Competent Republicans?

[EdEarl]

 

I have no interest in continuing to be told that the evidence says the subprime loans crisis had nothing to do with subprime loans defaults that happened directly after affordable housing legislation...like we wanted to go into recession to prove the legislation faulty.

Regardless, I accept your implicit concession.

 

I haven't followed your discussion of subprime loans, but remember the events. Some facts are evident, but I got the feeling smoke and mirrors, bureaucratic bungling, and incompetence hid other facts. Regardless of merit, it was a classic political program that opponents roasted in the news.

 

Tar, I hope I did not make you feel there was a conspiracy against you. I rarely post in political threads. There are some really brilliant people who post here, and I am a little fish.

[iNow]

I haven't followed your discussion of subprime loans, but remember the events. Some facts are evident, but I got the feeling smoke and mirrors, bureaucratic bungling, and incompetence hid other facts. Regardless of merit, it was a classic political program that opponents roasted in the news.

We're obviously off-topic, but so you don't have to read through all of the links I posted, here is the elevator version of what I shared: High-risk loans began well before government policies encouraging lending to low income people were ever even implemented, government backed loans and loans subject to this legislation only accounted for a minuscule fraction of all total active mortgages at the time, the government loans failed at a significantly lower rates than loans made by the private sector, and it's draw-droppingly stupid to argue that it was one US government policy / piece of legislation that caused the crisis since said crisis was equally bad (and in many cases quite a bit worse) in other parts of the world like Europe, Asia, and the U.K.

[Willie71]

Kasich's idea of the need for a balanced budget amendment to our constitution (an idea shared by a large number of far-right citizens) is fundamentally dangerous, even though to the only topically informed it sounds reasonable on the surface.http://www.cbpp.org/research/constitutional-balanced-budget-amendment-poses-serious-risks

The inability to run a deficit when appropriate is just stupid. Any smart money manager will take advantages of cheaper labour and low interest rates for major projects such as infrastructure.

 

Austerity measures tank economies very quickly.

[John Cuthber]

Are we talking about "competent to get elected" or "competent to run a government"?

Clearly they sometimes manage the former so that's a pointless question.

It follows that we need to establish whether Republicans are competent to run a government.

So the next question is "What are governments meant to do?".

Well, there are obviously lots of answers to that.

 

Here's just one observation.

Generally, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

There are zillions of reasons for that; the simplest is that the rich can afford to buy wholesale and sell retail.

 

 

I contend that one of the fundamental roles of government is to ensure that this tendency does not become exploitation.

It is the purpose of government to maintain some degree of "fairness" such that one's chances in life are not solely determined by the accident of birth that one enters into this world in a a rich family or a poor one.

 

To do that you need a mechanism by which the "natural" process is held in check.

On a practical basis that means taxation of the rich and benefits for the poor.

 

So it is a requirement of any government that, in order to provide basic fairness, there need to be taxes and benefits.

I can't see how you can have a just government that doesn't do this.

 

And, since the republicans want to abolish them, they are, by that very fact, not competent to form a government.

 

It's not an issue of whether Cruz or Bush is competent.

Nobody who puts forward the idea of reducing benefits in circumstances where those benefits are already inadequate, is competent to govern.

 

Thus no Republican is competent.

[EdEarl]

Are we talking about "competent to get elected" or "competent to run a government"?

Clearly they sometimes manage the former so that's a pointless question.

It follows that we need to establish whether Republicans are competent to run a government.

So the next question is "What are governments meant to do?".

Well, there are obviously lots of answers to that.

 

Here's just one observation.

Generally, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

There are zillions of reasons for that; the simplest is that the rich can afford to buy wholesale and sell retail.

 

 

I contend that one of the fundamental roles of government is to ensure that this tendency does not become exploitation.

It is the purpose of government to maintain some degree of "fairness" such that one's chances in life are not solely determined by the accident of birth that one enters into this world in a a rich family or a poor one.

 

To do that you need a mechanism by which the "natural" process is held in check.

On a practical basis that means taxation of the rich and benefits for the poor.

 

So it is a requirement of any government that, in order to provide basic fairness, there need to be taxes and benefits.

I can't see how you can have a just government that doesn't do this.

 

And, since the republicans want to abolish them, they are, by that very fact, not competent to form a government.

 

It's not an issue of whether Cruz or Bush is competent.

