~46~ Lame Duck Unfit Uncle Joe Biden ~46~

[Farfromgeneva]

Unfortunately an anachronistic viewpoint stuck in the 1980s-mid/late 90s.

[kramerica.inc]

Sure. Perhaps.
But also true and repeated multiple times over the course of US history.

[Farfromgeneva]

Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

[kramerica.inc]

Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

[Farfromgeneva]

Ok

[MDlaxfan76]

Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

[Farfromgeneva]

In this instance I recommend abstinence.

[SCLaxAttack]

Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Huzzah. I wouldn't change a single word.

[seacoaster]

Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Good post, and thank you for replying to this stupefying manifesto of mis-governance. The talking points are: Democrats=Big Government; GOP=Government small and out of our hair. It's all complete bullsh*t, demonstrated by the previous administration and GOP majority in Congress. The GOP's cash withdrawals from the so-called Blue States keep their voters employed, and their oracles in the media and Congress keep this total fiction alive. Witness Kramerica.

This statement -- "Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles" -- is also complete bullsh*t. Government and governing are not built on fierce battles; a democratic republic is founded and built on compromise and deals cut in the name of consensus. Here too, Republicans have deviated from the basic contract for governing. The GOP Congresses of the last six years of Obama's presidency, and the first year of Biden's, are archetypes of "republican democracy" not working at all to serve the governed, becasue a faction -- the GOP -- will not participate except to the extent of saying "no." No alternatives. No policies. No meaningful legislation offered or even passed while in charge. The "both sides" argument might have been true a decade or two ago; the GOP since 2008 and especially since 2016 -- when it forfeited all of its erstwhile "principles" kowtowing to the Moron and doing nothing to help Americans -- changed that. You can have a democratic republic in future, but only with Democrats or some third party in charge. The party of Trump, Carlson, Greene, Gaetz, Boebert, Gohmert, McCarthy and Hannity want something else. And you know it.

[kramerica.inc]

Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Fair enough, and I agree entirely with your last paragraph.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm trying to underline that the party in opposition to majority is always the dissenter in this country. For the past few decades, and much of modern history since WW2 that's primarily been republicans. Just demographics-wise. Democrats hold the current majority, but framing it with specifics, in this case by using Trump and his base, is not entirely reflective of the big picture I'm talking about. Who have been the Republican nominees for the past few years?

McCain, Bush, Romney, Dole? Far from extreme. Those guys didn't work for the party so what we are seeing was a swing even further right. I'm not saying it is a trend yet, but it certainly appears to be.

Check out the partisan lean and historical party strength. Certainly some ebbs and flows, but democrats are the overwhelming majority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... .S._states

[a fan]

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check.

This is patently false, and you know it. Ridiculously false. You've been on this Forum for over a decade.....you know full well this is a flat out lie, Kram. Come on.

Trump just made the Federal Government 66% bigger, Kram. In four laughable years. And what did you do when you heard this news? Ignored it, moved on, and then gave us the above nonsense.

You're WAY too smart to fall for this stupid sales job your leaders have been handing you for 40 years now.

They've been playing you since Reagan. They TALK about small government-----and you and your fellow Republican voters never both to check if they're lying. And worse? You don't hold them accountable for doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they are claiming. So what do they do? They feed you this same lie over and over and over...and you buy it hook, line, and sinker. And then "Whoopsie", the Federal Government is far, far larger when they leave office. And you either don't bother seeing this----or you blame someone else for this spending. As if Reagan, Bush, and Trump can't veto.

And you know what's worse about you (yes you) and the fact that you're buying their BS? You are the reason we have a deficit. Because you have managed to convince yourself that Trump didn't increase the size of of the Federal Government

And every time I bring these facts up to Republicans (fake Conservatives) on the board? They walk away from the conversation. Every. Time.

It's like you don't want to hear that Santa isn't real, and you can enable this belief by not talking about what Republican leaders are actually doing. YOU and your fellow voters are THE reason our government has stopped governing. You don't want to hear it. So you'll bail from discussing this further.

