HOW CONSERVATIVE IS THE GOP?

[Hagar]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[LumRaiderFan]

Not very

[RETIREDFAN1]

Not conservative at all......

[jv_coach]

Overall, not so much. Although there are a few who have a chance.

[Hagar]

On January 15, 2016 at 2:33 PM, jv_coach said:

Overall, not so much. Although there are a few who have a chance.

I agree JV, a few.  That's the disturbing part.  Rep party is considered by most to be conservative, but it isn't.  I sure hope a conservative gets the nomination. 

I want someone who believes in God and our Constitution,  Currently I like Cruz, but we NEED a real conservative. 

[PN-G bamatex]

Yes, the GOP is conservative.

I welcome any one of you to pick any single issue where you think the GOP in general has not taken a conservative stance, and I will gladly debate you on it.

 

 

[Englebert]

2 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Yes, the GOP is conservative.

I welcome any one of you to pick any single issue where you think the GOP in general has not taken a conservative stance, and I will gladly debate you on it.

 

 

The Budget!!!! No debate necessary.

[PN-G bamatex]

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

The Budget!!!! No debate necessary.

Really? Are you sure about that?

The biggest complaints levied about the budget over the last ten years were the size of the deficit and the fact that for the first six years of the Obama presidency, no budget was passed. I'll tackle them separately.

The deficit began its cataclysmic rise in FY 2008, which started in October of 2007 with the first budget approved by the Democrat Congress that won a majority in the 2006 elections and took office in January of 2007. The deficit reached $1 Trillion for the first time in FY 2009, which began in October of 2008 and was the first fiscal year administrated by the Obama administration, ending in September of 2009. The deficit was bolstered first by TARP, passed by a Democrat congress and signed by a Republican president in late 2008, and then ARRA, passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by a Democrat president in February of 2009. The deficit would hover in a range of $1.3 to $1.4 Trillion until FY 2012, the first fiscal year administrated by the Obama administration after the Republicans won the House - the critical centerpiece of the Congressional budgeting process - in November of 2010 and officially took over in January of 2011. The deficit has done nothing but decline since that point.

The second issue underlies the first. Congress did not perform its constitutional and statutory duty to pass a budget for six whole years. Neither Nancy Pelosi's House nor Harry Reid's Senate passed a budget for FY 2010 or FY 2011. When the Republican-led House took office in January of 2011, John Boehner's first order of business was getting a budget passed for the upcoming FY 2012, and he did exactly that. Unfortunately, Harry Reid refused to so much as take up that budget for a debate, much less a vote. The exact same thing happened again for FY 2013, FY 2014 and FY 2015. Thanks to Harry Reid's shocking refusal to carry out the budget process required by the constitution and outlined in the Budget & Accounting Act of 1921, Congress was forced to fund the federal government entirely through a series of recurring stop-gap resolutions for six years straight. It was not until May of last year, after the Republicans took the Senate away from Reid, that the first budget of the Obama administration was passed. That budget, by the way, included massive spending cuts.

The critical thing to understand here is that, constitutionally speaking, the power of the purse lies with Congress. People think the deficit rises and falls based on which political party the White House belongs to. In truth, that's only a secondary factor. Spending, deficits and federal fiscal responsibility generally have correlated with who has control of Congress for the last 25 years. This case is no different. When the Democrats had outright control of Congress from January of 2007 to January of 2011, federal spending ballooned to all-time highs. When control of Congress was divided after that and eventually returned to the Republicans altogether in January of 2015, spending fell dramatically.

Is the budget perfectly balanced? No, but it's roughly a third of what it was five years ago. That is significant progress, and you have the Republicans to thank for it. Personally, if (and hopefully when) we take the White House and have total control of the federal government, I think we'll find a way to balance it outright. Until then, we still have a Democrat president to deal with.

Next.

[Englebert]

No true conservative would have passed the budget that was just passed. Period.

A true conservative would have rather "shut the government down" than vote for that.

A true conservative would not make deals with other congressmen in which they pass each other bills no matter how crappy the bills are.

The GOP is light years better than the Democrats, but they still pass pork filled budgets that would make a pure conservative puke. So no, the current GOP is not conservative.

[Hagar]

39 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Really? Are you sure about that?

The biggest complaints levied about the budget over the last ten years were the size of the deficit and the fact that for the first six years of the Obama presidency, no budget was passed. I'll tackle them separately.