Nobody who puts forward the idea of reducing benefits in circumstances where those benefits are already inadequate, is competent to govern.

 

Thus no Republican is competent.

I like your concluding remark, except it is incomplete; no one is competent to govern a large modern country. Whoever is leader will have people who hate their decisions and actions. Some are totally inept, and the others do enough agreeable things to be almost competent.

 

Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.

H. L. Mencken

 

[Ten oz]

@ John Cuthber, I agree that promoting fairness is important but only one small bit of the role government is meant to play. Resources can be fairly divided but then still used up leaving everyone with nothing. Government must have an eye towards to future. Build metro systems before areas become too congested. Prevent development in certain areas to ensure future water sources or farmland. I can only imagine what might had been had my government not created the National Park system for example. It isn't just fairness. A responsible government builds infastructure: schools, museums, hospitals, parks, transportation, and etc.

[John Cuthber]

I didn't say it was all that a government had to do. (what I actually said was "Well, there are obviously lots of answers to that.")

However it is one thing that governments need to do, so a an individual, or a party, which refuses to do it is not competent to govern.

 

Granted, a government that refuses to protect the environment, provide infrastructure and a whole lot of other things is also incompetent.

 

But my point is that any one requirement that is not met is sufficient to show that they don't meet the requirements.

 

And that rules out the Republicans- both individually and collectively- from being competent to govern.

[Ten oz]

I didn't say it was all that a government had to do. (what I actually said was "Well, there are obviously lots of answers to that.")

However it is one thing that governments need to do, so a an individual, or a party, which refuses to do it is not competent to govern.

 

Granted, a government that refuses to protect the environment, provide infrastructure and a whole lot of other things is also incompetent.

 

But my point is that any one requirement that is not met is sufficient to show that they don't meet the requirements.

 

And that rules out the Republicans- both individually and collectively- from being competent to govern.

I didn't mean to imply you had.

[MigL]

There is one flaw in your argument John.

When you say...

"Nobody who puts forward the idea of reducing benefits in circumstances where where those benefits are already inadequate, is competent to govern"

the implication is that you think benefits are already inadequate, whereas someone like Tar ( maybe, maybe not ) might think that they are perfectly adequate.

Now I may agree with you, but who decides what is an adequate benefit ?

That makes your OPINION subjective, as is then, your OPINION of competency to govern.

Just as Tar's OPINION that benefits are adequate ( if indeed he has that opinion ) is subjective.

 

When we as a group, admonish Tar for having opinions, not based on facts, and refusing to change his mind when presented with our facts, we should make sure we are presenting facts and not opinions also.

( I was one of the people who complained about his posting 'style', and feel guilty that he's no longer participating. I certainly don't doubt his passion for what he believes )

[Ten oz]

There is one flaw in your argument John.

When you say...

"Nobody who puts forward the idea of reducing benefits in circumstances where where those benefits are already inadequate, is competent to govern"

the implication is that you think benefits are already inadequate, whereas someone like Tar ( maybe, maybe not ) might think that they are perfectly adequate.

Now I may agree with you, but who decides what is an adequate benefit ?

That makes your OPINION subjective, as is then, your OPINION of competency to govern.

Just as Tar's OPINION that benefits are adequate ( if indeed he has that opinion ) is subjective.

 

When we as a group, admonish Tar for having opinions, not based on facts, and refusing to change his mind when presented with our facts, we should make sure we are presenting facts and not opinions also.

( I was one of the people who complained about his posting 'style', and feel guilty that he's no longer participating. I certainly don't doubt his passion for what he believes )

This beauty is in the eye of the beholder argument assumes that opinion and not outcome impacts what's adequate. Gov't programs and benefits all have stated goals and benchmarks. What the benefit is meant to do or achieve is what determines how adequate it is. Whether or not some in the minority oppose a benefit outright as a matter of principle has no bearing on what it takes to adequately manage that benefit. Your post is an example of one of the rights many false equivalents.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Ten oz

[Phi for All]

There is one flaw in your argument John.

When you say...

"Nobody who puts forward the idea of reducing benefits in circumstances where where those benefits are already inadequate, is competent to govern"

the implication is that you think benefits are already inadequate, whereas someone like Tar ( maybe, maybe not ) might think that they are perfectly adequate.

Now I may agree with you, but who decides what is an adequate benefit ?

