Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 64

Thread: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been in 100 years

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Republicans Most Conservative They've Been in 100 years

    [url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349438/gops-rightward-shift-higher-polarization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread[/url]

    [QUOTE]
    When President Obama recently complained to news media executives about their ostensibly even-handed "pox on both of your houses" coverage of the partisan battles in Washington, it might have seemed like, well, a partisan shot from a Democratic president.

    After all, his complaint was that the GOP had moved so far right, and intransigently so, that it was wrong to create a false "equivalence" by blaming both parties equally for the Washington gridlock. To a skeptic that comment, coming from a Democrat, sounded suspiciously partisan itself.

    But while the president was making the kind of argument you would expect of the nation's top Democrat, he actually had the support of science ó well at least political science research that maps that rightward GOP shift.

    Keith Poole of the University of Georgia, with his collaborator Howard Rosenthal of New York University, has spent decades charting the ideological shifts and polarization of the political parties in Congress from the 18th century until now to get the view of how the political landscape has changed from 30,000 feet up. What they have found is that the Republican Party is the most conservative it has been a century.

    ([I]Follow link up top for graph[/I])

    This graph shows the ideological movement for both parties in the House. Note the steady shift towards conservatism among Republicans.
    In a recent conversation Poole, who's viewed by other political scientists as the go-to expert on this issue, explained that the data are very clear:

    "This is an entirely objective statistical procedure. The graphs just reflect what comes out of the computer. Howard Rosenthal and I, we've been working on something called Nominate. This does all the Congresses simultaneously, which allows you to study change over time.


    "The short version would be since the late 1970s starting with the 1976 election in the House the Republican caucus has steadily moved to the right ever since. It's been a little more uneven in the Senate. The Senate caucuses have also moved to the right. Republicans are now furtherest to the right that they've been in 100 years.

    Of course some, and not just conservative activists, will be quick to point out that Democrats also have their take-no-prisoner liberals who aren't prone to compromise on their core issues, either.

    Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institution who studies public opinion, is definitely of the pox-on-both-house camp:

    "Clearly, I think both parties have moved to the extremes since I've been watching politics. I don't think there's any doubt about that. The Democratic Party has been pulled to the left and the Republican Party has been pulled to the right. Part of that is redistricting."

    Poole acknowledges that Democrats have contributed their share to the polarization of the political process, especially, he says, through their use of identity politics, appeals to race, ethnicity and gender.

    Democrats have also contributed by losing House and Senate seats in the South where moderate Democrats have been replaced by Republicans. Meanwhile, moderate Republicans have continued to depart the scene, with Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine being just the latest.

    Buttressing a point that Obama has sometimes made, this loss of moderates and further rightward movement by congressional Republicans would have been a challenge to navigate for even the biggest conservative hero of modern times, President Ronald Reagan. Poole said:

    "Ronald Reagan was so successful because he made all these deals with these huge blocks of moderate legislators. That's why he had overwhelming majorities for the 81 tax cut, the 82 tax increase, where they had to go back and adjust the tax bill in 82 and the Social Security fix in 83. Then in 86 you had Simpson Mazzoli, which included amnesty and tax simplification. All that stuff passed with very large majorities. You cannot imagine anything like that happening now. Which is why the country is really in the tank.

    "There's a lot of blame to go around. It doesn't look like there's any resolution of this anytime soon."

    That said, Poole says the data are hard to deny; the polarization is largely due to how far and relatively quickly Republicans have shifted to the right end of the ideological spectrum. And he faults leaders of both parties for allowing the nation to get into a fiscal morass in which government spending on health care is unsustainable:

    "It is true that the Republicans have moved further to the right than the Democrats have moved to the left. That's absolutely true.

    "On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much impetus on the part of the leadership of either political party to really do something serious about our budget crisis. I doubt very seriously we'll see much improvement.

    "People forget how utterly irresponsible our political leadership has been for the last 30 years. ... The current political class of the U.S. just isn't in the same league as Truman and Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. You just don't have that kind of leadership now, just when we need it.

