What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Republicans and the Federal Government - What actions are Republicans willing to take through the fed gov to make our lives better? (1 Viewer)

adonis

adonis

Footballguy
My hypothesis here is that the majority of the actions of Republicans in the modern age are geared toward getting the federal government out of our lives.  They want less taxes, less regulation, less involvement in health care, less government jobs - less, less less.

Each step I see them, and Trump, making right now is an attempt to return power to the states, and/or reduce the power of the federal government.  They seem willing, to me at least, to do this by any means necessary, including by lying about the effects of their plans (see recent Republican healthcare bills, and how their sponsors present them vs independent scoring).  I'm sure we'll get a similar set of untruths about whatever tax reform bill we get presented with.

So the question here is, what actions are Republicans taking that utilize the federal government as an agent to make the lives of all Americans better?  Are they solely focused on starving the beast, or are they engaged in a "starve the beast here, but feed him there" approach?

In other words, is it accurate for a person to believe that nearly 100% of the effort of Republicans at the federal level is geared toward taking power/programs away at the federal level and returning it to the states?

(And clearly, to say they're trying to make our lives better by removing programs at the federal level, well that doesn't answer my question.  What are they doing at the federal level, aside from abolishing things or starving the beast or deregulating, that is geared to help us...through at the federal level?)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think much of what the parties stood for has gone by the wayside.

Sticking just with the GOP as that is what the topic is...

-balanced budget/fiscal conservatism...just with the tax reform being proposed.  There appears no way to not explode the deficit given the prelim. numbers.  There are not associated spending cuts (and that huge amount approved for military)...yet apparently going to cut taxes.  Either someone is going to be paying that burden...or it explodes the deficit.  

-smaller government...it sounds good, but it seems more to be smaller government in areas i don't agree with, expanded in forms I do agree with.

This is where i think real moderates could come together at some point...find that middle ground of...hey, these things are good and worth spending on...worth being provided by the government if done correctly.  (one would think education and healthcare would be 1a and 1b...but I could see other things like infrastructure that would provide jobs to Americans as well being very high on that list).

 
sho nuff said:
-balanced budget/fiscal conservatism...just with the tax reform being proposed.  There appears no way to not explode the deficit given the prelim. numbers.  There are not associated spending cuts (and that huge amount approved for military)...yet apparently going to cut taxes.  Either someone is going to be paying that burden...or it explodes the deficit.  

-smaller government...it sounds good, but it seems more to be smaller government in areas i don't agree with, expanded in forms I do agree with.
Click to expand...
I think their strategy is 

A) Starve the beast - tax cuts to rich, decrease revenue, create a deficit crisis that will require:

B) Major cuts to federal spending, due to declining revenue.

In order to achieve this, they'll need to cut taxes for the rich, explode the deficit, cut expensive programs at the federal level like Obamacare, reduce payments to subsidize Medicaid...

All in all, they seem to be carrying out their smaller government ideology by doing everything they can to not only cut the programs that spend, but also cut the sources of revenue...all the while, lying about the impacts of the cuts.

They're lying about their tax plan, and who will benefit, and the impact on the deficit.  They lied many times about the many implications of their health care plans.  Trump doesn't feel a need to fully staff the government because it's all the problem.  He puts folks in charge of agencies who have no business running said agencies.

There's just a significant lack of respect for what our current federal government does, from within the Republican party, that it seems to be a "by any means necessary" path toward dismantling the "nanny state".

 
adonis said:
I think their strategy is 

A) Starve the beast - tax cuts to rich, decrease revenue, create a deficit crisis that will require:

B) Major cuts to federal spending, due to declining revenue.

In order to achieve this, they'll need to cut taxes for the rich, explode the deficit, cut expensive programs at the federal level like Obamacare, reduce payments to subsidize Medicaid...

All in all, they seem to be carrying out their smaller government ideology by doing everything they can to not only cut the programs that spend, but also cut the sources of revenue...all the while, lying about the impacts of the cuts.

They're lying about their tax plan, and who will benefit, and the impact on the deficit.  They lied many times about the many implications of their health care plans.  Trump doesn't feel a need to fully staff the government because it's all the problem.  He puts folks in charge of agencies who have no business running said agencies.