And if you can't tell, this frustrates the h*ll out of me.


And what's the back half to this game? Republican run States operate on low STATE taxation....and then get their REAL budget from the Federal Government....and that money, as I just told you, is borrowed. And do you bother to notice this? Nope. You think this is a footnote. A trifle.

Do you know what our payment on interest is up to per year, because you and your fellow Republican voters keep spending money, and keep cutting taxes? $300 Billion, Kramerica. Think about how irresponsible this is, Kram.

Do you know how much we spend on K-12 in this nation from Fed, State, and local funding? About $700 Billion.

So think about how damaging this game your team is playing is. If we moved our taxes to pay for all the stuff that Trump and Bush signed off on, we'd could increase spending on educating our kids by almost 50%. If that doesn't tell you how dumb this game your playing is, nothing will.

Wake up, my man. Your team is absolutely killing our nation.

They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.

For the life of me, I don't get how the two guys on the forum who are Federal Contractors are the guys who complain about Federal Spending...or at least complain when someone with a D by their name does it.

If this is REALLY a value for you both? Why in heaven's name are you both selling things to the Federal government?

Because you understand what it means that you have no choice but to be a Federal Contractor? It means both of you and your families can't survive without Big Government.

If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control. This comes to mind:

Another bald faced lie, Kram.

Riddle for ya, since you're obviously not paying attention to spending AT ALL. Who was the last President to cut spending from one year to the next?

Geez, Kram. Obama actually CUTS spending......while Trump increases spending by 66% in four freaking years.

And yet you hand me this "the Dems have no self control" horsehockey.

You're better than this. Stop believing what your R leaders are telling you, and take five freaking minutes and look at what they are actually doing.

[kramerica.inc]

Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Good post, and thank you for replying to this stupefying manifesto of mis-governance. The talking points are: Democrats=Big Government; GOP=Government small and out of our hair. It's all complete bullsh*t, demonstrated by the previous administration and GOP majority in Congress. The GOP's cash withdrawals from the so-called Blue States keep their voters employed, and their oracles in the media and Congress keep this total fiction alive. Witness Kramerica.

This statement -- "Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles" -- is also complete bullsh*t. Government and governing are not built on fierce battles; a democratic republic is founded and built on compromise and deals cut in the name of consensus. Here too, Republicans have deviated from the basic contract for governing. The GOP Congresses of the last six years of Obama's presidency, and the first year of Biden's, are archetypes of "republican democracy" not working at all to serve the governed, becasue a faction -- the GOP -- will not participate except to the extent of saying "no." No alternatives. No policies. No meaningful legislation offered or even passed while in charge. The "both sides" argument might have been true a decade or two ago; the GOP since 2008 and especially since 2016 -- when it forfeited all of its erstwhile "principles" kowtowing to the Moron and doing nothing to help Americans -- changed that. You can have a democratic republic in future, but only with Democrats or some third party in charge. The party of Trump, Carlson, Greene, Gaetz, Boebert, Gohmert, McCarthy and Hannity want something else. And you know it.

You are ignoring your own party’s extreme dissenters. But even they agree dissent is needed as a change agent.

You don’t see it because you believe the left’s priorities are more important. The parties just disagree on what the priorities are:

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/19/74359929 ... tical-life

[dislaxxic]

You are ignoring your own party’s extreme dissenters. But even they agree dissent is needed as a change agent.

You don’t see it because you believe the left’s priorities are more important. The parties just disagree on what the priorities are:

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/19/74359929 ... tical-life

<<<Cheap>>> <<<Cheap>>>

Birds chirping in Kram's cranium. The mark of the Trump Base Voter slugging down Faux News/MAGA Nation nay-saying day-in and day-out...

They're living in an alternate reality based on a foundation of lies and disinformation.

[MDlaxfan76]

Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Fair enough, and I agree entirely with your last paragraph.