There is one flaw in your argument, MigL. What makes tar capable of deciding if welfare benefits are adequate or not? It sounds like he's not accessing that program yet, so how on Earth could he, or you, or I, know? He can only tell us what he thinks he's willing to give up to offset the privilege he's heir to. That's always going to vary from person to person, which is exactly what we want to avoid.

 

Fortunately, those kinds of parameters are usually taken out of the hands of those who don't have the training or experience, and acceptable levels should be determined, not by tar or you or I, but by those who can assess the various and variable situations in context. Just like it's kind of STUPID to allow an insurance company to have first say in your healthcare, rather than you or your doctor, it's kind of STUPID to allow tar or any of us to determine what form welfare should take. Shouldn't the families it's designed to help be the focus, concentrating on ways to help them be what they want to be, a productive part of the economy, and the society?

 

This is what leaves most Republican politicians inadequate in my eyes. To my mind, you decide to level the field, or you don't. Either give people a chance to overcome circumstances of birth as an investment in the potential they represent, or tell them to fend for themselves, too bad about that. This bullshit where we pretend to be generous while keeping one foot on the necks of welfare recipients has got to stop. But the Republican politicians keep pandering to the "judgement" crowd, those who imagine welfare as non-stop parties for the lazy, so they can whine about lowering taxes and cutting social programs, because they're so unfair to the well-to-do.

[John Cuthber]

There is one flaw in your argument John.

When you say...

"Nobody who puts forward the idea of reducing benefits in circumstances where where those benefits are already inadequate, is competent to govern"

the implication is that you think benefits are already inadequate, whereas someone like Tar ( maybe, maybe not ) might think that they are perfectly adequate.

 

There is a traditional answer to that. Anyone who thinks that the benefits are adequate should demonstrate this by living on them.

And it's notable how often that challenge isn't taken up by the Right wing who propose the view that the payments are adequate.

Here's a fairly recent example

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/01/iain-duncan-smith-live-benefits

 

However that's largely political rhetoric.

 

It is perfectly possible to tally up the actual cost of living and plenty of justified estimates are available.

 

What makes it even clearer that the Republicans are not fit to govern is stuff like this (I know that, strictly, minimum wage isn't a benefit- but it is a mechanism whereby the "rich get richer" issue is addressed.)

In 2007 when Bush was president 62 current republican members of congress voted to raise the minimum wage.

In 2013, under Obama, none of them did.

 

So, asked the same question, but in different political circumstances, those Republicans gave different answers.

Whichever answer is actually "right" from any objective point of view, they got it wrong, either in 2007 or in 2013.

 

They are playing political games with the US workforce.

That's "not competent" to govern.

[Phi for All]

They are playing political games with the US workforce.

That's "not competent" to govern.

I suppose, if the Republican Party gets to continue on their present course, Americans will eventually cost less to employ than their foreign counterparts, so the businesses will get to move back tax-free, using all the infrastructure for free while their workers pay for it. I think this is their Job-Creator strategy.

 

We're welcome.

[MigL]

That's a much more robust argument, John.

The fact that they vote ideologically to retain power/defeat opponents as opposed to doing what is best for the country.

Or as you put it, 'playing political games'.

[Ten oz]

I suppose, if the Republican Party gets to continue on their present course, Americans will eventually cost less to employ than their foreign counterparts, so the businesses will get to move back tax-free, using all the infrastructure for free while their workers pay for it. I think this is their Job-Creator strategy.

 

We're welcome.

Only the GOP isn't even keen on infastructure. They have been combative against the administrations infastructure proposals. The GOP have used the never built Alaskan bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina (Bridge to nowhere) to campiagn against infastructure spending for a decade. Our crumbling infastructure is actually a growing burden to business. Poor road conditions promote traffic and wear and tear to vehicles. That impacts fleet vehicles much as it does the rest of us. That is of course just the tip of the iceberg. Every from public transport to building public parks has a direct value to business attached. If it were truly all about low taxes, cheap property, and low wage as Republicans insist Wyoming would be our nations jobs leader instead of High tax, expensive property, and high waged California.

