Pat Oliphant for August 10, 2010

What does it do? – It makes things worse, because the GOP wants things worse so people will be angry and unhappy and vote for them.

It isn’t designed to produce any ideas of programs, because if you put forth ideas and programs then you have to explain and defend them, and it is much eaiser just to attack other peoples ideas and programs.

It is really true that the GOP has decided to put Party before Country, and if Americans have to suffer , will that price it worth it.

Harley… wut?

The next frame is a close up of a slip of paper popping out of the machine with the word “NO” in bold caps.

The Republican Idea Machine produces… absolutely nothing.

Stealing ideas from Rube Goldberg. The very idea…

“That government is best which governs least.” - Thomas Paine

Maybe the Republicans have hit on something.

When Congress goes on vacation for a few weeks I know my billfold isn’t being raided. (Applies to BOTH parties, guys)

The Republicans have one main idea with a few variations on the theme: Tax Cuts for the Richest! Incentives for the Richest! Subsidies for the Richest! Power for the Richest!

Harley, it’s definitely you that doesn’t understand. The fog in your brain is clearly showing in your posting today.

Nicely put Ken. The current Republican Party is not about ideas; it’s about power and how to regain it. They’ve decided to throw as many roadblocks as they can in the path of the Democrats without offering much of anything on their side.

Anybody remember during the drive to pass healthcare how they at first offered no alternative to the Democratic plans? And then after being criticized for not having a plan they “came up” with a very short document (something like four pages) that was just a litany of warmed over ideas that (1) would not have done anything to seriously contain costs, (2) would not have provided access to a significant proportion of the uninsured and (3) could have passed years ago if they’d had any interest.

Yup. It’s a lot easier to tear your opponent down (often using outright lies and misrepresentations) than it is to engage in a real constructive debate and engage in compromise.

Priceless! I wonder who is the author of this mess! Maybe George W. himself! Priceless!

With elections looming in the not to distant future, I once again urge one and all to join the “ELECT NO ONE PARTY!!!”

Now, Now….Harley’s giving us an example of what comes OUT of that machine.

about as complicated as the dems bills that no one reads.

just wait till you start paying that 90 bux a month per person extra taxes to support the 10 percent of the population the obamacare will be covering. oh what fun. you know, the same medical coverage concept that’s nearly bankrupted massachussetts in less than 5 years?

“you know, the same medical coverage concept that’s nearly bankrupted massachussetts in less than 5 years?”

The one put forth by a Republican? That’s where the mandates come from, by the way. The Republicans. They proposed them for “HillaryCare” also. But anyway: PolitiFact: Health Care bankrupting Massachussetts: False

That machine needs LOTS of OIL to keep running.

The Nopublicans created the problems and now they have the audacity to come back at us and say they want to fix things. Worse, they say they want to fix it using the same tax cuts for the rich that caused it.

They’re hoping for mass amnesia.

Couldn’t have said it better myself..IF I were a comic strip writer!

So I’ve been arguing that all the good political ideas come from the left, and none from the right. I’ve concentrated on just four areas, but my liberal/left friends often mention other good ideas from the left – and I bet there is a very good measure of agreement among us about the basic ideas.

Now since the conservatives on the list have not found it worthwhile to present their side, I thought in fairness I should try to do so.

I should begin by making a distinction between the right and conservatives. The right, as I see it, doesn’t have much to recommend it. It was wrong on civil rights, equal rights for women, the War in Vietnam, and it has nothing that I see to contribute to improving the lives of the poor and working people. They seem to think that so long as the wealthy are allowed to run the world, everything will be just fine, thank you.

Conservatism, however, in my opinion, has something to offer – at least as I understand conservatism. My understanding, in simple terms, is that conservatism sees a value in traditions as they are. Conservatism believes that the institutions that are in existence have come about for good reasons, and that in general those institutions work. Conservatives believe that we should be slow to change something that seems to work for something that has not been tried.

There is some value, I think, in this attitude. I think there have been times when the left in particular – not so much liberals – has been too quick to throw it all out and start from scratch. I think the left has sometimes fallen into a kind of infantile revolutionary romanticism. I’ve been there, I know how good that can feel. But it’s dangerous. I also think the left sometimes forgets the law of unintended consequences.

On the other hand, in defense of the left, there really are bad situations that need to be changed, and the conservative impulse is usually too slow to admit that these situations exist. And often the right uses the conservative impulse as a cover for maintaining privilege. The Civil Rights movement is a good example – all during the movement days there were those that said, “Oh, I believe in civil rights, but not so fast.” I fear that many of those really didn’t believe in civil rights; they were using a conservative caution in order to maintain a system of privilege. More later on the proper role of government.

Wow, lonecat, a sober and sensible analysis, with no name-calling or anything childish of that sort. I wish there were more posts and replies like yours. I should point out that there’s a big difference between a social conservative and a fiscal conservative, and for that matter you can find both of them in the Democratic party besides in the Republican party (if you look hard). (Actually, fiscal conservatives are VERY rare in the Republican party these days, since true fiscal conservatism requires both revenue increases and spending cuts–which means the war-time Bush tax cuts need to be allowed to expire, for one thing….) And as for all the whining about taxes, federal taxes over-all are currently at their lowest level since the Truman administration: and I really DOUBT any of us were around back then………

It prints IOUs and pink slips. The problem with today’s “conservatives” is that since Reagan there has been absolutely nothing fiscally conservative in their programs. You cannot spend more, like on “defense” and cut income to pay for it. “Trickle down” and “lower taxes make more money” are two totally dispelled myths, that they won’t let go.