I understand what you're saying, but I'm trying to underline that the party in opposition to majority is always the dissenter in this country. Certainly true. But dissent doesn't mean obstruct, nor does it mean no compromise, nor "absolute only job is to obstruct"; it still means governance

For the past few decades, and much of modern history since WW2 that's primarily been republicans.

Let's see, since 1968, we've had 32 years of a Republican in the White House, 20 years a Dem. That'll be 24 at the end of Biden's term he just started.

The Senate since 1995 has been controlled by the GOP 15 years, Dems 10, that'll be 12 in 2022, but likely to lose it. The GOP has controlled the House 20 out of the last 25 years and are likely to regain control in 2022.

Just demographics-wise. Well, yes, Democrats have frequently won a majority of the national vote, but not always has that resulted in control. Indeed, the GOP has had more of the reins of power than the Dems in the last 25 years because we are indeed not an actual democracy in that some voters count more than others. and certainly there are predictions that demographics will likely drive this to be further exacerbated given the voting preferences of the groups growing fastest, younger voters and non-white voters, as well as the growing disparity of preference between women and men.

Democrats hold the current majority, but framing it with specifics, in this case by using Trump and his base, is not entirely reflective of the big picture I'm talking about. Who have been the Republican nominees for the past few years?

Not sure your point. Trump and Trumpism thoroughly dominates the GOP, it ain't remotely close as to what is driving the GOP currently.

McCain, Bush, Romney, Dole? Far from extreme. Those guys didn't work for the party so what we are seeing was a swing even further right. I'm not saying it is a trend yet, but it certainly appears to be.

Bush won office twice. I agree, he wasn't "extreme". But he won (yeah, I know, mebbe not in 1980...but squeaked across). IMO, too bad he screwed the pooch on Iraq, as he was poised to actually lead a "compassionate conservatism" that was policy driven and actually governing.

But his tenure did lead to an anti-war sentiment and desire to move the pendulum the other way, leading to another generational political talent put forth by the Dems. Obama and Clinton both being tremendous political talents, and far less 'extreme' than many Dems would have wished.

I 'get it' that Obama freaked a whole lot of people out. White men, mostly less educated and/or older, in particular. And that opened up a lane we hadn't seen embraced by the GOP in over 50 years.

And the Dems put forth a candidate who I think any of the 'moderate' R's, including the prior two Presidential candidates would have beaten easily...and yet the GOP still lost the popular vote, but gained the White House, again bringing into real clarity the demographic choice being made that, for now, can still result in control, though not a majority of support nationally.

Check out the partisan lean and historical party strength. Certainly some ebbs and flows, but democrats are the overwhelming majority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... .S._states

And yes, the link shows that in 2020, the Dems hold narrow control at the federal level, and the Republicans thoroughly dominate at the state level.

What does this actually mean?
Yes, a majority of voters either identify or lean Dem, but that doesn't matter because majorities don't control.

so, what's the GOP doing, given that they recognize that demographics are only going to make this worse?
They're tripling down on whatever ways they can increase the non-majority rules, including allowing a GOP controlled state house to over rule their own voters when electing nationally. Simply for power...abandoning democracy....because "we are a Republic" and "States Rights"

[seacoaster]

Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Fair enough, and I agree entirely with your last paragraph.


I understand what you're saying, but I'm trying to underline that the party in opposition to majority is always the dissenter in this country. Certainly true. But dissent doesn't mean obstruct, nor does it mean no compromise, nor "absolute only job is to obstruct"; it still means governance

For the past few decades, and much of modern history since WW2 that's primarily been republicans.

Let's see, since 1968, we've had 32 years of a Republican in the White House, 20 years a Dem. That'll be 24 at the end of Biden's term he just started.

The Senate since 1995 has been controlled by the GOP 15 years, Dems 10, that'll be 12 in 2022, but likely to lose it. The GOP has controlled the House 20 out of the last 25 years and are likely to regain control in 2022.