There's just a significant lack of respect for what our current federal government does, from within the Republican party, that it seems to be a "by any means necessary" path toward dismantling the "nanny state".
Click to expand...
The deficit is already so high...not sure its a great idea to try to blow it up even more.  Nor do I think that is what they are trying to do.

 
sho nuff said:
The deficit is already so high...not sure its a great idea to try to blow it up even more.  Nor do I think that is what they are trying to do.
Click to expand...
So you don't believe they're engaging in a strategy to inflate the debt to such a degree that cuts are absolutely necessary?

 
adonis said:
So you don't believe they're engaging in a strategy to inflate the debt to such a degree that cuts are absolutely necessary?
Click to expand...
How long have they been doing that?

I don't think anyone cares about cuts all that much.  I think they talk about cuts because it plays well...but when the time comes, they won't sign off to really cut anything.  Will they ever cut the biggest parts (military)?  My guess is no.  They will make weak attempts to cut small sections of the budget for things they see as liberal (and the left will do the same when they have power with things seen as GOP ideas/programs)

I don't think either side really cares to make real cuts.

 
sho nuff said:
How long have they been doing that?

I don't think anyone cares about cuts all that much.  I think they talk about cuts because it plays well...but when the time comes, they won't sign off to really cut anything.  Will they ever cut the biggest parts (military)?  My guess is no.  They will make weak attempts to cut small sections of the budget for things they see as liberal (and the left will do the same when they have power with things seen as GOP ideas/programs)

I don't think either side really cares to make real cuts.
Click to expand...
I think the majority of Republicans would be happy to make real cuts to Obamacare.  They'd be happy to repeal it entirely.

However, they're unwilling to level with the American public about what it means for their healthcare, their premiums, etc.

They know that on the whole it was a good thing for people, but it gave the government more power, and cost more money, so they're doing all they can to unravel it...but they can't come up with a selling point to the american public that is true, that will make folks accept it.  If they were honest, they'd just come out and say that repealing obamacare will be bad for a lot of us, but in the end will make the federal government less powerful and cost less taxpayer money.

Yet they pretend that they are improving things.

That's the truly despicable part about all of this.  Their goal is to achieve the federal government their ideology desires and they're willing to lie to the American public to get there.  They don't believe many of our problems should be solved at the federal level, and as such, they want to repeal as many of those solutions that are in place as possible.  They do this by trying to convince us that their solution is better...but in almost every case, it's not.

So instead of leveling with us, instead of making their case for federal vs state power, instead of saying we have to accept compromises and higher costs and more issues in order to achieve their political vision for the country, they have to lie to use all.  They have to tell us their healthcare plans are BETTER for us.  That their tax plans don't just give money to the rich at the expense of the working and middle classes.

They are essentially in the business of lying to us, in order to bleed the federal government, in order to achieve their political vision.  And in the process, they're willing to make life worse for millions of americans.

Just level with us republicans.  Make your case.  Let the american people decide.  It's all these lies that are truly despicable. 

 
That's what I'm really trying to get at here.  

It seems that Republicans at the federal level are more interested in restoring the federal government to their ideological ideal.  To do so, they're willing to cause a lot of people pain.  

To me, it seems like many of their actions at the federal government are to achieve this political ideology RATHER than trying to help people today.  At best, it can be said that they believe folks will be best helped at the state level.  At worst it could be that they don't believe it's the role of the federal government to help people.

Yet, publicly, they can't really be honest about what they're doing or why.

 
adonis said:
That's what I'm really trying to get at here.  

It seems that Republicans at the federal level are more interested in restoring the federal government to their ideological ideal.  To do so, they're willing to cause a lot of people pain.  

To me, it seems like many of their actions at the federal government are to achieve this political ideology RATHER than trying to help people today.  At best, it can be said that they believe folks will be best helped at the state level.  At worst it could be that they don't believe it's the role of the federal government to help people.

Yet, publicly, they can't really be honest about what they're doing or why.
Click to expand...
It seems like you are looking at this through liberal eyes and not conservative eyes. Conservatives would likely argue that reducing the size of government is helping the people - by getting out of their way. The argument is this will lead to a better economic future and more input for people at the local level.*

*Of course, your thesis is also kind of false because, while Republicans have always said they are for reduced federal government, until this administration, they hadn't done anything to actually show they were for reduced fed gov't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew said:
adonis said:
That's what I'm really trying to get at here.  

It seems that Republicans at the federal level are more interested in restoring the federal government to their ideological ideal.  To do so, they're willing to cause a lot of people pain.  

To me, it seems like many of their actions at the federal government are to achieve this political ideology RATHER than trying to help people today.  At best, it can be said that they believe folks will be best helped at the state level.  At worst it could be that they don't believe it's the role of the federal government to help people.

