What Does The Republican Party Want?

Why not make all the elected officials reduce their pay to $1, including the president? That would certainly free up an enormous amount of money which could be used to stimulate the economy. Then take that money and use it to either pay off the debt the Democrats voted us into or give it back to the taxpayers. We can better manage our money when compared to Congress.

In four short weeks we have seen our country become more divided than I can recall in recent history. Clinton’s election brought fear and distrust, but the nation survived. His term as president was not as bad as most thought it would be. He did disgrace the office with his antics, but that depends on your definition of “is” again, right? The current president seems to have no regard for the future implications of his actions.

Having just watched a video showing the “Obama Coins” being sold as historical items in which the viewer is shown that the coins are nothing more than regular currency with a newly printed sticker on them, I think the video probably sums up the current leadership; it is the same old thing from a democrat (same old coin) with a new label of change (newly printed sticker) placed on it. A little bit of observation and scrutiny shows it is the same old thing.

I don’t listen to Rush regularly. If he is on when I am traveling I will listen then. I do know that Rush clearly stated he wanted this president to succeed if it meant helping our country get back on track. I saw the interview in which he stated clearly he wanted the president to succeed, but only if he would not take the country into a liberal socialistic agenda. Rush went on to say if the president were to go in the direction he appears to be going (liberal socialism) then he wanted the president to fail. That is the same argument Pelosi and Reid used with the former president. Where was your angst over their admissions? Where was your concern over their obstructionism?

In the end, with the changing of the guard, one can only hope that we can survive long enough to fix the rudder and right the ship. If not, the good ship US of America may not make it back to port.

Scott

Well, we certainly see things differently. Perhaps it is a generational thing, as you only mention Bill Clinton.

I can go back to the time of Tricky Dick Nixon, which is where my time line puts the members (most, not all) of the GOP going from people with a differing opinion to ‘rat bastard’.

Reagan spent this country into a mess, and made many believe that spending while cutting taxes was a good idea. Bill Clinton brought us back from a large deficit (no debates here – the figures can’t be fudged).

I am, to this day, befuddled about the nomination, and then election of ‘W’. This man is one of those people who are slightly above the level of cretin, and know ‘just enough to be dangerous’. Was he ever! (BTW, this is one case where the gene pool should probably be questioned, as Bush 41 was a decent and intelligent man.)

This was another time when the American public voted against their own betterment, simply because the public personna of Al Gore was a stiff and less than engaging speaker. I tend to prefer the undersell (Gore) to the oversell (W) in a president. I also happen to think that a president with an intelligence at least similar to my own is a good thing.

How you can speak of President Obama’s drop in the bucket, versus the swimming pools of money spent by the Republican controlled Congress, with no veto from the Oval Office is another thing I simply don’t understand. Not to mention the attack of Iraq, when the terrorists came from Afghanistan and Iran. This is like making a trip from San Diego to Sacramento by way of Denver, then telling everyone it was the most direct route.

However, you are in a large portion of the minority – those who see the figures, yet for some reason it does not register.

Limbaugh is an idiot, with ideas that frequently can not be backed up by any logical means. Once in a great while, he spits out something that seems to make sense – but even ‘W’ got it right once or twice, so that is nothing to brag about.

You see, I also am old enough to remember Republicans like Barry Goldwater, who knew what he believed, and could tell you why. He also frequently made sense. Too much sense for many, just like Ron Paul.

Since the Republican party can not stick to its stated ideals and goals except to be intransigent when movement is clearly indicated, they should probably go back to the drawing board. At this point, they are the party of idiots and crybabies, because they could not fix another general election.

(Remember this is also the party of Pat Robertson, and the Ayatollah Falwell – people who thump their Bibles without reading the contents, and use fragments of that contained within to spread fear and hatred. These people are for the death penalty, yet against abortion when the mother’s life is in danger – can you say flawed logic? These people judge others yet somehow forget that the Bible tells them that it is neither advisable nor their job.)

On the secular side, it is the party of Lindsay Graham and Richard Shelby, whose combined IQ’s just might reach triple digits. These people make it easy to see why the idea of Southern stupidity is not a total myth. I have watched these men speak, at length, though it was painful, so I know of what I speak. They are the types who latch on to two or three phrases, and repeat them ad nauseum, because they are incapable of responding to a changing question – whatever that question might be.

I wasn’t sure how far back I needed to go. You made that clear. I, too, remember that far back. I remember the debacle called Carter. I recall Johnson as well. Those were not good times for our country.

I’ll agree that Clinton reduced the deficit. That was not the point I was trying to make. I do not think he would have pushed this kind of tax and spend legislation. What I referred to was his degradation of the office of the president; it was pathetic.