    This isn't meant as a knock on Obama, Poole said. But he's not very optimistic about what an Obama second term would bring:

    "The likely outcome of the election is that it's a very close victory by President Obama, the Republicans hold the House and may come within an eyelash of taking the Senate. I could see a 50-50 Senate. So good luck. After $2 billion gets spent on federal elections at all levels, how bitter will the atmosphere will be in January 2013? We're really up the creek."[/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    An NPR blog post.:rolleyes:

    For a minute...I thought it was a biased source.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4492970]An NPR blog post.:rolleyes:

    For a minute...I thought it was a biased source.[/QUOTE]

    ... about a study done by these two:

    [QUOTE]Keith Poole of the University of Georgia, with his collaborator Howard Rosenthal of New York University, has spent decades charting the ideological shifts and polarization of the political parties in Congress from the 18th century until now to get the view of how the political landscape has changed from 30,000 feet up. What they have found is that the Republican Party is the most conservative it has been a century.[/QUOTE]

    Are they biased because they report the study?

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4492972]... about a study done by these two:



    [B]Are they biased[/B] because they report the study?[/QUOTE]

    [COLOR="Red"][B][I][SIZE="4"]NOOOOO![/SIZE][/I][/B][/COLOR]


    An interesting new study from political scientists [COLOR="Red"]Keith Poole[/COLOR] and Christopher Hare at the University of Georgia finds that [COLOR="Red"]Barack Obama is the most conservative Democratic President of the modern era. [/COLOR]

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    16,711
    Post Thanks / Like
    Kennedy, and Clinton were conservative too.

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]When President Obama recently complained to news media executives about their ostensibly even-handed "pox on both of your houses" coverage of the partisan battles in Washington, it might have seemed like, well, a partisan shot from a Democratic president.

    After all, his complaint was that the GOP had moved so far right, and intransigently so, that it was wrong to create a false "equivalence" by blaming both parties equally for the Washington gridlock. To a skeptic that comment, coming from a Democrat, sounded suspiciously partisan itself.[/QUOTE]

    Article was fine....if it ended right there.

    Attacks about being "too far right" is pretty funny, coming from a side that moved so far left (yet almost always denying it's left at all, and usues any words other than the right ones to describe what they are....)

    From my view, both Parties have moved oo far in both directions. **** um' both tbqh.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Apache 51;4493030]Kennedy, and Clinton were conservative too.[/QUOTE]

    A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. As the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance.

    John F Kennedy

    Give me your pie so I can give it to the lazy piece of crap who refueses to work for his own pie. BHO

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=acepepe;4493077]A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. As the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance.

    John F Kennedy

    Give me your pie so I can give it to the lazy piece of crap who refueses to work for his own pie. BHO[/QUOTE]

    Taxes were a lot higher when he said this.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4493081]Taxes were a lot higher when he said this.[/QUOTE]

    There were a million loop holes and tax shelters.

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,875
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes and everyone use them even Obama's best buddies the 1% in Hollywood.
    Even his breath reaks of bull****e!

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=acepepe;4493110]There were a million loop holes and tax shelters.[/QUOTE]

    How does that qualify what JFK said?

    [QUOTE][B]For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981. [/B]In 1978 income brackets were adjusted for inflation, so fewer people were taxed at high rates.[26] [B]The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% for tax years 1982 through 1986.[27] Reagan undid 40% of his 1981 tax cut, in 1983 he hiked gas and payroll taxes, and in 1984 he raised tax revenue by closing loopholes for businesses.[28] According to historian and domestic policy adviser Bruce Bartlett, Reagan's 12 tax increases over the course of his presidency took back half of the 1981 tax cut.[29][/B]

    For tax year 1987, the highest marginal tax rate was 38.5% for individuals.[30] It was lowered to 28% in revenue neutral fashion, eliminating many loopholes and shelters, along with in corporate taxes, (with a 33% "bubble rate") for tax years 1988 through 1990.[31][32] Ultimately, the combination of base broadening and rate reduction raised revenue equal to about 4% of existing tax revenue[33]

    For the 1991 and 1992 tax years, the top marginal rate was increased to 31% in a budget deal President George H. W. Bush made with the Congress.[34]
    In 1993 the Clinton administration proposed and the Congress accepted (with no Republican support) an increase in the top marginal rate to 39.6% for the 1993 tax year, where it remained through tax year 2000.[35]

