Has the entire GOP gone insane?

AZ Jim

R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
Top Republican Doubts Senate Will Confirm Ambassador to Cuba

abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/gop-object-us-cuba-plan-embassies-32174207
By ALAN FRAM Associated Press
AP_logo_update_20130709.gif

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that his chamber is unlikely to approve an American ambassador to Cuba, dishing out a quick rebuff to President Barack Obama and his drive to normalize relations with the U.S. neighbor and longtime Cold War foe.

The Kentucky Republican also suggested that the GOP — which controls Congress — would fight Obama administration efforts to fully lift trade and travel restrictions that have limited American commerce and tourism with the communist-led island nation. McConnell said the country was led by "a thuggish regime."
The comments by McConnell came a day after Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro announced that the two nations will open embassies in Havana and Washington July 20 and resume diplomatic relations severed in 1961, the year Obama was born.

McConnell's remarks underscored that despite a push to ease the curbs by U.S. business and agriculture interests and some GOP lawmakers, Republican leaders remain sympathetic to the party's more conservative, anti-Castro voices. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and several contenders for the GOP's 2016 presidential nomination criticized Obama's moves shortly after they were announced Wednesday.
"You would think that the normalization of relations with Cuba would be accompanied by some modification of their behavior," McConnell said Thursday at Commerce Lexington, the chamber of commerce for Lexington, Kentucky. Instead, he called the country "a police state" and "a haven for criminals" wanted in the U.S.
"I don't see any evidence at all that they are going to change their behavior. So I doubt if we'll confirm an ambassador, they probably don't need one," McConnell said.

He added, "Some of their restrictions on Cuba would require legislation to lift, and we're going to resist that."
Though Obama has not nominated an ambassador for Cuba yet, the current top U.S. diplomat there, Jeffrey DeLaurentis, was expected to be considered for the post.
Labeling the moment "a choice between the future and the past," Obama on Wednesday revealed the latest steps in a half-year of rapid-fire improvements in relations between two nations that lie 90 miles apart but have spent nearly six decades separated by light years diplomatically and economically.

Obama also asked Congress to lift the economic and travel embargoes that the U.S. has used for decades to try forcing Cuba's leaders toward democracy. Obama has partly eased those restrictions on his own, but even before McConnell's comments Thursday, longtime opposition from many Republicans and some Democrats had made it unlikely that lawmakers will fully revoke the bans quickly.

When President Dwight Eisenhower broke relations in 1961 with the communist regime of Raul's brother, Fidel Castro, it set the tone for decades of Cold War hostility that included failed U.S.-backed efforts to overthrow the island nation's leaders.
Besides McConnell and Boehner, denunciations also have come from several 2016 GOP presidential hopefuls, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Cuban-American Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas. In a typical comment, Bush said warming relations should "advance the cause of human rights and freedom for the Cuban people" and said the administration's moves were "failing this test."
Rubio and Cruz each said they would try blocking any Obama effort to win Senate confirmation of an ambassador to Havana.
 

Isn't foreign affairs the province of the presidency?

Perhaps this is why the President was given the power of veto in the first place - to bring a recalcitrant congress to heel ?
 
There is absolutely no reason the US should not normalize relations with Cuba. It should have done it long ago. This is just a case of where the fact that Obama proposed the change is the only reason the GOP opposes it.
 
Until the Batista expats are not a voting or financial consideration in south Florida any diplomatic machinations will not be well received.

Also there are a lot of revolution era politics from Cuba as well.

http://www.capitolhillcubans.com/2015/05/former-british-ambassador-dangers-of.html

Embassies aren't even allowed to hire who they want.

I find it hard to believe that what's left of the Florida expats really constitute a political force of any consequence. From what I'm heard the 2nd generation descendants are a lot more liberal. I think it's more a case of the GOP not wanting to go along with a change initiated by the Obama administration.
 
Oh I know, I can't believe how far the GOP will go to oppose and humiliate our President, I thought they might grow out of it after the first year, but the irrational hatred doesn't seem to ever go out of style.

At one time I used to consider myself a moderate republican, but that was before Ronald Reagan started us down the road of ruin by increasing the deficit and the shabby "trickle-down" shell game.