Obama’s “drop in the bucket” as you put it is no such thing. Without reading the content, the “thinkers” went along for the ride. None of the people who voted for this “deal” read the document, and Obama didn’t live up to his promise to give us 48 hours to review it. We will all find out that we didn’t get where we wanted to go with this “spend-r-us” package. The sad thing is that we will still have to pay for the ride. There is no money back guarantee on this one.

Gore’s intelligence? Sorry, but I can’t buy that one. Southern stupidity? It depends on whose definition you go by as to where the stupidity lies. I am just glad that there is something better to look forward to, that this life is not all there is. I think I will try to do a little more to prepare for that great adventure, because this one is getting darker by the day.

In the end, I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree. You are passionate about your view, as am I. It makes no difference (to me, at least) who is right in the end – as long as America returns to her once-held greatness. It is just hard to see it happening with the stark turn in direction the Democrats and the president have taken this country. I can only pray for us, and like John (in the Bible) say, “Jesus, come back quickly.”

Wow, Oracle you have some seriously messed up thinking. Just how many demographics can you insult in just one post?

“How you can speak of President Obama’s drop in the bucket, versus the swimming pools of money spent by the Republican controlled Congress, with no veto from the Oval Office is another thing I simply don’t understand.”

I couldn’t agree more with this comment. However the unspoken fact to this observation is that the elected Republican’s and GWB were moderate to liberal Republican’s. The conservative Republican’s did try and vote these bills down. As Peggy Noonan once stated, George W Bush destroyed the Republican party.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals fight for equality and conservatives fight for liberty. They are mutually exclusive ideals and what we have now is an ugly hodgepodge of both.

Scott, just one small thing, then I’ll let it go. (I do like the way we are able to go back and forth without any theatrics or histrionics.)

I am unsure why it is that John Boehner was so worked up, holding the pages of the bill up in the air , and saying no one had read it.

What exactly was the man saying? Is he apologizing for not reading it? Is he too slow a reader to read it? (If this is true, could he not have aides read it, and break down the main points?) To my way of thinking, admitting your ignorance of a subject, then arguing for a total dismissal is the height of stupidity.

Mike -

{{The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals fight for equality and conservatives fight for liberty. }}

This could possibly be true in the idealistic sense, but in practice, it boils down to the GOP wanting to keep their collective money, and shackle others with paying for the government services they enjoy (because they manage to wriggle out of taxes).

It is similar to the idea that the market should be left alone, but when those banks started showing cracks, they were lining up like people in Depression Era bread lines for government handouts.

I believe you can’t have it both ways, but the Republicans try.

I would have been happy to let the stock market collapse, and the banks all go down the drain – my meager funds are FDIC covered, and I have been in that class that doesn’t shaft others to get ahead.

BTW, my feelings would be the same if I was a millionaire – and why I think that the only fair tax schedule is a flat schedule.

Having formerly worked at a news/talk radio station for several years which carried Limbaugh…here are some things many people forget or did not know:

1. Clear Channel (Premiere) Radio Network signed him to a 450 million/10 year contract. This was before he lost his hearing to his drug use…which he made sure the network did not find out about beforehand.
2. He is a self-professed drug abuser who can’t seem to keep his hands off any type of drug (oxycontin before his arrest & viagra after his arrest).
3. Was a failure at everything he ever tried before doing political commentary.
4. Has been married & divorced three times.
5. Rumblings that he is homosexual & does everything he can do with his money & power to keep it from coming out. Along with this rumor is that he has never consummated any of his marriages.

For someone who claims to speak for the “family values” party…not the type of person I would want standing up & proclaiming the standard for my political party.

“This could possibly be true in the idealistic sense, but in practice, it boils down to the GOP wanting to keep their collective money, and shackle others with paying for the government services they enjoy (because they manage to wriggle out of taxes).”

What money does the GOP have? You make no sense. By your accusation you imply that the DNC wants to give their money away and at the same time pay for their own governmental services (whatever that means).

Also, perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to the news but Obama’s friends forgo the ‘wriggling’ part and just flat out don’t pay their taxes. I’m still waiting for the transparency and ethical leadership that he promised to bring to Washington.

When you talk about the ‘flat tax schedule’ I assume that you are talking about the ‘flat tax?’
Although I am a conservative I haven’t fully bought into the flat tax. It looks good on paper but I’m not convinced that it will work in practice.

Mike, when I said GOP, I meant its constituents.

As for the taxes with the appointees, that was a mistake, and the President admitted the fault fell on him. When was the last time you saw a Republican take responsibility for anything other than a tax cut? That he admits problems goes a very long way for me to trust the man, and I believe that is also what most would call transparency. No lies, no deceptions.