Just demographics-wise. Well, yes, Democrats have frequently won a majority of the national vote, but not always has that resulted in control. Indeed, the GOP has had more of the reins of power than the Dems in the last 25 years because we are indeed not an actual democracy in that some voters count more than others. and certainly there are predictions that demographics will likely drive this to be further exacerbated given the voting preferences of the groups growing fastest, younger voters and non-white voters, as well as the growing disparity of preference between women and men.

Democrats hold the current majority, but framing it with specifics, in this case by using Trump and his base, is not entirely reflective of the big picture I'm talking about. Who have been the Republican nominees for the past few years?

Not sure your point. Trump and Trumpism thoroughly dominates the GOP, it ain't remotely close as to what is driving the GOP currently.

McCain, Bush, Romney, Dole? Far from extreme. Those guys didn't work for the party so what we are seeing was a swing even further right. I'm not saying it is a trend yet, but it certainly appears to be.

Bush won office twice. I agree, he wasn't "extreme". But he won (yeah, I know, mebbe not in 1980...but squeaked across). IMO, too bad he screwed the pooch on Iraq, as he was poised to actually lead a "compassionate conservatism" that was policy driven and actually governing.

But his tenure did lead to an anti-war sentiment and desire to move the pendulum the other way, leading to another generational political talent put forth by the Dems. Obama and Clinton both being tremendous political talents, and far less 'extreme' than many Dems would have wished.

I 'get it' that Obama freaked a whole lot of people out. White men, mostly less educated and/or older, in particular. And that opened up a lane we hadn't seen embraced by the GOP in over 50 years.

And the Dems put forth a candidate who I think any of the 'moderate' R's, including the prior two Presidential candidates would have beaten easily...and yet the GOP still lost the popular vote, but gained the White House, again bringing into real clarity the demographic choice being made that, for now, can still result in control, though not a majority of support nationally.

Check out the partisan lean and historical party strength. Certainly some ebbs and flows, but democrats are the overwhelming majority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... .S._states

And yes, the link shows that in 2020, the Dems hold narrow control at the federal level, and the Republicans thoroughly dominate at the state level.

What does this actually mean?
Yes, a majority of voters either identify or lean Dem, but that doesn't matter because majorities don't control.

so, what's the GOP doing, given that they recognize that demographics are only going to make this worse?
They're tripling down on whatever ways they can increase the non-majority rules, including allowing a GOP controlled state house to over rule their own voters when electing nationally. Simply for power...abandoning democracy....because "we are a Republic" and "States Rights"

https://www.congress.gov/member/distric ... an/J000289

https://www.congress.gov/member/distric ... aw/C001120

Crenshaw's district is drawn as though it needs to avoid a pick-up basketball game.

[Farfromgeneva]

Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Fair enough, and I agree entirely with your last paragraph.


I understand what you're saying, but I'm trying to underline that the party in opposition to majority is always the dissenter in this country. Certainly true. But dissent doesn't mean obstruct, nor does it mean no compromise, nor "absolute only job is to obstruct"; it still means governance

For the past few decades, and much of modern history since WW2 that's primarily been republicans.

Let's see, since 1968, we've had 32 years of a Republican in the White House, 20 years a Dem. That'll be 24 at the end of Biden's term he just started.

The Senate since 1995 has been controlled by the GOP 15 years, Dems 10, that'll be 12 in 2022, but likely to lose it. The GOP has controlled the House 20 out of the last 25 years and are likely to regain control in 2022.

Just demographics-wise. Well, yes, Democrats have frequently won a majority of the national vote, but not always has that resulted in control. Indeed, the GOP has had more of the reins of power than the Dems in the last 25 years because we are indeed not an actual democracy in that some voters count more than others. and certainly there are predictions that demographics will likely drive this to be further exacerbated given the voting preferences of the groups growing fastest, younger voters and non-white voters, as well as the growing disparity of preference between women and men.

Democrats hold the current majority, but framing it with specifics, in this case by using Trump and his base, is not entirely reflective of the big picture I'm talking about. Who have been the Republican nominees for the past few years?