The deficit began its cataclysmic rise in FY 2008, which started in October of 2007 with the first budget approved by the Democrat Congress that won a majority in the 2006 elections and took office in January of 2007. The deficit reached $1 Trillion for the first time in FY 2009, which began in October of 2008 and was the first fiscal year administrated by the Obama administration, ending in September of 2009. The deficit was bolstered first by TARP, passed by a Democrat congress and signed by a Republican president in late 2008, and then ARRA, passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by a Democrat president in February of 2009. The deficit would hover in a range of $1.3 to $1.4 Trillion until FY 2012, the first fiscal year administrated by the Obama administration after the Republicans won the House - the critical centerpiece of the Congressional budgeting process - in November of 2010 and officially took over in January of 2011. The deficit has done nothing but decline since that point.

The second issue underlies the first. Congress did not perform its constitutional and statutory duty to pass a budget for six whole years. Neither Nancy Pelosi's House nor Harry Reid's Senate passed a budget for FY 2010 or FY 2011. When the Republican-led House took office in January of 2011, John Boehner's first order of business was getting a budget passed for the upcoming FY 2012, and he did exactly that. Unfortunately, Harry Reid refused to so much as take up that budget for a debate, much less a vote. The exact same thing happened again for FY 2013, FY 2014 and FY 2015. Thanks to Harry Reid's shocking refusal to carry out the budget process required by the constitution and outlined in the Budget & Accounting Act of 1921, Congress was forced to fund the federal government entirely through a series of recurring stop-gap resolutions for six years straight. It was not until May of last year, after the Republicans took the Senate away from Reid, that the first budget of the Obama administration was passed. That budget, by the way, included massive spending cuts.

The critical thing to understand here is that, constitutionally speaking, the power of the purse lies with Congress. People think the deficit rises and falls based on which political party the White House belongs to. In truth, that's only a secondary factor. Spending, deficits and federal fiscal responsibility generally have correlated with who has control of Congress for the last 25 years. This case is no different. When the Democrats had outright control of Congress from January of 2007 to January of 2011, federal spending ballooned to all-time highs. When control of Congress was divided after that and eventually returned to the Republicans altogether in January of 2015, spending fell dramatically.

Is the budget perfectly balanced? No, but it's roughly a third of what it was five years ago. That is significant progress, and you have the Republicans to thank for it. Personally, if (and hopefully when) we take the White House and have total control of the federal government, I think we'll find a way to balance it outright. Until then, we still have a Democrat president to deal with.

Next.

I will grant the fact that as a whole the Party still leans a little right.  Unfortunately, there are to many "in the middle" and from my perspective, several that lean a little left in the GOP.  There are very few Dems that lean a little left (if any) and the majority of them are w a y left.  And if one leaned right?   Not going to happen.  Based on all of the above, the Ship of State is listing way to far to port and needs serious ballast on the starboard side, imo. 

[BS Wildcats]

8 hours ago, REBgp said:

I will grant the fact that as a whole the Party still leans a little right.  Unfortunately, there are to many "in the middle" and from my perspective, several that lean a little left in the GOP.  There are very few Dems that lean a little left (if any) and the majority of them are w a y left.  And if one leaned right?   Not going to happen.  Based on all of the above, the Ship of State is listing way to far to port and needs serious ballast on the starboard side, imo. 

John McCain is one one of the worst left leaning Republicans.  Mitch McConnell not far behind him.  Need term limits.

[PN-G bamatex]

15 hours ago, Englebert said:

No true conservative would have passed the budget that was just passed. Period.

A true conservative would have rather "shut the government down" than vote for that.

A true conservative would not make deals with other congressmen in which they pass each other bills no matter how crappy the bills are.

The GOP is light years better than the Democrats, but they still pass pork filled budgets that would make a pure conservative puke. So no, the current GOP is not conservative.

A "true" conservative wouldn't vote for a budget that included a $60 Billion reduction in the deficit, almost entirely comprised of cuts to healthcare, education and welfare spending?

You say that a "true" conservative would rather shut down the government than pass the FY 2016 budget that was adopted. I'll remind you that when the budget was passed, it not only narrowly averted another government shutdown, it also prevented the federal government from defaulting on its debt, which it was on the verge of doing.

My understanding of conservatism includes absolute fidelity to the constitution, and I believe yours does as well - in fact, I believe that's one of the underlying, unifying principles of all the variations of conservative philosophy at the moment. Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment makes it absolutely clear that for the federal government to default on its debt would not only trigger financial calamity, it would also be patently unconstitutional. If what you're saying is true, then a "true" conservative would rather explicitly violate the United States Constitution than pass a budget that is ostensibly at least somewhat favorable to his own cause.