My other current board is a political debate board, right now we are embroiled in yet another debate over whether climate change is real... :rolleyes:

I was ready to vote for Hillary in 08, until Obama came on the scene and said so many things I agreed with, this time I was all ready to vote for Hillary until Bernie Sanders came on the scene, "Feel The Bern!"

Thx :untroubled:
 
I find it hard to believe that what's left of the Florida expats really constitute a political force of any consequence. From what I'm heard the 2nd generation descendants are a lot more liberal. I think it's more a case of the GOP not wanting to go along with a change initiated by the Obama administration.

Josh, I hope you're right . . . oops, I mean, I hope you're correct! Love your new avatar! :D
 
Oh I know, I can't believe how far the GOP will go to oppose and humiliate our President, I thought they might grow out of it after the first year, but the irrational hatred doesn't seem to ever go out of style.

At one time I used to consider myself a moderate republican, but that was before Ronald Reagan started us down the road of ruin by increasing the deficit and the shabby "trickle-down" shell game.

My other current board is a political debate board, right now we are embroiled in yet another debate over whether climate change is real... :rolleyes:

I was ready to vote for Hillary in 08, until Obama came on the scene and said so many things I agreed with, this time I was all ready to vote for Hillary until Bernie Sanders came on the scene, "Feel The Bern!"

Thx :untroubled:

I'm with ya on this with a slight variation: I did not like Hillary, and was considering McCain; didn't know much about Obama except that he and McCain were sounding almost identical on the issues. When McCain made the fatal mistake of choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, my vote for Obama was guaranteed.

I suspect that the GOP "threw" both the 2008 and 2012 elections so that the democrats would be saddled with repairing the damage done to the U.S.(and the rest of the world) during the Bush presidency.
 
Such a bunch of far left nonsense going on here. That the Republicans don't agree with the Democrats is to be expected and the Democrats surely do not agree with the Republicans either. They both should be working together to get some joint resolutions going. One said that Reagan had created too much debt. Well Reagan had half his years split congress and then half his years with a Democrat congress and Democrats do spell higher debts for the US. If you really hate the higher debts you must really be upchucking with what Obama has done to the US with his 10 trillion new and greater debt.

Far too much of this one sided nonsense. Lets get past Obama and see if Hillary will be able to do a better job. I believe she can if given the chance.
 
Such a bunch of far left nonsense going on here. That the Republicans don't agree with the Democrats is to be expected and the Democrats surely do not agree with the Republicans either. They both should be working together to get some joint resolutions going. One said that Reagan had created too much debt. Well Reagan had half his years split congress and then half his years with a Democrat congress and Democrats do spell higher debts for the US. If you really hate the higher debts you must really be upchucking with what Obama has done to the US with his 10 trillion new and greater debt.

Far too much of this one sided nonsense. Lets get past Obama and see if Hillary will be able to do a better job. I believe she can if given the chance.

Not today Bobby, come back someday when you can absorb some financial education, till then, Happy Independence Day.
 
Not today Bobby, come back someday when you can absorb some financial education, till then, Happy Independence Day.

Nobody needs financial education when the government keeps increasing our debt. Our credit rating has already been dropped and likely will get dropped again. No justification given for this ever increasing debt of Obama's and why does our debt always go up when the Democrats are in control. Except for one of Bill Clinton's terms, the debt went down. But that time he had a Republican Congress.
 
So, I guess that the debt that GW Bush racked up just somehow doesn't count...?

George W. Bush - President Bush added the second greatest amount to the debt, at $5.849 trillion. This more than doubled the debt, which was $5.8 trillion on September 30, 2001 -- the end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton's last budget. Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks by launching the War on Terror. This drove military spending to record levels, $600-$800 billion a year. This included the Iraq War, which cost $807.5 billion. President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA, otherwise known as the Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. For more, see President Obama Compared to President Bush Policies.

Source: http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm
 
So, I guess that the debt that GW Bush racked up just somehow doesn't count...?



Source: http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif


Per this national debt chart Bush kept his part of debt below that level of Bill Clinton's until his last two years when the Democrats took over the Congress. Then debts in Bush's last two years started to climb from 7.5 trillion to about 11 trillion and keep on climbing in Obama's years to over 18 trillion, and now with the Republicans in the Congress they are fighting more debt. But with next year being an election year they have to be prudent about how they fight the added debt of Obama's regime. To shut down the government, as the Congress can do, would likely just cause a lot of concern and also not really work. It was tried before with nothing but a lot of confusion in the country and no end to the wasteful spending. We just have to do our best to end wild spending and try to get past the next election. I think anyone, including Hillary, will give us a better President that what we have today.

