# It couldn't be, could it? \[Republicans planning on economic failure\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2011, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952 "2011-06-26T23:08:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/61 "2011-06-27T17:43:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Assuming you mean Hatch’s co-sponsorship of a bill in 1993, eighteen years ago, was this statement of yours honest? “MANY republicans are on record in support of such legislation UNTIL Obama proposes it.” > > That statement suggests a bit more recent turnaround time, doesn’t it? I mean, 18 years is enough time for a person to go from diapers to the voting booth. If Hatch changed his mind at some point over the 18 years between then and now, why should the assumption be he changed it based on Obama’s proposal? > > Nor is it particularly clear he favored it in 1993, except as the lesser-of-two-evils alternative to Clinton’s plan. “Politics is the art of the possible.” Fearful that Clinton’s more intrusive plan might pass, Hatch could have co-sponsored the plan he did not out of a belief that it was a good idea, but out of a belief it was a less terrible idea than Clinton’s. > > Yes? He wasn’t presented with two Democratic options to choose from. He helped CREATE the individual mandate option. His counteroffer was not “tort reform… and letting people in NY buy health insurance from Minnesota” This time it was. What changed over that time period to make the individual mandate not only unconstitutional but just about the worst thing that has ever happened to America? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/62 "2011-06-27T17:48:34Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > It’s hard to imagine that someone would _co-sponsor_ a bill, not merely argue for or vote for a bill, if he didn’t think it were a reasonably good idea. That’s a failure of your imagination, then. If a Senator feels that any federal involvement in health care is a poor policy choice, but recognizes the mood of the country is such that _some_ health care bill is likely to pass, then it behooves him to sponsor a bill that sets acceptable limits to the prospect. Why would it be otherwise? By sponsoring a bill, he controls (at least to some degree) the starting point of the opposing side of the discussion. And I can point to many bills that were sponsored by people who clearly didn’t favor them at all. Didn’t a liberal Democrat, during the Bush years, propose a bill re-instating the draft? It was widely agreed that his purpose was to highlight the folly of war, and did not want his bill to pass. Why does your imagination struggle with those basic concepts? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/63 "2011-06-27T17:51:20Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The Republican senators in 1992. (Dole comes to mind). > > Mitt Romney. Dole isn’t taking any position on Obama’s bill, so far as I’m aware. Romney’s position appears to be that the problem with Obama’s bill is not its provisions, but its status as a federal initiative. Since the Constitution creates a federal government of limited, ennumerated powers, and gives states plenary power, Romney feels that a bill like Obama’s is perfectly acceptable if passed by the individual states, but exceeds the federal government’s limited powers. This position has, incidentally, been upheld by several federal courts. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/64 "2011-06-27T17:53:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > He wasn’t presented with two Democratic options to choose from. He helped CREATE the individual mandate option. His counteroffer was not “tort reform… and letting people in NY buy health insurance from Minnesota” This time it was. What changed over that time period to make the individual mandate not only unconstitutional but just about the worst thing that has ever happened to America? I don’t know if Hatch has signed on to the claim that the Obama bill is unconstitutional. Has he? As for the general issue – again, politics is the art of the possible. His belief in 1992 may have been that some kind of bill was likely, and that this was the best compromise to make. Now, eighteen years later, he may feel it’s possible to avoid any kind of a bill. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/65 "2011-06-27T17:57:02Z")
> [@](#): > > …Why does your imagination struggle with those basic concepts? He’s not a Republican, he doesn’t need to use his imagination nearly so often. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/66 "2011-06-27T17:57:20Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Face it-everything Obama has done has left the economy in WORSE shape-no jobs (except government jobs) have been created, the states are bankrupt, and a second housing collapse is in the offing. > It is naive to think that ANYTHING the Republicans could do, could make things worse. Whenever I hear this I cast my mind back a few years to when we were in the thick of the financial melt down. At that time the Dow Jones had lost half its value and people were wondering if we were headed into the next great depression. If I had a crystal ball back then and could look at our current situation, as dismal as it is, I would have been comforted to know that it wasn’t worse. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/67 "2011-06-27T18:01:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …This position has, incidentally, been upheld by several federal courts. All of them? In each and every instance? Wow, then the question must be pretty much “cut and dried”, huh? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/68 "2011-06-27T18:02:50Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > They run for government to enrich themselves, and tear it down in the process. They deliberately do as bad a job as they can get away with, in hopes of creating as big a disaster as possible that they can blame on “government incompetence”. The Bush Administration did quite a big of that; their handling of Katrina being one example. Yep. Hit the nail on the head. ---