And while we're at this, what is "true" or "pure" conservatism? One of the things I love about the GOP and the conservative side of the political spectrum in general is that, in my view, there's a greater degree of intellectual conservatism. Put simply, there's room for people of like minds, values, principles and experiences to have genuine, reasonable disagreements on a given issue. Does that disagreement make one a "true" conservative and other not?

On this very site, there is a tendency among many of the conservative posters to laud the independent thinking on our side of the aisle and decry what they perceive to be monotonous, "sheeple" thinking on the other. Aren't we encouraging that very thing on this side of the aisle when we distinguish ourselves as "true" or "pure" conservatives from other genuine conservatives over marginal differences of opinion?

[PN-G bamatex]

15 hours ago, REBgp said:

I will grant the fact that as a whole the Party still leans a little right.  Unfortunately, there are to many "in the middle" and from my perspective, several that lean a little left in the GOP.  There are very few Dems that lean a little left (if any) and the majority of them are w a y left.  And if one leaned right?   Not going to happen.  Based on all of the above, the Ship of State is listing way to far to port and needs serious ballast on the starboard side, imo. 

This exact statement is why I want to go issue by issue with this debate. You've given me a characterization of the party based in what portion of the political spectrum you think it generally covers. You haven't told me why. There's no way we can have a discussion about that unless you give me reasons for why you think that.

[Englebert]

I'll state it again. A conservative "true" and/or "pure" would never have let the deficit get to the way it is now. A good true pure conservative would be calling out fellow politicians that make side deals to get pork-ridden deals passed. A good true pure conservative would call out fellow politicians that try to insert pork-ridden riders to the budget, and vote no to that budget. To say that the politicians had to vote yes on the budget to keep from defaulting is a cop-out cover to the politicians, for they are the ones that let it get to that point. A true conservative would do their job and have the budget proposals and debates far ahead of crunch time. The politicians know that they can get crappy legislation passed by waiting to the last minute then giving the excuse "well we had to do it". That's not conservatism.

[PN-G bamatex]

3 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'll state it again. A conservative "true" and/or "pure" would never have let the deficit get to the way it is now. A good true pure conservative would be calling out fellow politicians that make side deals to get pork-ridden deals passed. A good true pure conservative would call out fellow politicians that try to insert pork-ridden riders to the budget, and vote no to that budget. To say that the politicians had to vote yes on the budget to keep from defaulting is a cop-out cover to the politicians, for they are the one that let it get to that point. A true conservative would do their job and have the budget proposals and debates far ahead of crunch time. The politicians know that they can get crappy legislation passed by waiting to the last minute then giving the excuse "well we had to do it". That's not conservatism.

You say that as though the Republicans are responsible for the deficit soaring so high to begin with. We've covered that. They're not. The deficit made its meteoric rise when the Democrats had undisputed, unchallenged control of the two branches of government that have any control whatsoever over spending. It's only been since the Republicans have seized partial control of one of those branches that the deficit has come toppling down. The job's not finished, but it's not fair to ignore the massive amount of progress that's been made.

You bring up a fair point about the members of Congress who maneuver earmarks into budget bills with assured passage that they then emphatically vote against because of supposed objections to pork. Richard Shelby is the master of that game, and it drives me crazy. But while that problem is significant, it's not endemic. Earmarks have to be inserted in committees, and even then, it's hard to add them if you're not a ranking member. That's a process that's only open to a select few members of the party, even less of whom actually invoke it. In essence, you're holding the entire Republican delegation responsible for the actions of a select few of its ranking members. Doesn't that violate the tenet of individual responsibility?

On timing, though, I couldn't disagree with you more. The budget for FY 2016 was proposed in May of 2015, a full four months before it was due. The only reason it took so long was because the President is very good at (and frankly, very hypocritical about) playing obstructionist and getting away with it. Furthermore, the Republicans technically aren't supposed to propose budgets at all. The Budget & Accounting Act of 1921 requires the president to submit the first draft of the budget to the House for consideration. President Obama, unfortunately (but not surprisingly), has been somewhat lax with that responsibility. It's truly a testament to Republican fiscal responsibility that in a time of physical crisis, the Republicans have, to the fullest extent of their legal authority, taken it upon themselves to draft budgets in spite of the president's hesitance to fulfill his legal duty, in addition to doing so so far in advance of their deadlines.

[Englebert]

I do blame the Republicans for their part in letting the debt get out of hand. They could have done a lot more. Now that they have control, they still can do a lot more. Granted progress is being made, but the GOP can and should have done so much more. You act like we have a bunch of saints in Congress in which their one and only goal is to provide an efficient well-ran conservative government. That is far from the truth. And to top it off, they will not call anyone out when they see this crap. I'm surprised that you think we can accumulate a $20 trillion debt with a bunch well-intentioned conservative politicians.

