• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Economist- Wha's wrong with America's right

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A great article outlining the problems in the Republican Party and the right/conservative in general, and how it may affect the next midterm elections and the elections following them. Now before everyone thinks this an article purely critical of the right, its not and acknowledges problems with the left and Obama. It is however not purely analytical, it is partisan and states "the paper's opinion."

The Republicans: What's wrong with America's right | The Economist

There's also another article referenced in the first which also outlines the challenges to the right, especially the "No" mentality, and how the Tea Party is changing the game

America's right: The risks of “Hell, no!” | The Economist
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Seems a bit weak for an Economist article, but it is still relatively on the mark. Ryan's plan died because it would strip the elderly vote from the GOP entirely. Having payment plans that put the risk on Seniors that increasingly over time cost more and more out of their pockets is pretty much political suicide. We saw many Republicans bash Obama's plan by saying it would reduce medicare to seniors. Backing a bill like Ryan's that outright does that from the start is not going to win. Many Republicans would love to eliminate Medicare and Social Security, but they won't. The GOP when push comes to shove won't touch the big budget items that are responsible for our long term projected deficits. But they harp on bull**** items like pork which is essentially immaterial (not to mention partake in it themselves).

The GOP essentially wants lower taxes, lower debt and lower spending but won't touch the big ticket items. That is incoherent.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The GOP essentially wants lower taxes, lower debt and lower spending but won't touch the big ticket items. That is incoherent.

I would call it just accepting political reality.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I would call it just accepting political reality.

Perhaps, but when it comes to actually solving problems, the GOP has no plan.

It's like someone wanting to lose weight, but refusing to exercise, make significent diet changes or have surgery and expecting cutting out one soda a week to reduce their weight by 150 lbs a year. Incoherent.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,986
Reaction score
3,515
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
A great article outlining the problems in the Republican Party and the right/conservative in general, and how it may affect the next midterm elections and the elections following them. Now before everyone thinks this an article purely critical of the right, its not and acknowledges problems with the left and Obama. It is however not purely analytical, it is partisan and states "the paper's opinion."

The Republicans: What's wrong with America's right | The Economist

There's also another article referenced in the first which also outlines the challenges to the right, especially the "No" mentality, and how the Tea Party is changing the game

America's right: The risks of “Hell, no!” | The Economist

The article seemed to point out a problem for both parties. That is during the primary season, the people who vote are usually on the extremes of either left or right.

That said, most people think that Republicans have a good chance to win a bunch of congressional seats. They could blow it if they nominate folks who are so "pure" on one side that they do not pull independents in the general election. Analysts have said that is what happened in Neveda and Kentucky. They also point to a seat in upstate NY that most people thought would go to the republican but went democratic.

The democrats also have problems as seen in the primary in Arkansas, where labor and the left tried to toss out the current senator.
 

jambalaya

Cynical Optimist
DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
968
Location
Columbia, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Seems a bit weak for an Economist article, but it is still relatively on the mark. Ryan's plan died because it would strip the elderly vote from the GOP entirely. Having payment plans that put the risk on Seniors that increasingly over time cost more and more out of their pockets is pretty much political suicide. We saw many Republicans bash Obama's plan by saying it would reduce medicare to seniors. Backing a bill like Ryan's that outright does that from the start is not going to win. Many Republicans would love to eliminate Medicare and Social Security, but they won't. The GOP when push comes to shove won't touch the big budget items that are responsible for our long term projected deficits. But they harp on bull**** items like pork which is essentially immaterial (not to mention partake in it themselves).

The GOP essentially wants lower taxes, lower debt and lower spending but won't touch the big ticket items. That is incoherent.

Republicans in no way want to ELIMINATE Medicare and Medicaid, at least the sane ones which is a majority believe it or not. But fiscal conservatives realize that we have way overextended ourselves in our promises to our seniors. We need to have seniors who can afford it pay more for their Medicare. Right now we are on a suicide course with government medical care. It will destroy our economy in the future. We cannot afford it. Somebody is going to have to be the sacrificial lamb to take on the issue because it is a loser politically.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Republicans in no way want to ELIMINATE Medicare and Medicaid, at least the sane ones which is a majority believe it or not

You sure about that? There's a difference between wanting to eliminate it and not wanting to actually put it through a vote. Sure Republicans want it dead. But they also know even attempting to kill it would end their careers.

But fiscal conservatives realize that we have way overextended ourselves in our promises to our seniors.

Among other things. Cutting medicare, social security and the military would do wonders for our debt. Everything else is largely immaterial.

Right now we are on a suicide course with government medical care.

That is speculation. We know that monopolistic power can reduce prices when the buyers can heavily influence sellers. Having the government act as a single purchaser of medical services is similar to how the big fast food chains heavily impacted ground beef prices and processing. That alone could drastically reduce costs. Furthermore, more medicine is not better medicine as evident by many studies. Sticking to known tried and true practices could save us trillions.

What I do know is that what we had before is not acceptable. Whether the Patient act is better remains to be seen.
 
Top Bottom