The only reason you wouldn’t want flat tax is if you want to escape paying your fair share.

D Lowrey,

I wouldn’t want that either – but also I would not make attacks on him due to his personal failures [not speaking to you]. I simply wish his ‘flock’ would think about some of what he spouts, rather than blindly accept.

People always want to criticize a person when they can’t think of ways to refute the ideas they have. It would be better, though not as easy, to point out the flawed ideas, and why they are flawed.

I’m guilty of it as well, but I usually do it out of frustration – I truly wonder how people justify voting for certain people, or defending the ideas that those elected come up with.

Like the picture of Boehner with the 1100 pages of stimulus bill in his hand, saying thet no one had read it – what intelligent person thinks this is a good thing? This is like the people who are so stupid they go on Jerry Springer and think all will be well.

Limbaugh has certainly found his niche though. You’d think he could live legally with that money, and be happy.

If John Boehner didn’t read it, couldn’t read it, or didn’t get staffers to help read it, how could you fault him? There simply wasn’t enough time. That was another mistake, but no one has owned up to that one. I really have a tough time believing that Obama didn’t know about the tax issues with his cabinet choices. What else are we going to find out as the media begins to turn and finally take a look at the man that is now our president?

I have to say that one of the things that makes this country so great is the freedom to voice our opinions. I respect that you have not taken the road that many Democrats do and attacked me for my views. I will never do that; I simply disagree and move on. This life is too short to let these trivial things ruin what is to come. I believe there is still some greatness left in America, and will do all that I can to see her regain it.

“People always want to criticize a person when they can’t think of ways to refute the ideas they have. It would be better, though not as easy, to point out the flawed ideas, and why they are flawed.”

Well you have yet to point out any flaws in any ideas. All you have done is attacked people and their failings.

“The only reason you wouldn’t want flat tax is if you want to escape paying your fair share.”

Really? Is that the only reason? You really don’t look at both sides of an issue very closely do you?

Philosophically I agree with the flat tax. However practicality has a way of shaping a thoughtful persons perspective. One thing to consider is tax-credits for charity. Under a flat-tax there wouldn’t be any tax deductions. Could this have a serious impact on charitable contributions? (Well I suppose if we are moving towards a socialist society then we no longer need charities since the all-mighty government will take care of us all. To each according to his ability; to each according to his needs and all that jazz.)
How about deductions for home owners?
How about deductions for dependents?
How about tax sheltered retirement plans?
How will a flat-tax affect tax payers if these things are eliminated?

Or maybe I’m just trying to scheme my way out of paying my fair share of taxes as you implied.

The fact of the matter is that our current tax system is an attempt at social engineering to create certain results. That is why you hear people say that we should cut or eliminate capital gain taxes; this will result in more people investing money into other companies (via the stock market). This infusion of money will allow companies to, in turn, expand their business which will result in a creation of more jobs.

However social engineering can be a very risky and dangerous activity. Some argue, quite persuasively I might add, that our current financial meltdown is the result of bad social engineering. There are some in congress (Barny Frank and Chris Dodd to name two) that actively and openly advocated that every American should own a home, regardless if they could afford it or not. They helped shape and push through various forms of legislation through the years to accomplish this. This legislation was usually geared towards banks since they were the gate keepers, so to speak, of home ownership.

Suffice it to say that no one can really say for sure what exactly triggered this meltdown or know what will fix it. Heck we still don’t know the reasons for the Great Depression and what the real cause of its end was; despite the fact that Obama thinks that has been settled long ago.

And Thank you for not jumping on the ‘bash Rush’ band wagon. If you are going to knock the man down then do it in the intellectual arena and not the personal one. After all we’re all hypocrites in some form or another.

Mike,

I guess we do have major differences in ideas because -

1] I don’t believe that charity should be based on tax breaks. The reason for charity should be compassion, not compensation.

2] If we cut tax breaks for children, people would think twice about having too many children – a major boon to the environment would be fewer Catholics, Mormons, and wackos (Octamom), having children they, and the ecosystem, cannot support.

If personal wealth is your thing, think about how much better we would be with worldwide population maintenance, instead of growth.

3] Homes, retirements, and all the others will take care of themselves once people readjust to having to live within their means, with fewer children, and things.

4] Business should pay their share of taxes, just like individuals. No one has conclusively proven that cutting taxes spurs on job growth – that is what customer demand does, brought about by need. Until someone demonstrates job growth by tax cuts in a completely closed system, I am not buying.