Yet, publicly, they can't really be honest about what they're doing or why.
Click to expand...
It seems like you are looking at this through liberal eyes and not conservative eyes. Conservatives would likely argue that reducing the size of government is helping the people - by getting out of their way. The argument is this will lead to a better economic future and more input for people at the local level.
Click to expand...
I tried to make that point when I said the bolded above.

But I think my issue is that it seems, through conversations with many conservatives, that their goal isn't to help people through the federal government.  Yet the way they present their plans is as if that was their goal.

How can I read that as anything but a lie?  

 
adonis said:
I tried to make that point when I said the bolded above.

But I think my issue is that it seems, through conversations with many conservatives, that their goal isn't to help people through the federal government.  Yet the way they present their plans is as if that was their goal.

How can I read that as anything but a lie?  
Click to expand...
I mean, I don't know who you are talking to, but there are lots of people who are conservatives. Some are scumbags (See Trump, if he qualifies as a conservative) and some are well-meaning who want to help and believe this is the best way to do it. 

 
whoknew said:
adonis said:
I tried to make that point when I said the bolded above.

But I think my issue is that it seems, through conversations with many conservatives, that their goal isn't to help people through the federal government.  Yet the way they present their plans is as if that was their goal.

How can I read that as anything but a lie?  
Click to expand...
I mean, I don't know who you are talking to, but there are lots of people who are conservatives. Some are scumbags (See Trump, if he qualifies as a conservative) and some are well-meaning who want to help and believe this is the best way to do it. 
Click to expand...
I agree that well-meaning people can believe that government at the local level is the best way to do government.

However, Republicans at the federal level, when proposing legislation such as repealing/replacing obamacare, or the tax reform bills, aren't' presenting it that way.  They are trying to say that their bills are going to help people in ways that the bills will not do.  They have to lie about the direct effects of their bills in order to try to get support.

 
If the GOP wants less govt in people's lives there would be weed dispensaries in my state, there's not.  I might also enjoy playing some poker on Pokerstars again, nope, cant have that.  It seems to me the republicans like less govt depending on the issue.

 
Johnnymac said:
If the GOP wants less govt in people's lives there would be weed dispensaries in my state, there's not.  I might also enjoy playing some poker on Pokerstars again, nope, cant have that.  It seems to me the republicans like less govt depending on the issue.
Click to expand...
That's just a silly statement and you're just trolling at this point.  Conservatives aren't for NO government, just smaller government.  We're also for enforcing the laws on the books too.

 
MaxThreshold said:
You wanting marijuana has nothing to do with conservatives wanting smaller government.  It's a poor correlation.
Click to expand...
If they would get the #### out of the way my state could maybe talk about it.  Until then, aint gonna happen.  So yes, they ARE the reason its not even discussed. 

 
Johnnymac said:
If they would get the #### out of the way my state could maybe talk about it.  Until then, aint gonna happen.  So yes, they ARE the reason its not even discussed. 
Click to expand...
Good.  I suggest you move to a state that allows you to smoke your dope, or moving outside this country to get it.

 
::MAGA::

Per WH, Trump travels tomorrow to Trump Nat'l Golf Club in NJ.

It'll be his 66th day at a golf club, 86th day at a Trump property as POTUS.

 
The simple and most important answer is to use the full measure of the Federal Government to make sure people stand during the anthem. 

 
The actual Republican party doesn't have any policies ideas other than "make liberals mad."  

In an alternative universe featuring a small-government party that was serious about governing, such a party would probably be willing to get behind infrastructure spending.  In addition to roads and bridges, this should really include high-speed internet.  

 
adonis said:
They have to lie about the direct effects of their bills in order to try to get support.
Click to expand...
:mellow:

This isn't new and it's not unique to the GOP.  It's part of what's caused a major revolt in the GOP and why you're seeing more and more cracks in the Dem party.  People are getting more and more fed up with the constant lies.  The sooner we accept the scope of the problem, the better.

 
The Commish said:
adonis said:
They have to lie about the direct effects of their bills in order to try to get support.
Click to expand...
:mellow:

This isn't new and it's not unique to the GOP.  It's part of what's caused a major revolt in the GOP and why you're seeing more and more cracks in the Dem party.  People are getting more and more fed up with the constant lies.  The sooner we accept the scope of the problem, the better.
Click to expand...
I think it is unique to the GOP at this point.

There's a difference between spin and lying.  Spin is promoting a favorable view of an actual outcome.  Lying is fabricating entirely an outcome.

