Meet the New GOP, Same as the Old GOP

Mark of New Jersey

Mark is a Founding Editor of The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, the predecessor of Ordinary Times.

Related Post Roulette

37 Responses

  1. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of economic policy can enlighten me, but has there ever been a tax hike that lead to an equivelant (or larger) decrease in spending?Report

    • North in reply to Mike at The Big Stick says:

      In America I’m not certain but they had huge ones in Canada in the 90’s. The conservatives at the time raised taxes and then the succeeding Liberals that came after them slashed spending drastically (including nearly eliminating all farm subsidies). Also, Mike, if you consult Britain today their coalition Lib-Dem/Tory government has enacted significant tax increases coupled with huge spending cuts (some departments are being cut from 30-50%).Report

      • Mark Thompson in reply to North says:

        The conservatives at the time raised taxes and then the succeeding Liberals that came after them slashed spending drastically (including nearly eliminating all farm subsidies)

        I’m just trying to wrap my brain around this. The tundra really is bizarro world, isn’t it? What’s it like to have an actually functioning system of governance?Report

        • North in reply to Mark Thompson says:

          It’s odd Mark, but I live in Minnesota so I can’t describe it first hand. Still Canada is odd at times. For instance in the wilds of Nova Scotia the NDP (Canada’s more left wing party) swept into provincial power for the first time ever in the last year or so and has set about… slashing public payrolls and ending provincial government transportation services, I’m still scratching my head over that one.

          Oh and on the farm subsidies Canada still seems to have a flourishing agricultural sector without them. (This is a digg at Mike, he knows I love him).Report

      • Those examples are enviable, but I guess I’m thinking specifically of the US. I just don’t see the hunger for spending ending with tax increases.Report

        • North in reply to Mike at The Big Stick says:

          To be frank Mike I’m having trouble of thinking of much spending ending at all. When was the last time the GOP (or the Dems though I guess that’d be counterfactual) really slashed the budget down to the bone? Was it under Newt or something?Report

          • I agree – and that’s why I don’t believe in tax increases which will just feed the beast.Report

            • North in reply to Mike at The Big Stick says:

              But since Starve the Beast has now been proven not to work what do ya do? If the GOP remains the party of borrow and spend then they’ll essentially be to the economic left of the Dems tax and spend model.Report

              • That’s why I think any talk of tax changes only complicate things. We HAVE to get spending under control. It’s the priority. To draw an analogy, if you find out your spouse has been running up the credit card balance, your first response should be to stop the bleeding, not ask your boss for a raise.Report

              • That might depend on whether or not you thought you could get the raise easily, and how much you like sleeping on the couch.Report

              • North in reply to Mike at The Big Stick says:

                No arguement from me. I just don’t believe the GOP intends to try. But we’ll see soon enough.Report

              • I’m skeptical as well – but I have to say that eliminating earmarks would be a positive (albeit small) first step.Report

              • MFarmer in reply to North says:

                You cut, cut, cut, then cut some more, then find other cuts, then trim, then slice, then cut, slice, trim, chop and cut more. When business sees government is serious about cuttting spending and no more sweeping legislation is coming, they start hiring, and people start spending, and as the we get healthy, we become one of the best nations in which to invest, so global investors pour money into our country and soon we are rocking and revenues are pouring into the government — then taxes are lowered again, and the economy goes into overdrive and champagne bottles are opened, and people are dancing in the streets and poor people rise from the ghettoes — damn, it’s going to be fun.Report

              • North in reply to MFarmer says:

                Well I’ll believe it when they put something on the chopping block to chop other than “earmarks”.Report

              • MFarmer in reply to North says:

                After the elections, they have to cut — you will see substantial cuts, and Rand Paul is leading the way to cut fat out of defense spending. He’s also planning on putting forth a plan to reform Social Security for people under 55. Most politicians laugh about cutting waste, because they say it doesn’t amount to much, but I’ll bet when they start cutting waste it will add up fast. I want one of them to lead the way to stop all corporate welfare — if they can tackle defense and corporate welfare right off the bat, it will give them credibility for other cuts, especially if it is eloquently explained to the people — they will have majority backing, and the Democrats will be forced to go along.Report

              • MFarmer in reply to MFarmer says:

                Mark obviously is a little raw after the elections, so his cynicism is flaring up before the Reublicans have a chance to act. McConnell is, however, balking on ear marks, but he’ll get spanked if he keeps that shit up.Report

              • Mark Thompson in reply to MFarmer says:

                I’m raw after the elections? That’s news to me. Sure, I was upset that Feingold lost, but beyond that I don’t see how things could have gone much better on election night from my point of view.

                But the notion that Rand Paul is going to gain any traction on defense cuts in any meaningful way is laughable. Sure, he may propose them, and he may even fight for them, but the odds of him even getting a sizable plurality, much less a majority or a supermajority, of the Senate GOP caucus to sign on to major defense cuts is simply preposterous, much as I may hope that I’m wrong.Report

              • As a receipient of McConnell earmarks – I wish he would cut them out too. We love all the shiny new parks here in the ‘Ville but i’d rather do without than borrow the money to build them from China.Report

              • North in reply to MFarmer says:

                Well Mike lets hope you’re right but I very strongly suspect that you’re going to be massively dissapointed in your party.Report

              • JosephFM in reply to MFarmer says:

                LOL, man, you’re a riot.

                Pun intended.Report

              • MFarmer in reply to JosephFM says:

                Yes, we’ll see riots, for sure, but it’s like my granddaughter flailing around on the floor when I say “No” — – she gets over it.Report

            • No, they will spend the increased revenues, then be back for more. It’s odd how Obama is not the stubborn obstacle, just the Republicans. I have a feeling the Democrats will side with the Republicans and extend all the tax cuts.Report

  2. gregiank says:

    ummm guys…the horrible , terrible, soshilistik, fascist HCR cut about 300 billion out of medicare. that is actually a cut in the budget. that is what many of you were discussing. I’m sure that does not count for some reason.Report

    • Mark Thompson in reply to gregiank says:

      It doesn’t count. As we all know, in addition to being bona fide deficit hawks, the modern GOP is also the party whose sole purpose is to defend Medicare. That latter fact, as much as anything else, goes a not-insignificant way towards explaining why the GOP did somewhat better in the House than models would have predicted.Report

      • MFarmer in reply to Mark Thompson says:

        Their sole purpose, heh? Why would Democrats want to actually cut Medicare? They don’t, they want a system which is Medicare-like for everyone. If we could start over and allow a private solution to replace Medicare, I’m sure the new breed of Republicans would support it — the older Republicans are on the way out. I believe we’re in the middle of a Republican transformation that many people are missing.Report

      • Koz in reply to Mark Thompson says:

        “It doesn’t count. As we all know, in addition to being bona fide deficit hawks, the modern GOP is also the party whose sole purpose is to defend Medicare.”

        Oh bullshit. That’s just a convenient rationalization to justify hanging out with the welfare statists.

        As far as the original post goes, the GOP shouldn’t be coopted in the Demo’s rationalizations of free soak-the-rich revenue. I’d like to see a temporary extension of all the tax cuts. But whatever it is, politically speaking the GOP has the credibility to attack spending, it’s important that they don’t spend it cheaply.

        Like John Boehner (I think) said, we don’t want Obama to fail, we want him to be converted.Report

      • theotherjimmyolson in reply to Mark Thompson says:

        You obviously meant to say defund, amiriteReport

    • MFarmer in reply to gregiank says:

      No it’s not, that money goes to another enitlement program — some cut! It’s simple shifting money from one program to another.Report