    [B]In 2001, President George W. Bush proposed and the Congress accepted an eventual lowering of the top marginal rate to 35%. However, this was done in stages: with a highest marginal rate of 39.1% for 2001, then 38.6% for 2002 and finally 35% for years 2003 through 2010.[36] This measure had a sunset provision and was scheduled to expire for the 2011 tax year, when rates would have returned to those adopted during the Clinton years unless Congress changed the law;[37] Congress did so by passing the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010, signed by President Barack Obama on December 17, 2010.[/B][/QUOTE]

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_history_of_the_United_States[/url]

    Obama = centrist on tax policy.

    [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Chart_1.png[/IMG]

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4493081]Taxes were a lot higher when he said this.[/QUOTE]

    Liberal stupidity. Do some research for once. The tax revenues have averaged between 17-19% of GDP for the majority of the past century. Spending has averaged between 19-20 percent. The percentage of collections dropped a bit with the recession but the CBO estimates that with the current tax code collections will be at 18% by 2015. Spending however has increased dramatically and today government spends 25% of GDP. Taxes have basically remained the same as always. The change has actually been that the code is MORE progressive then it was years ago with the wealthy shouldering a much larger portion of the expense.

    This is reality. Numbers dont lie, liberals do.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4493446]How does that qualify what JFK said?



    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_history_of_the_United_States[/url]

    Obama = centrist on tax policy.

    [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Chart_1.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    Another propaganda chart. The rate is irrelevant when deductions and loopholes are not calculated. The important number is %of tax revenue payed by particular income groups. Today the top 10% pays 70% of the tax burden. In 1980 they paid 40%.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    The electorate no longer trusts the institutions of government to govern with any level of fairness and efficiency. Without that the public is going to naturally support those who want to starve these failed institutions.

    The Democrats have boxed themselves in by passing bills with thousands of pages that lack understanding and transparency, failed to operate agencies that actually protect public health while promoting business advancement. Tax policy at this point is nothing more than special interest manipulation that has no relationship to a reasonable budget.

    Itís not that the country is more conservative, itís the country no longer sees the benefit in funding a failed government.

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4493577]Another propaganda chart. The rate is irrelevant when deductions and loopholes are not calculated. The important number is %of tax revenue payed by particular income groups. Today the top 10% pays 70% of the tax burden. In 1980 they paid 40%.[/QUOTE]

    Is that 30% jump in % of tax revenue paid indicative of a shrinking middle class / 3 decades that were very good for the wealthy?

    They are making more, therefore they pay more, while the middle class has largely remained the same in wages since the 80's, therefore their percentage of total taxes paid is less.

    [QUOTE]Income growth: Through this last period, the income gains have skewed increasingly not just to the top, but to the very tippy-top. From 1946 Ė 1976, the average income growth for the ďbottomĒ 90% of households was 92%, compared to 25% for the top 1%. But from 1976 to 2006, the bottom 90% saw only 10% growth, while for the top 1% it was (wait for it --) 239%.[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2009/02/the-folks-who-write-credit-slips-are-among-those-who-have-long-wondered-where-the-exit-strategy-was-for-an-economy-that.html[/url]

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4493666]The electorate no longer trusts the institutions of government to govern with any level of fairness and efficiency. Without that the public is going to naturally support those who want to starve these failed institutions.[/QUOTE]

    It's quite convenient to run on how poorly government operates, if when you get elected you don't compromise, stall appointments, filibuster and generally make a mockery of the governing process.

    It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. One of our parties does not want to govern. Their message looks better and better the more dysfunctional the government gets.

    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4493666]The Democrats have boxed themselves in by passing bills with thousands of pages that lack understanding and transparency, failed to operate agencies that actually protect public health while promoting business advancement. Tax policy at this point is nothing more than special interest manipulation that has no relationship to a reasonable budget.

    Itís not that the country is more conservative, itís the country no longer sees the benefit in funding a failed government.[/QUOTE]

  17. #17
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4493666]The electorate no longer trusts the institutions of government to govern with any level of fairness and efficiency. Without that the public is going to naturally support those who want to starve these failed institutions.