When Trump tells us that he won't benefit from his tax plan, he is lying.  That's not spin.

When GOP senators talk to us about their healthcare bill, they are in some important cases simply lying about it.  

Here's my hypothesis, restated:

- Democrats are interested in using the federal government to improve people's lives.  This can be done through legislation, regulation, new programs, new agencies, and often is done this way.  They have no problem increasing the budget, increasing taxes, to improve folks lives at the federal level.  So when they "spin" the impacts of a bill/law/regulation, they may be putting some rose-colored glasses and picking the most optimal outcome from an action, but it's still a possible outcome in most cases.

- Republicans have no interest in using the federal government to help people, aside from a few specific areas like Defense or national security.  For all other things, they're looking for ways to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.  They want to repeal obamacare, privatize social security, privatize medicare.  They want to cut government jobs, and return more power and influence to the states.  The thing is, to do it, they have to roll back programs that are pretty popular and sell the roll-back to the people.  Yet, their proposed solutions will be worse for the people of the country...so instead of leveling with them and saying, "Well, yeah, repealing obamacare will be hard for a lot of folks, it will cost seniors more, it will drop a ton of folks off insurance rosters, it will do this and that.." instead of that, they lie.  They say it'll be better, when clearly it won't.  

This is probably a large part of why they deny science, why climate change is something they can't get behind, because the truth of those situations necessitates a federal level response and mobilization, and they don't want to do that.  So they lie again, or misrepresent...and all of this is to achieve their goal of smaller federal government and more empowered states.

 
adonis said:
I think it is unique to the GOP at this point.

There's a difference between spin and lying.  Spin is promoting a favorable view of an actual outcome.  Lying is fabricating entirely an outcome.

When Trump tells us that he won't benefit from his tax plan, he is lying.  That's not spin.

When GOP senators talk to us about their healthcare bill, they are in some important cases simply lying about it.  

Here's my hypothesis, restated:

- Democrats are interested in using the federal government to improve people's lives.  This can be done through legislation, regulation, new programs, new agencies, and often is done this way.  They have no problem increasing the budget, increasing taxes, to improve folks lives at the federal level.  So when they "spin" the impacts of a bill/law/regulation, they may be putting some rose-colored glasses and picking the most optimal outcome from an action, but it's still a possible outcome in most cases.

- Republicans have no interest in using the federal government to help people, aside from a few specific areas like Defense or national security.  For all other things, they're looking for ways to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.  They want to repeal obamacare, privatize social security, privatize medicare.  They want to cut government jobs, and return more power and influence to the states.  The thing is, to do it, they have to roll back programs that are pretty popular and sell the roll-back to the people.  Yet, their proposed solutions will be worse for the people of the country...so instead of leveling with them and saying, "Well, yeah, repealing obamacare will be hard for a lot of folks, it will cost seniors more, it will drop a ton of folks off insurance rosters, it will do this and that.." instead of that, they lie.  They say it'll be better, when clearly it won't.  

This is probably a large part of why they deny science, why climate change is something they can't get behind, because the truth of those situations necessitates a federal level response and mobilization, and they don't want to do that.  So they lie again, or misrepresent...and all of this is to achieve their goal of smaller federal government and more empowered states.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue with you adonis.  I can't tell you how to set a standard to measure these guys by, but to me, even a "flowers, unicorns and rainbows" portrayal of something when you KNOW it's possible and yet not probable is a lie.  I'd encourage you to raise your bar a bit.

Besides, even if I did agree with you on the "spin vs lying" talking point, we still have plenty of examples of flat out lies all around...even by that standard  :shrug:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
I'm not going to argue with you adonis.  I can't tell you how to set a standard to measure these guys by, but to me, even a "flowers, unicorns and rainbows" portrayal of something when you KNOW it's possible and yet not probable is a lie.  I'd encourage you to raise your bar a bit.

Besides, even if I did agree with you on the "spin vs lying" talking point, we still have plenty of examples of flat out lies all around...even by that standard  :shrug:  
Click to expand...
I suppose the reason I'm most concerned about it now is that while it may not be new, and while it may be done by both parties, right now only 1 is in power, and is going at most of this stuff alone.  Almost all efforts to this point have been done without attempts to work with the other side on modifications or amendments.  

I find the GOP approach, in that respect, to be pretty bad.  But what makes it dangerous is that not only are the not asking to work with the other side to co-author legislation, but when they present their own legislation it's basically done in an untruthful manner.  They purposefully don't want the CBO to score their legislation, so they push it to beat the score.  They trash the score when it comes out, and then lie about other aspects of it which are clearly untrue.