At least the “liberal” spending is aimed at helping real, flesh and blood people, not soulless, bloated corporations. And yes, too much “liberal” is also too much sometimes, but it’s interesting how many “conservatives” are more than happy to collect the benefits they complain about, like well, millionaires STILL collecting Social Security checks because it’s their right, irrespective actuarial tables saying they should suck it up and live off their wealth.

1st “idea” out: g w bushs TEMPORARY tax cuts expiring, becomes THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN U.S. HISTORY. duh. foxnoose et all. SPIN on all owned medias as deductive fact/truth.

repeat . repeat. repeat, repeat… (ole nazi trick). (It MUST be true i heard it on gleeen beck!)

If i can not see the sun after it goes down over the horizon, i can deduce it is OFF, and does not shine- this is the’fruit”of such logic.

cdward said, about 9 hours ago

The Republicans have one main idea with a few variations on the theme: Tax Cuts for the Richest! Incentives for the Richest! Subsidies for the Richest! Power for the Richest!

tax cuts for rich because they are only ones who pay taxes– incentives for richest you mean like goldman sach; timmy g; larry summers

^ Nice.

My objection to politicians is their inability to really tell the truth. E.G. The objection to the health plan was not socialism but we CAN’T afford it without raising taxes.

We can afford to give tax cuts to the well-off, spend tons of money on Iraq, pay CEOs way too much but helping the poorer people of our country is socialism. So are public schools, highways, social security etc.

Maybe they only want the poor to die and reduce the surplus population , Ebeneezer scrooge.

For a change of pace from hard politics and more contraptions like this, see: “http://madamepickwickartblog.com/?p=9543”

Another excellent cartoon from Oliphant but only 6 confused postings from trolls.

By the way, Reagan was a reactionary, not a conservative. Most of the people who claim to be conservatives today are actually reactionaries.

Here are some Republican ideas that most leftists don’t consider very much because they are Republican ideas. So, they drift toward the notion that there is no such thing as a Republican idea. I’m not saying every R supports these, but a good number do.

School vouchers Health savings accounts Revamping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Adding a private aspect to SS Audit the Federal Reserve

There are lots of bad ideas from the GOP, as well….but to paint all right-wingers as vapid isn’t honest.

Habanero – thanks for your contribution. I am opposed to school vouchers, health savings accounts, and adding a private aspect to SS, for reasons that are probably clear from my other posts – though I can explain if asked. But even if I oppose these ideas I grant that they are legitimate and worth discussion.

I don’t know enough about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to have an opinion – or about the Federal Reserve. Can you explain what the problems are?

That’s five ideas from the right. Others? Maybe we can actually get a conversation going.

^Let’s take your suggestions and re-arrange them:

School vouchers Adding a private aspect to SS Revamping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Audit the Federal Reserve Health savings accounts

in other words:

Privatize the school system All of us have to pay for CEO bonuses through taxes Leave people out of their homes Incite a deep depression Not a deterrent for rising health costs.

Cloward-Piven. Give me my extra point.

Okay, church, since you ask. First a couple of preliminary comments, repeating two things I’ve said before.

First, this is the area in which I feel least secure of my own knowledge and understanding. About the civil rights movement and the War in Vietnam, I know some things, though of course there’s always more to learn. But as I said when I introduced poverty into the discussion, I am certainly not an economist, and I look to others who know more than I do for assistance. There are several who post who I think could help out.

Second, note that I gave the liberal/left side only half a point on this one. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my judgment, so far. And the reason that I give just half a point is directly related to your challenge.

I was never much in favor of Johnson’s program. I didn’t like it so much at the time, and nothing since has really changed my mind. I was pretty young, but I certainly remember that my parents – good liberal democrats both – were not very enthusiastic. Later on, when I got to know a lot of people on the left, I discovered that the left in general did not like it either. The feeling was that the program was too top-down and paternalistic, and it did not really address the causes of poverty. The left at the time was calling for a more radical restructuring of the US economy. I would add that in my opinion the question of poverty in the US should not be separated from the problem of world poverty – I think many on the left would agree, but putting it all together is pretty difficult.

Keeping in mind that I don’t claim expertise here, I would say that my preferences are for programs which put the poor more in charge of their own lives and problems. Unions are a good example. Of course there have been lots of problems with unions, but the fundamental idea is a good one, I think, and I think our society would be better off with more people in unions. Worker cooperatives can also be a good idea. There are other good ideas out there, but I’m not the best person to ask.

In general I would say that I prefer a bottom-up solution, while Johnsonian liberals perhaps think that the problem can be solved from the top down. The left is probably split. The Marxist left probably is fine with a top-down approach, but they would claim that since they truly represent the bottom, their top is really the bottom. I don’t buy that. That’s why i was more in sympathy with the non-Marxist left.

But to be fair to the liberal side, I think some liberal programs have proved themselves over time – in particular Social Security. I would also say that the minimum wage is a good idea, though I know there is debate. I think the eight-hour day campaign was a very good idea – this came from the bottom up, but I think liberals and progressives took it on. Also child-labor laws. Also workman’s compensation and work-place safety legislation. A good universal health insurance program is obviously a good idea. The program just passed is, I hope, a step in the right direction, but it will need to be improved.

This is getting long. I have more to say on the topic, but I’ll leave it there for the time being.

SmokyStover,

Your statements are correct.