    The Democrats have boxed themselves in by passing bills with thousands of pages that lack understanding and transparency, failed to operate agencies that actually protect public health while promoting business advancement. Tax policy at this point is nothing more than special interest manipulation that has no relationship to a reasonable budget.

    Itís not that the country is more conservative, itís the country no longer sees the benefit in funding a failed government.[/QUOTE]

    Very ,very well said.

    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4493861]It's quite convenient to run on how poorly government operates, if when you get elected you don't compromise, stall appointments, filibuster and generally make a mockery of the governing process.

    It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. One of our parties does not want to govern. Their message looks better and better the more dysfunctional the government gets.[/QUOTE]

    The one sided nature of how you see things is part of the problem, not the solution.

    In your world, anything beyond 100% submission to your side is obstruction. Yet when your own side does everything you lament here (and they do), you seem to fail totally to see it.

    Team-based Politics does not help an electorate who sees both sides as cuplable and both sides as self-interested and both sides as inefficient, ineffective and corrupt when in power as they are. And they see a Federal Leviathan that rolls on, spending up a storm, no matter who is in charge.

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4493918]

    The one sided nature of how you see things is part of the problem, not the solution.

    In your world, anything beyond 100% submission to your side is obstruction. Yet when your own side does everything you lament here (and they do), you seem to fail totally to see it.

    Team-based Politics does not help an electorate who sees both sides as cuplable and both sides as self-interested and both sides as inefficient, ineffective and corrupt when in power as they are. And they see a Federal Leviathan that rolls on, spending up a storm, no matter who is in charge.[/QUOTE]

    I'm looking for compromise, Warfish. Not "100%" submission. Give me something that the GOP compromised on in the past 4 years with the President Obama?

    The payroll tax cut/unemployment benefit extensions? Anything else?

    Two years in, 13 of 108 executive appointments confirmed, during a serious recession and debt crises. The last three Presidents all had over 77% of their appointments confirmed by that same time.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4493861]It's quite convenient to run on how poorly government operates, if when you get elected you don't compromise, stall appointments, filibuster and generally make a mockery of the governing process.

    It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. One of our parties does not want to govern. Their message looks better and better the more dysfunctional the government gets.[/QUOTE]

    How well do you think the SEC has done, how about the energy department coming out saying deep water drilling was safe a month before BP? How do you feel about the Justice department run by both Bush and now Obama? What do you think about the job FDA is doing? Do you really have confidence in our food, water and drugs?

    The governing process is loaded with professional bureaucrats and it has been growing for decades. It's one thing to ***** about the political process but the problem on the ground is what are we getting for the money spent? An FDA stamp on my meat is meaningless, the SEC is a failed cop on the beat. The energy department telling me oil drilling is safe is almost a joke. The government is watching where I drive, what I look at on the internet, monitoring my calls out of the country and patting down my balls at the airport. WTF are all these agencies loaded with millions of workers actually doing with my money?

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4494240]How well do you think the SEC has done, how about the energy department coming out saying deep water drilling was safe a month before BP? How do you feel about the Justice department run by both Bush and now Obama? What do you think about the job FDA is doing? Do you really have confidence in our food, water and drugs?

    The governing process is loaded with professional bureaucrats and it has been growing for decades. It's one thing to ***** about the political process but the problem on the ground is what are we getting for the money spent? An FDA stamp on my meat is meaningless, the SEC is a failed cop on the beat. The energy department telling me oil drilling is safe is almost a joke. The government is watching where I drive, what I look at on the internet, monitoring my calls out of the country and patting down my balls at the airport. WTF are all these agencies loaded with millions of workers actually doing with my money?[/QUOTE]

    Don't forget the billions of tax dollars spent on building up foreign countries that are friendly to our business interests (the most insulting part is that its under the guise of 'defense' :rolleyes:). Remember, we cannot find the money to take care of our basic necessities here in America but the politicians have no problem rubber stamping billions of dollars for those same basic necessities around the world.

    There is a simple reason why the SEC, FDA, Energy and Justice departments are failing us; the lawmakers have been bought and paid for. All those agencies amount to a dog and pony show mean't to give the illusion that our tax money is being spent to protect us. An illusion that the government is functioning.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 06-18-2012 at 10:51 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us