The Rise of the Republicrats

The American Prospect ^ | 02 Sep 2006 | Ezra Klein

[Marius3188]

Heh. Well said. I posted this because even from the Liberal side they think the Gov't is getting bigger.

As for the Republicrat scenario, I think it has comes down to Fabianism as a whole by both parties. And as a result, we are stuck in the potential of being a big brother Gov't for the future. Not a pleasant sight.

[photodawg]

It has always been the position of American voters that government can solve their problems
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Always! I think not. Conservatives had the same answers for the great depression as they do now. there are no easy answers. Hard work and initiative and freedom will always work,as Rush says, whenever its tried. desperate people who were unwilling to take the medicine that didn't taste good, jumped at the Democrat "quick fix" chicken in every pot solution. This was nothing more than a delay of the inevitable. If things had been fixed back in the thirties we wouldn't be at the breaking point now.

Solutions: Energy independence whatever it takes. Individuals and businesses spending to cut the dependence on oil. The free market is ready for this as the price and scarcity of oil escalates. Defeat islam, let the military do its job. Close the boarders for defense reasons. Back the dollar with adequate fractional reserves of gold so the government can't just print money. Abolish government social security and privatize it. We are at the point that these things must be done for the nation to survive. The grass roots Americans are still the majority. If honest leadership surfaces we will galvanize the effort and prevail. Every generation has responded to the need to preserve freedom, so will this one.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

You clearly don't understand the purpose of the government. Your solution is very 'command economy' style sovietism.

Uh... I didn't offer a solution.

[pleikumud]

Gay "marriage" is of course a bad joke, but it makes a lot of sense to ultraleft lunatics whose goal (apparently) is extinction of homo sapiens. Gay sex leads to disease and exactly zero babies.

[hedgetrimmer]

You said:

Substantial immigration is the only way we can archive sufficient demographic balance to support the large demographic bulge of older Americans over the next 40 years

[surely_you_jest]

Bookmark for later reading.

[truth_seeker]

With "70 adjuct scholars" I'd say the Cato Institute is a flop.

They are disappointed in Republicans, who they expect will do as they please on the economy.

Why doesn't the article state similar disappointment that the Republicans have not legalized drugs, prostitution, and various other Libertarian causes?

Not to mention their spokesperson from afore, Harry Browne, who scolded America for being the cause of 9/11/2001.

[truth_seeker]

"Instead we need to increase the number of republicans so the RINOs become expendible."

Clue. Your odds of persuading people to join your side, your beliefs, your causes are inversely proportional with the extend to which you call them names.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

(You said) "Substantial immigration is the only way we can archive sufficient demographic balance to support the large demographic bulge of older Americans over the next 40 years"

That's not a solution - or a program - it's a demographic fact.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

This particular story in the thread shows just how obsessed the Left is with this issue, it is their Holy Grail... they will use all manner of lies (in this case, some imagined extortion) to achieve it.

The CATO Institute, who claims to be a "libertarian" think tank and supposedly advocates lower taxes is a 501(c) tax-exempt corporation - - THEY ARE ON NON-PROFIT CORPORATE WELFARE... look at how much money they pulled in... Grover Norquist gets quite a cushy salary from government largesse... what a phony...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Oh, by the way... the article also claims they are the heirs of the Ayn Rand philosophy... that is a lie. The Ayn Rand Lexicon (edited by Harry Binswanger), tells how the Marxists will always base their arguments in economics... something that has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals...

CATO is a phony Marxist front group...

Any of these so-called "libertarians" had better know Ayn Rand upside down and inside out before they present any Objectivist argument... I have read all of her books.

Their trouble is that they just parrot what they hear and have never read any them and it exposes their intellectual laziness...

Anything contrary to Genesis is what drives these people... It is ironic that Ayn Rand was a Russian Jew, because a lot of these folks have built up a cult around her dead body like the Marxists did with Lenin's dead body...

[backtothestreets]

One phrase from the forward of the Constitution of the United States is at the heart of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, "promote the general Welfare". They differ in how they set about achieving this.

The Democrats promotes direct government involvement through government bureauracray that creates jobs.

The Republican Party promotes indirect government involvement by sourcing out government jobs to the private sector. Make a note here: These jobs are still government funded jobs.

Both the Democrats and Republicans embrace economic policies that put money in a state of constant movement within the economy. A cornerstone of this policy was changing our nation from a nation of savers to borrowers.

Both the Democrats and Republicans recognize the economic disaster that would befall the nation if direct, or indirect government jobs were dramatically curtailed. Both parties played major roles in dispatching our precise industrial base out of our nation. Neither can claim a high ground on this fundamental issue. It was the loss of the private sector jobs associated with the industries that forced both the Democratic and Republican Party into further government involvement in the economy with the creation of direct and indirect government job creation.

Neither the direct or indirect creation of government jobs would be possible with deficit spending. There are but two ways to curb the expansion of growth in direct and indirect government job growth. Both are difficult to achieve. Balancing the budget is one. The other is restoring our industrial base.