Just look at what tax cuts have done over the years of Bonzo to Bush43 – no real wealth created, and the have alreadies get a further leg up on the have nots.

If everyone pays their fair share of the tax burden, one of two things happens – everyone individually pays less or, public things such as roads, libraries, parks, power grids, etc., all get better by a level of magnitude.

You may be right about Frank & Dodd, but the irresponsibility was not their fault – they weren’t approving the loans.

Oracle, you said: “These people are for the death penalty, yet against abortion when the mother’s life is in danger – can you say flawed logic?”

You are not presenting the full picture here. You are cherry-picking to make your argument sound more valid.

If ‘abortion rights’ were ONLY about those mothers who’s lives are in danger, your statement would be valid but you know and everybody else knows that this is not the case. Do some research and I’d be willing to bet that you’ll find that the majority of abortions don’t fall into your narrow picture.

When women can ‘choose’ to kill their unborn babies even though their own life is not in danger, (and they weren’t raped), this is not a good thing, but this is the ‘liberal’ goal.

I am against abortion UNLESS the woman’s life is in danger or she was raped. But the liberal abortion agenda is far broader than this and to suggest otherwise is less than intellectually honest.

I am also against the death penalty.

Not all ‘conservatives’ fall into the tiny little box that it seems the average liberal would like to place them.

I agree that charity should be based on compassion rather than tax cuts.

But the interesting thing about charitable giving is that studies have shown that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

If this is true, then liberals certainly don’t have any room to talk about ‘charity’.

“In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.”

That paragraph is quoted from here:
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

The ‘liberal’ idea of ‘charity’, as we can see with the ’stimulus’ package, is to give OTHER people’s money.

I won’t try to suggest that all liberals are like my neighbor, but I have become turned off to modern ‘liberalism’ by my so-called ‘liberal’ neighbor.

He gets angry every time some little piece of litter blows into his yard.

But when he’s out on the road, he throws his own candy wrappers and lottery scratch-off cards out the window.

He claims to believe in conversation and recycling.

But he doesn’t recycle a single thing in the free containers that are supplied by waste management. He throws everything into the trash, bottles, cans, paper – everything.

Also, my good liberal neighbor habitually ignores pertinent facts regarding just about every important issue. (Ignoring facts seems to be a universal liberal trait.)

But like I said, not all liberals are like my neighbor, but unfortunately, many of them are.

My neighbor, and many liberals like him, are blatant hypocrites. The things they supposedly believe in are only meant to be applied to OTHERS, not themselves.

How nice it will be if the liberals can get everybody else to make the world a better place and then grab all the credit for themselves.

“I don’t believe that charity should be based on tax breaks. The reason for charity should be compassion, not compensation.”

I agree, but the fact of the matter is the less someone pays in taxes the more they have for other expenditures… such as charity.

“If we cut tax breaks for children, people would think twice about having too many children – a major boon to the environment would be fewer Catholics, Mormons, and wackos (Octamom), having children they, and the ecosystem, cannot support.”

As a Catholic I find your argument no only offensive but also lacking any coherent explanation.

“Homes, retirements, and all the others will take care of themselves once people readjust to having to live within their means, with fewer children, and things.”

Again, you don’t explain anything you just make stuff out of whole cloth and state it as fact. Not a very convincing argument.

“Until someone demonstrates job growth by tax cuts in a completely closed system, I am not buying.”

You need to read a bit about basic macroeconomics and about the contraction and expansion of wealth.

“If everyone pays their fair share of the tax burden, one of two things happens – everyone individually pays less or, public things such as roads, libraries, parks, power grids, etc., all get better by a level of magnitude.”

That is assuming that government will actually care to improve such things. History has taught us that the only thing the government gets good at is increasing its bureaucratic size.

“You may be right about Frank & Dodd, but the irresponsibility was not their fault – they weren’t approving the loans.”

Well duh, they don’t run banks. They just shape the laws the banks have to abide by.

@rainmark

Another interesting and sad statistic is the fact that abortions for children with downs syndrome is at a staggering 95% in both Europe and the USA… that too falls out side of their little ‘rape and incest’ box.

rainmark,

You can be proud of your logical stance on abortion and death penalty.

I would agree based on my Christian upbringing, but you see, most ‘Christians’ I know (and yes, I get the full implications of my own judgements here) are fully for the death penalty. These people cling to ‘an eye for an eye’ and seem to never have come across ‘Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord, I will repay”.

In many respects I am a less than enthusiastic proclaimer of my Chrisitanity, simply because of the bad examples of Falwell, Robertson, and many who find themselves in pulpits on Sunday mornings. I have a very hard time with ‘Sunday morning Christians’.

