solution (ie doing nothing, also ie what the repubs 'round here want to do) was pretty much the only solution employed by the US government. People should really look into how long and how deep depressions were back then.

    I also think its worth mentioning that Hoover was given 3 years to fix the GD before the nation turned towards Roosevelt and the New Deal. Which, coincidentally, was almost exactly three more years than Obama was given.
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,621
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +124 / 7 / -13


    Well totally wrong Hoover was very interventionist. You need to take a history course.



    You might start with this article:

    http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=fab11641-9760-4148-98f1-214c9101fe76
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2011
  18. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,951
    Likes Received:
    277
    Ratings:
    +553 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey

    Keynesian economics cannot work under our present economic situation ... the past means nothing to the present either. If we were closer to being solvent then it could work. However, our current situation does not leave enough room to borrow an amount sufficient to be of any benefit.

    IMO the best solution is to close the deficit gap while at the same time beefing up the manufacturing sector. Why Congress and Obama will not beef up the manufacturing sector is deplorable. Well ... I think we do know why they won't and it's because China will launch a trade war - so let them because the present situation is unworkable. We have lost too many jobs thanks to NAFTA and competition from 3rd world manufacturing.
  19. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Well lets see now, as I recall he cut taxes, tossed 1/2 million Mexicans out of the country and told the bonus Army to GTFO

    Yeah that quote sure makes him sound like a guy on the brink of some major interventioning.
  20. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    After WW1 our debt to GDP ratio was twice as high as it stands today. After WW2 our debt to GDP ratio was three times as high as today. This lack of room you speak of isn't a function of economics. There's no question that we survived owing 2x and even 3 times as much. The lack of room is a political construct with no basis in reality at all.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>