"It's evening in America", says today's GOP

I thought Renee Loth put it well here:

So how do they go on to restore the facade of Reaganesque “morning in America” optimism from here? Is the tradition of saying “No, the DEMS are the defeatists; we BELIEVE in individual freedoms etc.” going to wash much longer?

The USA can recover-but radical restructuring is needed. The Federal and State Governments are too big and too expensive. We need to eliminate whole segments of the government, like:
-the Federal Dept. of Education
-the Dept. of Commerce
-the armed forces have to be cut back-make the Marine Corps 20,000 max.-no more air arm We cannot afford to police the world
We also need to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements with our trading partners, and start reducing our dependence upon imported oil.
Yes, the USA can be fixed…but the cure will be fought by those who would be cut…so it will not happen.

You gotta be kidding. That’s one big straw man. I will note this comical contradiction, though:

“We can’t even keep our criminals in prison.”
“Walker’s budget in Wisconsin, for example, goes beyond attacking public-sector unions to repeal several programs, including…a prerelease program to ease inmates out of correctional institutions”

Nice smear piece, but not much of anything to debate.

Speaking of strawmen, John, you’re quoting out of context. The first line is something Loth describes as part of the current GOP mindset (at least its public one), not a statement of fact. That attribution is amplified upon by the later one, which you distorted out of its meaning by using ellipses (in the wrong place, too) instead of the words “several programs put in place by his predecessors”. IOW the GOP complaint is that existing programs cannot keep criminals in prison.

Anything else I can help you with?

ralph, leaving the rest of that stuff alone, would you care to expound upon how reducing education can help us out of this mess?

Nope. The complaint is that he won’t repeal a law letting prisoners out early. It’s a contradiction of what was said earlier.

No help needed for you on reading comprehension.

So, Renee Loth is describing her vision of what she thinks is the Republican outlook…and we should take her seriously why, exactly? Just from what’s quoted I agree with John…it looks like someone building a series of strawmen arguments so that they can knock them down and poison the well in the discussion. I mean, Republicans (according to Renee Loth) think we are a ‘can’t-do nation’…we can’t ‘educate our children’, can’t ‘afford a first-class transportation system’ (whatever that means…we’d need to ask Mrs. Loth I guess), can’t ‘regulate the safety of our air and food and water’, can’t ‘operate highway rest stops or public parks’ and, and can’t ‘keep our criminals in prison’ (Ooooh woe is me! Oh Discordia!’).

yawn When come back bring arguments and not strawmen…

-XT

If we make drastic cuts - especially the kind of cuts the Republicans would like - not only will that do serious damage to the country, it won’t help the debt in the long run because it would tell the Republicans that running up the debt is a successful strategy. Which means they’d only do it again the moment they got the power to do so. So in practice, massive cuts to social programs and such will inevitably raise the debt whether or not doing so saves money in the short run.

That isn’t a strawman, it’s how they talk all the time. That was certainly an argument against health care reform; we can’t do what every other industrialized country on the planet can, apparently. We are uniquely incompetent, according to the Republicans.

Do you have a cite of actual Republicans saying similar things? I admit, I don’t follow Republican commentary much these days, but I’ve never heard such ridiculous assertions. And please, give context if you are going to give cites…so that we can all judge how close to real, actual Republican rhetoric Renee Loth’s pronouncements are. If they are close I’ll gladly take back my assertion that it’s a series of strawmen.

-XT

I have no doubt one can find quotes of Republicans saying we can’t afford “x”, with “x” being lots of different things. But: “can’t educate our children” might be rather tough to find. Same thing with living in a “can’t do nation”. Besides, a collection of random quotes does not a “vision” make.

I am getting rather tired of those doom and gloom Republicans.

Regarding health care, I’ve heard it very frequently as an argument from American conservatives (over the net, and with some people I was in frequent contact about non political things), that it couldnt be done in the States. Unfeasible, they were saying. That always struck me as bizarre since those were the exact same guys that frequently went for the “America is number one” schtick.

Petulant, ain’tcha? :dubious: Already explained. :shrug:

CZ, the much more common argument was that the US is special, different qualitatively, in a way that made experience in every other country simply inapplicable here. No follow-up was ever coming, though, AFAIK, as to just what those differences are and how they applied to the topic.

The GOP of 2011 is different than the GOP of 1980. Ronald Reagan wouldn’t even win a primary in today’s GOP since he is too liberal by contemporary GOP standards. So there is that.

But on top of that, like it or not, the GOP has no serious solutions to the problems we face. Most of what they’ve done is a mix of posturing and attacking groups that pose a threat to them politically. They’ve gone after non-defense discretionary spending, unions, abortion, health reform, relatively inexpensive social programs, etc. But nothing substantive to address the deep seated problems in this country with inability to trust government, corruption/plutocracy, us falling behind the world in economics/science/R&D or our debt. Most of their solutions make those problems worse. You can’t build a movement of optimism if anyone who pays attention knows you aren’t a serious group and that your ‘solutions’ are just pandering and make the real problems worse.

People like to say this, and maybe it sounds clever, but I can’t see that there is any veracity to it.

I think across the board spending cuts are needed and in order to help reduce the deficit, if we must, have temporary tax increases (on incomes) when the economy is restored to normal levels but at the same time work to get rid of taxes on businesses.

Worked towards nuclear disarmament, raised taxes, amnesty for illegals, soft of terrorists (Iran Contra), deficit spender, willing to compromise with Dems and that’s off the top of my head.

Any of those things today would veto Reagan as a candidate. The Tea Party isn’t full of thoughtful people.

As president he also pulled out from Lebanon after a bombing killed 200+ marines. And he strengthened the public social security system rather than trying to dismantle or privatize it. He also signed the UN convention against torture (which made rendition and waterboarding illegal).

Also as governor of California he supported restrictions on firearms and made it easier to get an abortion. Plus before his career in politics he was head of the labor union the screen actors guild.

Even Mitt Romney would attack him as a RINO in today’s climate. Gun control, abortion, taxes, negotiation with terrorists, reducing nuclear weapons, heading a labor union, pulling out of a war, amnesty, deficits, a willingness to be bipartisan, strengthening public safety nets, anti-torture. It is a sad reflection of our societies march to the right politically.

We’ve been doing that for 30 years without any benefit to anyone except the owners of some businesses. Why should we keep doing it?

Back in 2009 and before the last mid terms, there was a push by conservative Republicans to make the Republican National Committee use a “Purity Test” so if a republican failed the points they would get no funding on the next elections.

Many had a field day pointing out that Reagan would fail several of those tests.

http://freakoutnation.com/2011/02/06/ronald-reagan-flunks-the-gop-purity-test-on-his-birthday/