Balancing the budget would create hardships on millions as there would be few good paying jobs available in the private sector for those laid off from direct and indirect government jobs.

Restoring our industrial base would allow the private sector to create new jobs. Restoring the industrial base would also create an economic climate where direct and indirect government jobs can be eliminated over a period of time.

Since the days of the Nixon Administration the Republican Party has cleverly disguised their smaller government policy by shifting direct government paid jobs to indirect government paid jobs. Both are ultimately paid for by the government, but by outsourcing the government jobs the Republican Party has often laid claim to shrinking the number of people working for the government and claiming growth in private sector job creation. What the Republicans cannot lay claim to is shrinking the cost of government as often the cost of privatizing government jobs is more costly than the direct government paid positions they eliminated. They did after-all move these government jobs into the private sector where companies must have a profit to survive, unlike the federal government.

There is no easy solution that can save our nation from great domestic pain. The longer a good solution is delayed, the more painful it will be upon a larger portion of our population. If delayed until economic calamity comes, neither the Democratic or Republican Parties will survive.

[hedgetrimmer]

Oh its a program alright, and one that has not been endorsed by the American people. The complete lack of enforcemen of our border has broken our republic and undermined the rule of law. All this so 'economists' can plan our economy? A free country no more, if you prescribe this disasterous medicine.

[hedgetrimmer]

Since the days of the Nixon Administration the Republican Party has cleverly disguised their smaller government policy by shifting direct government paid jobs to indirect government paid jobs. Both are ultimately paid for by the government, but by outsourcing the government jobs the Republican Party has often laid claim to shrinking the number of people working for the government and claiming growth in private sector job creation

So true. This technique has made NGOs arms of the government and private companies, through public-private partnerships also unconstitutional arms of the government. The danger to the freedom of the American people is now pronounced and endemic.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Here is one to add to your ping-list... read it carefully and see the tortured anti-logic they use to justify homosexual monogamy...

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Well, what's your proposal, for example, for elder care?

Who's going to change your diapers when you get dementia?

This a highly labor intensive activity – you can't easily “productivity increase” your way out of the problem, nor do there appear to be viable alternatives to shift this responsibly back onto individual families – if you think your kids are gonna' do it, ask yourself if they are going to be able to afford to leave the workforce for 5 or 10 or 15 years to take care of you – remember there's going to be a severe labor shortage, and they can't hire someone else to do it even if they want to.

Nor does it seem likely there are “technological” solutions, unless you are optimistic that robotics will soon have advanced to the point where they can perform such tasks satisfactorily.

Or, maybe we could “export" the problem by sending Grandma to Central America, to be cared for by abundent low-wage workers there, instead of importing Central American workers to care for her here? "Out of sight, out of mind”, as they say"?

This is just one example of the sorts of practical problems you encounter when you get the sort of ratios of employed to retired citizens we will be seeing in the nest 30 years, and to every one of them the the practical answer is that we are going to have to do something to change that ratio.

And if you have some suggestion other than rather large scale immigration, I'd like to hear it.

Now, these is noting in this view that supposes that we have to operate as we do at present , with any damn person who choses swimming the river.

But I just don't see how we can avoid large scale immigration if we want to keep this economy running over the next thirty years - in anything like it's present form anyway - without ruinous taxation of a relatively ever shrinking proportion of still employed workers.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks, Sir!

[hedgetrimmer]

But I just don't see how we can avoid large scale immigration if we want to keep this economy running over the next thirty years - in anything like it's present form anyway - without ruinous taxation of a relatively ever shrinking proportion of still employed workers

If we stop thinking like socialists trying to run a centrally planned economy, we will be much more successful.

[longtermmemmory]

RINOs never admit they are rinos or believe they are rinos. (see specter, mccain, christinetoddwhitman,guiliani)

Taking the specter example, we want to have as many true conservatives in the republican wings so when specter does retire, the odds of another (self denied) rino are very low.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

If we stop thinking like socialists trying to run a centrally planned economy, we will be much more successful.

I'm taking about classic market economics - the demand for such services is going to go up, the relative supply is going to go down, the services are going to become (much) more expensive - what's “Socialism” got to do with it?

And for that matter, it's more often “conservatives” - not “liberals” - who want more government interference in the international labor flows - if your boss would rather hire Pedro for $10.00 an hour to do the job you are doing for $25, classic neoliberal economics says he should be allowed to do, and it makes no distinction between importing Pedro to work here or exporting the work to Pedro – it does not recognize the legitimacy of creating “national” borders to control labor flows.

So it's the people who favor admitting as many low wage immigrants as the economy will absorb who are practicing “free market economics”, and the people who want the government to limit immegration to below market demand who want Federal enforced “central planning” of the labor market.

That the thing about “free markets”: they can be a real bitch if it's your ox that's getting gored.