[John Cuthber]

Only the GOP isn't even keen on infastructure. They have been combative against the administrations infastructure proposals. The GOP have used the never built Alaskan bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina (Bridge to nowhere) to campiagn against infastructure spending for a decade. Our crumbling infastructure is actually a growing burden to business. Poor road conditions promote traffic and wear and tear to vehicles. That impacts fleet vehicles much as it does the rest of us. That is of course just the tip of the iceberg. Every from public transport to building public parks has a direct value to business attached. If it were truly all about low taxes, cheap property, and low wage as Republicans insist Wyoming would be our nations jobs leader instead of High tax, expensive property, and high waged California.

The thing about infrastructure is that you have to pay for it up front, but you only get to use it much later.

In essence the Republicans are failing the marshmallow test and are thus behaving like 5 year olds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

[Phi for All]

Only the GOP isn't even keen on infastructure.

 

They aren't keen on paying for infrastructure, because they know it's so necessary that eventually the middle and lower classes will have to pay for it just to maintain its poor condition. Who wouldn't like a deal where you get to use the roads and airports and marine ports, while someone else (who doesn't use them nearly as much as you) pays to maintain them?

 

But road maintenance seems to be different. Since it's mostly privatized, using state and federal contracts, they've figured out how to grow maintaining roads in the US into an enormous business. If you drive on asphalt the day you put it down, that road will need maintenance as early as next year, and that's REALLY GOOD FOR BUSINESS, but not for the city, county, state, or country.

 

Is anyone surprised to hear that the US government gets gouged on private infrastructure contracts? At least compared to their first-world European counterparts.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Phi for All
link to article

[Willie71]

I find the competency argument interesting. Republicans seem to have taken on a corporate mindset, focusing on the here and now, or current quarter, rather than looking at sustainability and future growth. With wages at a very low rate compared to GDP, or corporate profits, and the extremely low interest rates, investing in infrastructure is a no brainer. People could double their standard of living, be able to afford to buy houses, cars, and have some disposable income. All benefits to the economy. It's the evidence based economic model that works, rather than the failed trickle down ideology. We actually can take an evidence based pathway for different economic climates, and give up the faith based ideologies that don't work.

 

In the closest city to me, the mayor set out on an infrastructure spending spree. Local conservatives were outraged. He explained that the interest rate was lower than the rate of economic growth. We were making money on borrowing money. We got a new arena, new office buildings, a transportation network from downtown to the international airport, and a failed upgrade to the rapid transit system. All of these created jobs, built the economy, and will continue to do so for decades. With our recession, our diversified economy has been the most resilient.

[MigL]

Not to be rude ( and not to defend Republicans ) but the OP is 'competent Republicans'.

I'm on record as saying I don't think any of the contenders are competent, and If I could vote, I'd cast my vote for H. Clinton.

Does this have to become another 'bit*h about Republicans' thread.

We already have several.

 

How about some constructive criticism along the lines of steps to rebuild the Republican party so that we again have a multiparty system and some choice in who to vote for.

If no current Republicans pass the competency test, can you suggest anyone ( who is conservative ) that might make a good president that the people would back.

[Ten oz]

I started a thread a while back asking for examples of Conservative successes globally. I pointed out that most Country viewed as allies to the USA are socialist to an extend and asked for examples of governements that succeed using Conservative polices. No one made a case.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83950-examples-of-conservative-idealism-success/

[EdEarl]

Not to be rude ( and not to defend Republicans ) but the OP is 'competent Republicans'.

I'm on record as saying I don't think any of the contenders are competent, and If I could vote, I'd cast my vote for H. Clinton.

Does this have to become another 'bit*h about Republicans' thread.

We already have several.

 

How about some constructive criticism along the lines of steps to rebuild the Republican party so that we again have a multiparty system and some choice in who to vote for.

If no current Republicans pass the competency test, can you suggest anyone ( who is conservative ) that might make a good president that the people would back.

The GOP is doing its best to elect conservative candidates. The result is the current GOP with its menagerie of political agendas that can be short sighted, contradictory, obsolete or incorrect. Sage leaders of the party developed a strategy to keep the party as strong as possible by attracting disparate voter segments, while trying to maintain conservative policies.

 

From my perspective, the GOP has systemic problems that must be addressed because I disagree with virtually all their political positions; although, that was not always true. I think times are changing faster than traditional conservatives are adapting, which is why I think they need systemic change. However, I think the various factions within the GOP do not have a unified vision for change; thus, systemic change seems unlikely. Moreover, I think the likelihood of a candidate capable of unifying all the factions is equally unlikely. But, I am not a pundit and cannot imagine how the party can be healed.