If Republicans didn't hold all three branches, and weren't attempting to go it alone in almost all cases, this would be closer to business as usual.  But this doesn't seem to be.

 
It sure seems like the GOP is willing to do whatever it can to weaken the power of the federal government, to reduce our standing internationally, and to "starve the beast" through whatever options they have available.

Trump with GOP support has been doing all of this for the past couple of years in office.  His terrible appointments to lead agencies, his lack of emphasis on staffing diplomatic positions internationally, his lack of regard for our international relationships, his reflexive leading-by-tweet approach to incredibly complex situations, his willingness to leave the government shut down for months, or a year, his desire to abolish Obamacare without any attempt at putting something in place to replace it, the support of tax cuts to the rich that drive up the deficit, don't benefit the working/middle class, and then once the deficit increases, use that as justification to cut social programs.

At what point can we say that the modern GOP are a threat to effective governing at the federal level?

 
adonis said:
At what point can we say that the modern GOP are a threat to effective governing at the federal level?
Click to expand...
I think that happened right about when Obama was first elected and the GOP made it their singular mission to prevent him from doing anything on his agenda.

The GOP has no interest in governing or leading the nation. They are a hollowed out shell of a political party, lacking moral convictions, not to mention a coherent ideology.

 
cosjobs said:
I don't think they give a ####. As long as their donors have all the cash when #### coming crashing down
Click to expand...
Agreed. There is no plan. There is the opposite of a plan... it’s nothing but short sighted catering and hypocrisy. I think it’s due time for tea party to be pictured on milk cartons.

 
cosjobs said:
I don't think they give a ####. As long as their donors have all the cash when #### coming crashing down
Click to expand...
This is 80% to 90% of it.  If you don't see it, you are just not looking.  We can pass an almost 2 trillion dollar tax cut the mostly benefits the 1% and no one raises hell.  You try to give 2 trillion to the middle class and everyone will tell you how insane and unaffordable it is.  

 
The Z Machine said:
What countries have "small governments" and why should the US emulate them?
Click to expand...


Link

Looking at country groups, small governments (industrialised countries with public spending below 40 percent of GDP in 2000) on balance report better economic performance than big governments (public spending above 50 percent of GDP) or medium sized governments (spending between 40 and 50 percent of GDP).

 
jon_mx said:
Link

Looking at country groups, small governments (industrialised countries with public spending below 40 percent of GDP in 2000) on balance report better economic performance than big governments (public spending above 50 percent of GDP) or medium sized governments (spending between 40 and 50 percent of GDP).
Click to expand...
So, which countries in the OECD have small governments? Japan, Switzerland?

What can we learn from these countries?

 
The Z Machine said:
So, which countries in the OECD have small governments? Japan, Switzerland?

What can we learn from these countries?
Click to expand...
Both have universal healthcare and spend much less than we do on healthcare. They're also #1 and #2 in years lived healthily, per WHO.  They're doing something right.

 
SoBeDad said:
Both have universal healthcare and spend much less than we do on healthcare. They're also #1 and #2 in years lived healthily, per WHO.  They're doing something right.
Click to expand...
Japan has about a 55% tax rate and switzerland %40. 

 
Forgive me for cross posting, but if you guys are talking about healthcare here is a quote from Jerome Adams, the Surgeon General:

Adams: And it's not just finances—it's our national security. Another shocking statistic, Raphael: seven out of ten of our 18- to 24-year-olds are currently ineligible for military service in this country because they can't pass the physical, can't meet the educational requirements, or have a criminal background record. Our economy is not achieving all that it could be because of our nation's poor health. But we are also literally a less safe nation than what we could be because of our nation's poor health. It isn't just health for health's sake that we need to worry about. If we're worrying about the future economic prospects and safety and security for our children and our grandchildren, we need to really start leaning into these social determinants, these community determinants, of health.
Click to expand...
Source: interview with Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta

So we have our nation's top public health official stating the overall health of our young males cannot meet standards for military service and it impedes economic prosperity. "It's too expense" doesn't cut it anymore.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jackstraw
Republicans will demand cuts to SS and medicare or crash the economy
2
Replies
93
Views
3K
The Commish
The Commish
GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
237
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Scott Chipman/AALM: Biden's Marijuana Pardons Will Have "No Real Impact Other Than The Headlines” (10/8/22 11:47 PST)
Replies
17
Views
552
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top