Not sure your point. Trump and Trumpism thoroughly dominates the GOP, it ain't remotely close as to what is driving the GOP currently.

McCain, Bush, Romney, Dole? Far from extreme. Those guys didn't work for the party so what we are seeing was a swing even further right. I'm not saying it is a trend yet, but it certainly appears to be.

Bush won office twice. I agree, he wasn't "extreme". But he won (yeah, I know, mebbe not in 1980...but squeaked across). IMO, too bad he screwed the pooch on Iraq, as he was poised to actually lead a "compassionate conservatism" that was policy driven and actually governing.

But his tenure did lead to an anti-war sentiment and desire to move the pendulum the other way, leading to another generational political talent put forth by the Dems. Obama and Clinton both being tremendous political talents, and far less 'extreme' than many Dems would have wished.

I 'get it' that Obama freaked a whole lot of people out. White men, mostly less educated and/or older, in particular. And that opened up a lane we hadn't seen embraced by the GOP in over 50 years.

And the Dems put forth a candidate who I think any of the 'moderate' R's, including the prior two Presidential candidates would have beaten easily...and yet the GOP still lost the popular vote, but gained the White House, again bringing into real clarity the demographic choice being made that, for now, can still result in control, though not a majority of support nationally.

Check out the partisan lean and historical party strength. Certainly some ebbs and flows, but democrats are the overwhelming majority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... .S._states

And yes, the link shows that in 2020, the Dems hold narrow control at the federal level, and the Republicans thoroughly dominate at the state level.

What does this actually mean?
Yes, a majority of voters either identify or lean Dem, but that doesn't matter because majorities don't control.

so, what's the GOP doing, given that they recognize that demographics are only going to make this worse?
They're tripling down on whatever ways they can increase the non-majority rules, including allowing a GOP controlled state house to over rule their own voters when electing nationally. Simply for power...abandoning democracy....because "we are a Republic" and "States Rights"

https://www.congress.gov/member/distric ... an/J000289

https://www.congress.gov/member/distric ... aw/C001120

Crenshaw's district is drawn as though it needs to avoid a pick-up basketball game.

Bowling league.

[kramerica.inc]

Biden to warn Putin (via skype) about economic pain if he invades Ukraine:

https://apnews.com/article/biden-putin- ... d5ccb31268

[cradleandshoot]

Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Huzzah. I wouldn't change a single word.

You can then take it down to the common denominator that the political ideology of fiscal conservatism is dead and buried. The fact is both parties took turns with the shovel to bury the newly deceased. I bet the burial was done extra deep.

[seacoaster]

Biden to warn Putin (via skype) about economic pain if he invades Ukraine:

https://apnews.com/article/biden-putin- ... d5ccb31268

Care to expand/explain?

[MDlaxfan76]

Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Huzzah. I wouldn't change a single word.

You can then take it down to the common denominator that the political ideology of fiscal conservatism is dead and buried. The fact is both parties took turns with the shovel to bury the newly deceased. I bet the burial was done extra deep.

Well, let's just say that one group is immensely hypocritical, the other is pretty darn out front about their preferences.

And the interesting thing about the hyper partisanship is that the GOP has lost any real leverage when the Dems have control because of an unwillingness to compromise at all, so the best restraints on the Dems in spending come from the moderates in their own party and the desire to attract swing voters.

Seems to me this is what comes from supporting hyper partisans instead of those who debate, but compromise to get things done.

My own view is that deficits aren't really a serious problem (for the US) as long as the 'equity' value of the country continues to rise as fast or faster than the deficits. That equity or 'capital value' should be understood as much more than bricks and mortar, certainly extending into human capital.

So, when deficits rise because we are increasing the value of America through that 'equity' and "capital" value, then that's just fine. But increasing deficits inefficiently, wasting resources rather than actually building American capital value, that's quite another issue.

And failure to invest can actually decrease 'capital value', as competitive positioning slips.

If we could simply debate the merits of various proposals within that construct, I think we'd find that we would make better choices.