I say and do little in everyday life, and after knowing someone, and giving them a chance to know me, I will speak of it.

As to charitable giving, I would want a study based on equivalent income to be done before I subscribe to that theory. Without it, I would say Republicans tend to be in more need of tax breaks.

I see your problem with your neighbor, it is similar to my problem with ‘Sunday morning Christians’.

I try to be ecologically sound. I am trying to move to LCD monitors, instead of CRTs. I have had fluorescent bulbs in my house since 2000 – every bulb, except the one 15 watt bulb in my refrigerator. I recycle everything I can, both because of principle and for monetary benefit. I do my best to avoid making trash, in any form.

The only part of the green movement I don’t subscribe to is about eating meat. In my book, a time during the day where one eats something without meat is not a meal, it only qualifies as a snack. I doubt I’ll be changing on this very soon – however, I do try, withing that framework, to do better, by eating more chicken, and fish, and less beef.

Since I try to be logical, I try to apply it to all aspects of my life. I’m not always successful, but the work is a continuing one.

As for liberal, I don’t always fit there either.

Thanks for the comments

Mike,

“As a Catholic I find your argument no only offensive but also lacking any coherent explanation.”

You can be offended, but that was not my purpose. If you can leave the framework of your faith for just a moment, don’t you see (logically) that if there were fewer people on this earth, there would be fewer problems with hunger, disease, and pollution, as well as dwindling resources?

“Again, you don’t explain anything you just make stuff out of whole cloth and state it as fact. Not a very convincing argument.”

Is it necessary to define every little thing? If so, and I’m fully ready, we should take this to e-mail, where neither of us is constrained by the little box and lack of editing tools.

To condense – if people know the constraints of the system in which they live, they will adapt.

Though by no means an expert, I am intelligent enough to see that all the theories (and that IS what they are) of macroeconomics are too simplistic to take into account the many factors of the real world. Otherwise, you could not have economics majors, professors, and Nobel Laureates in disagreement about the stimulus package. If it was an exact science, there would be only one opinion.

“Well duh, they don’t run banks. They just shape the laws the banks have to abide by.”

Your logic fails here, as if that was true, the banks would have disseminated the TARP funds, instead of paying bonusses and buying other banks. The Congress doesn’t wield as much power as the GOP would like to believe. (If only they did, I’d like to see every bonus paid back, and salaries reduced across the board for all who took part in the greed that led to insolvency.)

Thanks for the comments.

“Is it necessary to define every little thing? If so, and I’m fully ready, we should take this to e-mail, where neither of us is constrained by the little box and lack of editing tools.”

When you make grandiose statements it would help your creditability if you at least point out some facts or at least something more than declaring something as being self-evident.

Thanks for the email invitation but I’d rather not. That would only serve the purpose of us trying to convince each other, which would obviously be futile from the looks of how this thread has progressed :-) Also I prefer having open discussions so that others can read and see various points of views. If feels more productive I suppose.

“Though by no means an expert, I am intelligent enough to see that all the theories (and that IS what they are) of macroeconomics are too simplistic to take into account the many factors of the real world. Otherwise, you could not have economics majors, professors, and Nobel Laureates in disagreement about the stimulus package. If it was an exact science, there would be only one opinion.”

I think you over estimate the amount of disagreement between economists.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.html

“Your logic fails here, as if that was true, the banks would have disseminated the TARP funds, instead of paying bonusses and buying other banks. The Congress doesn’t wield as much power as the GOP would like to believe.”

My logic doesn’t fail, you simply misinterpreted my point. I didn’t say that Congress forces banks to do their will. I simply meant that they can facilitate certain behavior through laws and regulations.

“(If only they did, I’d like to see every bonus paid back, and salaries reduced across the board for all who took part in the greed that led to insolvency.)”

I really dislike the greed argument.

Saying our financial problems is the result of greed is like saying the increase of burglaries is the result of envy or the increase of HIV is the result of lust. It is just an argument about human failing, which has been with us from the beginning of our existence. By this line of thinking we should have never had the ability to become as great as a species as we have become. It isn’t as if greed is this new thing that has just now infected people.

You’re welcome for the comments. I’ll let you have the last word if you’d like to reply.

Mike-

“I really dislike the greed argument.”

I took a while to think why this might be – really. I can’t understand why, becuase in my way of thinking, it can only be one of two things – greed, or stupidity.

Thanks for the conversation.

Mike, I know that you don’t seem to want to assign blame – instead calling it human failings – but I think if we don’t assign blame, it makes bad behavior acceptable, if unfortunate.

Assigning blame is the realization that whatever behavior is spoken of must be changed.