It's not just because of that. The militantly fiscal conservative wing of the party withered away between the defeat of Romney/Ryan in 2012 and the rise of Trump and his populist style in 2016ff. Trying to repeal Obamacare in 2017 (which happened at the insistence of the donor class and the party establishment) was a disaster for the party and greatly contributed to the blue wave of 2018.

Even back in 2015 and 16, during the GOP primary, one of the key positions Trump took was his promise not to cut social security or medicare. Polls confirm this too: voters back then considered him to be more moderate than most of his Republican rivals, particularly Ted Cruz. There can be no doubt that this was because of his heterodox stances on abortion and cutting social programs.

Nowadays, things are further complicated by the shift in the parties' coalitions. Democrats have become stronger with professionals and elites while Republicans have become stronger with working-class people, so that Republicans nowadays have a much stronger electoral incentive to shy away from such policies than they had 10 or 15 years ago.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 11 2023 08:43pm

Yep, yep. ^^

This post was edited by Ghot on Mar 11 2023 08:46pm

Oh boy, you're really out of touch with anything before 2016.

The "militantly fiscal conservative wing" never existed. The best you ever got was the tea party which weren't actually interested in it. Again, they used it on paper, but were more than happy to approve military spending and lower taxes.

The GOP has always been overwhelmingly dependent on groups that are overwhelmingly dependent on social security, medicare, and welfare in general. That has not been a thorn in their side.

The real reason they are backing off is, and I can't stress this enough, because they were called out for it. They have always, and continue to be, the party that wants to cut these programs. They have always attempted to do it under the table becuase it's not popular among virtually any group.

This is not a new trend. This has been the status quo for the entirety of our lives.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Mar 11 2023 09:15pm

It's more a situation where I'm criticizing them for pretending like they are serious about deficits while avoiding the main causes of the deficit.

In general though, I desire political leaders who are willing to do politically unpopular things if they are good for the country. And my positions are typically politically unpopular.

What you say is not supported by hard facts. In 2013, the Tea Party led GOP House triggered a massive government shutdown over their desire to shrink Obama's budget proposal. They intentionally took a very public stand in favor of fiscal conservatism and it hurt them greatly in the polls. Yes, they didn't have good alternative proposals and the whole thing was more performative than serious politics, but it's still a fact that they acted deliberately out in the open and that the Tea Party was pushing the rest of the party toward this course.

In 2012, Democrats won the presidential election by 4.4%, in 2020 by 4.5%. Very comparable. Obama defeated Romney among voters with a family income below $30k by a margin of 28%. Biden defeated Trump by just 8% in this group. Romney won those earning more than $250k by 13% and those between $200k and $250k by 5%. In 2020, those earning above $200k were tied between Biden and Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 12 2023 12:20pm

Democrats winning more of a group does not mean Republicans are not still overwhelmingly dependent on them. If Republicans lost their support among that group they would never win an election again.

Glad you realize the tea party was performative and not actually in favor of budget cuts. They have never had a way to actually cut spending and lower the deficit. It's always been a show. They hide behind "I want a small government" so they can cut things they don't like, and keep going on things they do.

And if Democrats lost the support of Blacks, they would never win an election again. This is a really silly argument you just made. American politics has been tightly balanced for a quarter century. 3 of the last 6 presidential elections were decided by a margin of less than 0.75%, another one was decided by a margin of 2.11%. Neither side can afford to completely alienate any part of their coaltion, no matter how big or small, without compensation.

Fact is that working-class people have become a larger share of the GOP's coalition over the past decade, so that even minor amounts of erosion in support among this group now have a larger impact on the party's electoral outlook. In 2013, standing up for a policy that hurts poor people and makes upscale voters happy might have been a wash for the GOP, in 2023, it would diminsh their overall performance. Or it cost them 1% in overall popular support in 2013, but would cost 2% in 2023, or something along those lines.




"Political party prioritizes its priorities, more news at 10." Just as the GOP tends to try to shrink the scope of government and steer the budget cuts toward causes they don't like and voters who don't vote for them, the Democrats tend toward increasing the scope of government, with the extra spending disproportionately benefitting their constituents and favored causes while new regulations disproportionately target groups they don't like.

Also, you're contradicting yourself. You're claiming that they're not actually in favor of budget cuts, yet previously wrote that "They have always, and continue to be, the party that wants to cut these [social] programs". Which one is it?
At least you have indirectly admitted that your claim that "They have always attempted to do it under the table" was wrong. Both in 2013 and 2017, the GOP was upfront in its attempt at forcing cuts to spending and social programs.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 12 2023 05:59pm

I can just cut this out as the most shining example of you not knowing jack shit about American politics and leave it at that.

The GOP has never, ever, in our lifetimes or any other, been the party that even attempts to shrink the scope of government.

When they get in power they increase spending, increase surveilance, increase foreign involvement, and do every other thing they constantly claim is big government. When they aren't in power they make meaningless plays to obstruct without any alternatives and then approve bloated military budgets without hesitation.

When they try to cut social security it has absolutely nothing to do with the desire to "shrink government" and everything to do with the desire to pump money to their interests. And they do those things under the table as best they can because their base is dumb enough to not realize they're doing it.


The GOP wants to cut things they don't like, expand the things they do, and they don't value balanced budgets, fiscal conservatism, or small government while doing it. I am consistent here, you aren't.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Mar 12 2023 07:02pm

I'd have to disagree with that.
does know Jack Shyt about American politics. He even knows Irma Shyt too. :-)

This post was edited by Ghot on Mar 12 2023 08:17pm

To the best of my knowledge, Reagan did.


Cutting spending on social programs doesn't imply more money available for Republicans' priorities unless they actually do care about keeping the deficit (at least somewhat) in check.


George H.W. Bush literally agreed to increase taxes at a time of ballooning deficits so that the budget could be balanced again. It ultimately cost him his reelection.