I know this will bring on lots of hate talk. That is OK as truth does hurt so many folks these days. Not much I can do about that. There are even some Democrats wanting something better than what we have right now.
 
Without going through the futility of trying to explain that if you buy a new car and stick me with the payments as Bush did, let me ask you Bob, what has this to do with the deliberate obstruction by repubs on the subject of my OP?
 
Without going through the futility of trying to explain that if you buy a new car and stick me with the payments as Bush did, let me ask you Bob, what has this to do with the deliberate obstruction by repubs on the subject of my OP?

What have you just said Jim? Your post makes no sense at all. And what is your OP? Make sense and I might be able to respond.

If you are concerned with the little bit of debt bush left behind, then really you should start screaming at the ever growing debt Obama is leaving behind. Obama's debt, 8 trillion in 6.5 years, is more than the debt Bush and his predecessors combined left behind, about 7.5 trillion.
 

I'll be seeing this chart in my dreams, it's been posted so many times here...and here is the alternate chart that I've posted in the past. I know you don't and won't agree, and that's okay. Putting all the blame of the debt on Obama is not realistic or fair, IMO.



http://zfacts.com/p/57.html

Conservatives are embarassed by the way Reagan and the Bushes ran the debt up and out of control. So they have invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. I have run into this lie dozens of times. So, I dug deep to set the record straight.
zFacts-Reagan-Not-Congress.png
As the figure shows, Reagan and Bush senior got almost exactly the budgest they requested in each of their 12 budget years.

  • Reagan:
  • The first budget — passed by all Republicans and a few conservative Southern Democrats.
    • This increased the debt by $144 Billion.(1)
  • The next 5 budgets — passed by the Republican Senate and signed by Reagan.
  • The last 2 budgets — passed by a Democratic Congress
    • Totalled slightly less than Reagan requested.
  • G. H. W. Bush:
  • Democratic Congresses under Bush passed smaller budgets than he requested in 3 out of 4 years.
  • These four Democratic budgets totalled $14.6 Billion less than Bush requested.
  • G. W. Bush:
  • The first two budgets — Senate was split 50/50 and the House was Democratic.
    • Bipartisan and totalled $20 Billion less than Bush requested.
    • The biggest cause of deficits was Bush’s enormous tax cut, mainly for the rich.
  • The next 4 budgets — the Congress was solid Republican.
  • The last 2 budgets — Bush vetoed(2) modest Democratic attempts at spending.

In summary: Democrats controlled Congress during 8 out the 20 years. During 4 of those years, Democrats decreased the budgets proposed by the Republican presidents. Their total effect during those 8 years was to reduce Republican budgets by $17 Billion (which is only 0.2%).



http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

National Debt Graph by President

Oct 24, 2014. When did the National Debt go crazy? Why? Who’s to blame? Where is the debt headed? Compared to the US economy, the national debt is smaller than it was after World War II. But, take a look at what could have happened if three presidents had balanced their budgets.

Oct 24, 2014. What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets? How much lower would the debt be now? We’ll get to that shortly, but first, how did we get into this mess? This may just be the weirdest political tale you’ve every heard.

World War II cost a bundle, and the country started out in the Great Depression. It was flat broke. But Uncle Sam was popular and the country patriotic, and people were happy to lend him money. Compared to the size of the economy back then, the debt soon outstripped even today’s debt, and we won the war.

US-national-debt-GDP-graph.png
The data for actual Debt-as-%-of-GDP for 1940-2006 comes from George W. Bush’s OMB Historical Table 7.1 for FY 2008


After the war, they started paying off the debt, and the economy (and its GDP) grew. And for 35 years the debt kept getting smaller compared to the GDP. When it was the smallest (as compared to GDP) than it had been in 50 years, Reagan was elected (1980) and vowed to shrink it even more drastically.

But he had an odd theory: Cut taxes and the government would collect so much more money that he could spend more and still pay down the debt. Even before he was elected, George H. W. Bush called this “Voodoo economics,” and so it was.
The result, of course, was that the debt stopped decreasing and shot through the roof, as seen in the graph above.