[overtone]

 

 

How about some constructive criticism along the lines of steps to rebuild the Republican party so that we again have a multiparty system and some choice in who to vote for.

The way to get a second legitimate Party would probably be to have reasonable Republicans join their ideological fellow travelers in the Democratic Party, and either form a new Party themselves or motivate the Democratic Party voting base to split off and form one of their own.

 

Or one could simply devote oneself to Democratic Party politics, which encompass the range of choices that once involved the Republican Party (Clinton as Eisenhower/Nixon, Sanders as Humphrey/McGovern).

 

The Republican Party should not be rebuilt. It's rotten at the foundation, not the superstructure. It represents a faction of American politics that should be prevented from organizing itself and rising again as an anaerobic entity - its value is as a ubiquitous streak of ornery, best employed as a leavening in all Parties rather than restricted to one.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

How about some constructive criticism along the lines of steps to rebuild the Republican party so that we again have a multiparty system and some choice in who to vote for.

If no current Republicans pass the competency test, can you suggest anyone ( who is conservative ) that might make a good president that the people would back.

My point is that being a Republican makes you ipso facto not a competent candidate. They are the party that wants f=to govern, but things the government should do nothing.

Your question is like asking "what are the steps to rebuild the bank robbers and murderers party?" so that we can have a multi party system.

It's not a matter of finding the right answer- because it's the wrong question.

[StringJunky]

Not to be rude ( and not to defend Republicans ) but the OP is 'competent Republicans'.

I'm on record as saying I don't think any of the contenders are competent, and If I could vote, I'd cast my vote for H. Clinton.

Does this have to become another 'bit*h about Republicans' thread.

We already have several.

 

How about some constructive criticism along the lines of steps to rebuild the Republican party so that we again have a multiparty system and some choice in who to vote for.

If no current Republicans pass the competency test, can you suggest anyone ( who is conservative ) that might make a good president that the people would back.

This was the essence of the OP.

[Ten oz]

Not to be rude ( and not to defend Republicans ) but the OP is 'competent Republicans'.

I'm on record as saying I don't think any of the contenders are competent, and If I could vote, I'd cast my vote for H. Clinton.

Does this have to become another 'bit*h about Republicans' thread.

We already have several.

 

How about some constructive criticism along the lines of steps to rebuild the Republican party so that we again have a multiparty system and some choice in who to vote for.

If no current Republicans pass the competency test, can you suggest anyone ( who is conservative ) that might make a good president that the people would back.

The current Republican field of incompetents is going to be a turning point for the party in my opinion. For the sake of getting votes the Republican party pandered to various fringe conservative wings. They campaigned to the salt of the earth pull your self up by your boot strap types but then once in office partner with heads of the military industrial complex and energy conglomerates. Those fringe groups have actually started to believe the Republican party is their party. Not just the better of two evils but they actually expect their views to be strongly represented. Such has created a Republican presidential primary where the 2 lead candidates are not even Republicans; just right wing independents.

 

This is going to force change in the Republican party. All the entrenched political observers on bothsides undertsand that Cruz and Trump are both incompetent to run the United States. I have read RNC talk about changing the primary line up in the future so that Texas or California votes first. There more diverse populations forcing moderate positions early in the nomination process. I suspect they will be a big push to get Republicans like Marco Rubio and George P. Bush out in the media selling a Republican immigration reform policy. And the establishment will fight back against the Tea Party in the midterm and try to recruit Democrats to help them primary elected Tea Party members

 

The Republican Party is an executive party. They are not the party of the modndane day to day business of government at the House level. They need govenorships and the White House. That way they can fill court and cabinet positions. Losing the White House for multiple terms is eroding decades of work they put into the DOD, CIA, DOJ, and our federal courts. The Republican must change if it will ever get executive power back. If they don't they will lose their true base of weapons contractors, oil companies, chemical manufactures, banks, police unions, and etc. They will be left with church groups and anti government militias. So a shift is inevitable in my opinion. When a company like Haliburton is better off having a democrat like Hilary in office than either of the GOP front runners; change is coming.

 

I believe over the next 4yrs we will see competent Republicans rise campaigning on immigration reform, criminal justice reform, and they will even acknowledge climate change selling a change in energy policy as a way to create jobs.