**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/69 "2011-06-27T18:07:41Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Agreed if that’s true. Do you have a cite for that? I hadn’t heard about that. I know you weren’t addressing me, but [here you go.](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/22/a-do-nothing-congress-could-solve-deficit-woes-cbo/) The gist of the article is that, if Congress does nothing and lets the cuts expire, even though there would be short-term pain, we could have a surplus in less than a decade. If Congress continues to extend the tax cuts, we will continue to have a deficit. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/70 "2011-06-27T18:58:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Romney’s position appears to be that the problem with Obama’s bill is not its provisions, but its status as a federal initiative. Since the Constitution creates a federal government of limited, ennumerated powers, and gives states plenary power, Romney feels that a bill like Obama’s is perfectly acceptable if passed by the individual states, but exceeds the federal government’s limited powers. > > This position has, incidentally, been upheld by several federal courts. > [@elucidator](#): > > All of them? In each and every instance? Wow, then the question must be pretty much “cut and dried”, huh? Well, no, not all federal courts. Most federal courts have not been involved in the issue. The largest lawsuit is the joint one with 26 states as parties to the suit, and the federal court that considered that one, in Florida, agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional. Richmond and Michigan federal courts have ruled similarly. A DC Circuit court found that the measure was constitutional. But if you’re keeping score, the DC side isn’t winning. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/71 "2011-06-27T19:23:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, no, not all federal courts. Most federal courts have not been involved in the issue. > > The largest lawsuit is the joint one with 26 states as parties to the suit, and the federal court that considered that one, in Florida, agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional. > > Richmond and Michigan federal courts have ruled similarly. > > A DC Circuit court found that the measure was constitutional. > > But if you’re keeping score, the DC side isn’t winning. And as an interesting addendum: I don’t agree with them. I think, as I have from the beginning, that the individual mandate and the entire bill are terrible public policy, but under Wickard I believe they are constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/72 "2011-06-27T19:55:37Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Largely because we spend so much more on entitlements than we do on the military. > > The US budget deficit in 2011 is projected to reach $1.65 trillion. ([Cite](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/business/2011-06/11/c_13923084.htm), as if you needed one.) The entire amount that the US spends on the military (another unnecessary [cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Military_budget_and_total_US_federal_spending)), even if you include the entire budget of the State Department and FBI counter-terrorism activities and Energy Department expenditures related to the military and NASA, doesn’t reach that amount. > > SOP from the Left - borrow and spend based on fantasy, and demonize anyone who resists. Social Security is the biggest piece of the federal budget but it is closely followed by the military ([cite](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg)). Thing is Social Security in no way contributes to the federal deficit. Money going into and out of Social Security is not from the general taxes paid but rather special taxes explicitly paid into that part of the system. So, the military is by far the single largest budget item. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/73 "2011-06-27T20:15:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Dole isn’t taking any position on Obama’s bill, so far as I’m aware. > > Romney’s position appears to be that the problem with Obama’s bill is not its provisions, but its status as a federal initiative. Since the Constitution creates a federal government of limited, ennumerated powers, and gives states plenary power, Romney feels that a bill like Obama’s is perfectly acceptable if passed by the individual states, but exceeds the federal government’s limited powers. > > This position has, incidentally, been upheld by several federal courts. > **[Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan - KFF Health News](https://kffhealthnews.org/news/gop-1993-health-reform-bill/)** > > In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: “A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States.” Titled the... > **[Healthy Americans Act | Sponsors and co-sponsors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act#Sponsors_and_co-sponsors)** > > The following table lists the sponsors and co-sponsors of the