By 1987, even Ron Paul (who loved the tax-cut part) blurted out: “How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together?” And so it had. Starting with a debt of $1 trillion, in eight years Reagan raised it to $2.8 trillion. Even relative to the bigger economy, this was as bad as it had been 28 years earlier. (And no, the House did not do it to him. The budgets Congress passed were almost identical to what he asked for and on average a tiny bit more balanced.)
Why did he do it?

So how the heck did this happen to the guy that rode to office on complaints of an out-of-control debt that was as big as a stack of $1000 bills 67 miles high? How did he come to add another 128 miles to that stack?Reagan took some economics in college, and he really did want to reduce the debt. But he got snookered by some Wall Street “economists” (mostly political journalists) who told him he could have his cake and eat it too.

They came up with the brand-new theory, mentioned above, that said the government can collect more money by reducing taxes. Wouldn’t that be nice! That’s the supply-side economics that George H. W. Bush called Voodoo.
It was first tested by Reagan. Bush I tried and failed to undo the Voodoo, and Bush II reinstated it after Clinton. Altogether there were 20 Voodoo budgets. And every single time the debt not only went up, it went up faster than the economy grew — usually much faster. Before the Voodoo, 26 of the previous 35 budgets resulted in the debt shrinking relative to GDP. Reagan’s first budget was the turning point.

Of course some supply-siders noticed this too, and when Treasury Sect. Paul O’Neil complained that cutting taxes would increase the deficit, V.P. Cheney just replied “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” In fact, many seemed to like the deficits and complain about them only when Democrats were in power. They saw them as helping to “strangle the government.”So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?

My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion!

So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.
It’s quite easy to check these calculations . They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it.

Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt. Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.
Why this matters

Supply-side economics is outrageously dishonest. The supply-siders didn’t even mind conning their own man Reagan. The tax-cut “theory” only actually applied to the rich. So the plan was to cut tax rates for the rich in half, which they did. To get this through they had to cut taxes for the middle class some too, but they counted on inflation pushing the middle class back into higher tax brackets.

But cutting the top bracket had a permanent effect because there is no higher bracket to get pushed into.
So not only was cutting taxes to raise money crazy, it was just a deception to cut taxes for the richest and then use the deficits to force cuts in services for the middle class and the poor. The Republicans have almost all gone over to the supply side now, and many, like Reagan, have been brainwashed into believing it. G.W. Bush claimed he would “retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years.

This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time.” I think he actually believed that.
When the Voodoo started, that’s exactly when the debt went out of control. And 20 out of 20 budgets can’t be an accident. Especially when you consider that Clinton was handed a Voodoo budget headed in the wrong direction, stopped that, turned it around and ended up with the debt reduced from 66% to 58% of GDP.

There are a lot of lies in circulation. Blaming the Democrats for the debt is just one of them. What about Obama?

Notice how the debt accelerated during Bush’s last two budget years. Obama’s debt is a continuation of that trend and neither Bush nor Obama are directly responsible for that acceleration. It happened because of the recession. (Bush was responsible for the turn-around from surplus to deficit soon after he took office, but not for the impact of the recession on the budget.)

Nonetheless, Bush set the all-time record by increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion in 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008—but that had little to do with his choices.
Recessions cut tax revenues—in this case, dramatically. That accounts for nearly half of the deficit. So blaming Obama for the full deficit is like blaming him for not raising the tax rate to keep tax revenues up. Most of the increased spending is automatic increases in unemployment benefits, food stamps, and social security payments for early retirement. Very little of it is from stimulus spending, and that’s over.Now we see that the economy is growing almost as fast as the debt, so in the last year, the debt has not outstripped economic growth by much. Economic growth is the main way that the WWII debt was brought down relative to GDP.
 
Right SeaBreeze, I do not beleive in your charts as they are all home made and not at all honest. Speaking of those chart where IF is used rather than facts. It is the facts that are being changed and I did not try to follow that iffy way. I do use my post as part of the debate as it is fact, like it or not, and it follows the way we are supposed to count our debts.

Here is one description of how to figure our debts.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-federal-debt-what/?gclid=CIvu97HN6cUCFUiGfgod5UsAtw

And here is another description of our debts and where it is going to. Lots of links to other data and sources.

http://www.federalbudget.com/
 


Back
Top