[PN-G bamatex]

47 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I do blame the Republicans for their part in letting the debt get out of hand. They could have done a lot more. Now that they have control, they still can do a lot more. Granted progress is being made, but the GOP can and should have done so much more. You act like we have a bunch of saints in Congress in which their one and only goal is to provide an efficient well-ran conservative government. That is far from the truth. And to top it off, they will not call anyone out when they see this crap. I'm surprised that you think we can accumulate a $20 trillion debt with a bunch well-intentioned conservative politicians.

On the contrary. I mentioned a prominent Republican politician whose fiscal practices I absolutely abhor. What I'm telling you, though, is that he's the exception, not the rule. Do you hold the entire group accountable for a the actions of a small number of its members? Particularly when that behavior has largely been curtailed compared to past circumstances?

You're forgetting that more than half of that debt has been accumulated since the Democrats' control of Congress started in January of 2007. I'm not saying that we can accumulate that much debt with a "bunch of well-intentioned conservative politicians," I'm saying the exact opposite. And the numbers prove me right.

You say that the Republicans can do more. The bottom line is, the deficit has decreased by more than a trillion dollars - roughly two thirds - since the Republicans took the House back five years ago. By every objective measure, cutting that much spending while running up against an obstructionist in Harry Reid for four of those five years and an extremely adept, extremely politic Barack Obama for all five of them is truly a remarkable accomplishment.

[Englebert]

Why didn't the rest of the GOP call him out then. Well-intentioned conservatives would expunge these people if they were truly conservative. And yet, the majority of the conservatives have done the same thing at one time or another in their tenure. Vote with me on my crappy bill and I'll vote for your crappy bill is the mantra in Congress...regardless of party affiliation.

No I'm not forgetting that half of the debt came under the democrats. I'm also not forgetting the fight was minimal at best. I'm also not forgetting that the conservatives had a few tools to use to curtail this and didn't. I'm also not forgetting that they were not shouting from the rooftops about the liberal spending.

Yes, they can do more. I will give them credit for cutting some of the deficit. But a $20 trillion debt is unforgivable.

It's funny, we're both on the same page but just disagree about the degree to what should have and can be done. My whole contention is that I would not call a body of politicians "Conservative" after their performance in office in the last say 20 years (probably more). Especially during Obama's first 6 years.

[Englebert]

I've learned in the past not to use analogies on blogs because it is inevitable that some yahoo will misconstrue the whole thing. But I'll try one anyway.

I tend to look at the federal spending as a traditional American family's spending. When one spouse wants to spend too much money, the other spouse should use everything at his/her disposal to keep the spending in check. So if the family's income is $50,000/year and the husband starts spending $100,000/year, the wife can't call herself conservative unless she uses all of the tools at her disposal to curtail the husband's spending. Stop cooking meals, stop washing his clothes, withhold sex, whatever it takes. You can argue that this could lead to more and different problems, but I would argue that the out-of-control spending is the top priority and should be dealt with immediately, regardless of the perceived consequences. And she can't call herself conservative if she takes over the checkbook then agrees to cut the spending down to $75,000/year.

And if none of this works, maybe it's time for a divorce!

[Hagar]

4 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

This exact statement is why I want to go issue by issue with this debate. You've given me a characterization of the party based in what portion of the political spectrum you think it generally covers. You haven't told me why. There's no way we can have a discussion about that unless you give me reasons for why you think that.

I'm not sure what you're asking.  It's my opinion that all the Dems are so far left they're off the board.  And as you stated above, there's a Rep who's fiscal responsibility you abhor.  My assertion is that the GOP is not conservative to the extent the Dems are liberal.  As I said before, conservative, barely, but in my opinion, not enough.  

I suppose it comes down to what each of us labels as conservative. You may refer to someone as conservative that I would call liberal.  We'll have to agree to disagree, but I'll give you an attaboy on a good defense of the party, from your perspective.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Republican voters (Charlie Brown) and their elected representatives (Lucy)

 

 

 

 

[Hagar]

That is one funny analogy C1.  And for many older folks, like me, it is spot on.  

[RETIREDFAN1]

When will they wake up........

[LumRaiderFan]

I will believe the GOP is conservative when they start proposing (and making if in the majority) actual cuts to entitlement programs and eliminating programs completely.

And I mean real cuts, not the games they play by increasing a program by 5% when it was originally supposed to be increased by 10% and turn around and announce the program was cut by 5%.