legislation and notes whether they are members of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, the committee to which the bill was referred. Dole is just one example. The point is that the individual mandate was once acceptable amongst Republicans but it has become toxic and several Republicans have reversed their position for purely political “anything Obama wants must be evil” reasons. Romney’s explanation sounds a lot like an excuse. I never understood the opposition to the individual mandate to be based on principles of federalism. I don’t think it will buy him absolution. I understand the Republican party’s raction. They were looking at wandering for decades in the wilderness after how they handled things when they controlled the government for almsot a decade. So they took any port inn a storm but this notion taht Republicans are a party of principles is simply bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/74 "2011-06-27T20:19:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t know if Hatch has signed on to the claim that the Obama bill is unconstitutional. Has he? > > As for the general issue – again, politics is the art of the possible. His belief in 1992 may have been that some kind of bill was likely, and that this was the best compromise to make. > > Now, eighteen years later, he may feel it’s possible to avoid any kind of a bill. > **[Hatch once supported an individual mandate, said Cenk Uygur](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/feb/14/cenk-uygur/hatch-once-supported-individual-mandate-said-cenk-/)** > > With Keith Olbermann's recent departure from MSNBC, the cable news channel has re-shuffled its liberal talk show hosts a “I was the one who raised the issue about the job-killing employer mandate, and of course the unconstitutional employee mandate,” Hatch said. " JOB KILLING AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/75 "2011-06-27T20:24:21Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Whenever I hear this I cast my mind back a few years to when we were in the thick of the financial melt down. At that time the Dow Jones had lost half its value and people were wondering if we were headed into the next great depression. If I had a crystal ball back then and could look at our current situation, as dismal as it is, I would have been comforted to know that it wasn’t worse. I think the hope is that you will forget how bad things were and how bad things looked like they were going to get and pretend that things would have just worked out fine if we had done nothing and let the market sort itself out. We were looking into the abyss. The bottom had fallen out of the global economy. Grain was rotting in the holds of ships because the financial system had seized up. We were a hop skip and a jump away from Mad Max World. Republicans DEPEND on the big lie and noone uses it better than they do. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/76 "2011-06-27T20:27:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why does your imagination struggle with those basic concepts? This is just insulting. I’m therefore not inclined to debate this with you any further. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/77 "2011-06-27T20:29:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And as an interesting addendum: I don’t agree with them. I think, as I have from the beginning, that the individual mandate and the entire bill are terrible public policy, but under Wickard I believe they are constitutional. Pretty much anything that touches on economic activity (or commerce) is constitutional under Wickard. I also believe the bill is horrible public policy but only because it added all the cost elements of health care reform with none of the cost control. Universal ehalth care would have been better and I never believed for an instant that this was just the first step in anything, this horrible bill was going to be the FACE of health care reform. Democrats need to grow some balls. I shoulda voted for Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/78 "2011-06-27T20:30:14Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Social Security is the biggest piece of the federal budget but it is closely followed by the military ([cite](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg)). Thing is Social Security in no way contributes to the federal deficit. Money going into and out of Social Security is not from the general taxes paid but rather special taxes explicitly paid into that part of the system. > > So, the military is by far the single largest budget item. For now. In 30 years it will be interest on the national debt and medicare assuming we don’t get involved in more unecessary wars. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/79 "2011-06-27T21:12:22Z")
> [@overlyverbose](#): > > I know you weren’t addressing me, but [here you go.](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/22/a-do-nothing-congress-could-solve-deficit-woes-cbo/) > > The gist of the article is that, if Congress does nothing and lets the cuts expire, even though there would be short-term pain, we could have a surplus in less than a decade. If Congress continues to extend the tax cuts, we will continue to have a deficit. Interesting. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952/80 "2011-06-27T21:34:45Z")
You don’t even need to invoke the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to levy taxes for the common welfare. And that’s what they did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-couldnt-be-could-it-republicans-planning-on-economic-failure/586952.md?page=5)