dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,111
- 4,756
- 126
You took the time to write a well-thought out post. It deserves a response. I could agree to lots of items, but certainly not all of the items. If I remember your posts well enough, you appear to be on the libertarian/Republican border. Here are some quick thoughts by a person on the libertarian/Democrat border.
I don't see any direct benefit here. The social conservatives will hate giving up the fight for 4 years. The rest of the people will just assume you'll switch right back to the fight and won't believe you. So, #1 is ineffective. I personally think the GOP either needs to take a strong social conservative stance or ditch it altogether. Until they can resolve this divide, the GOP will be weak and divided. Plus, "not doing anything" doesn't get votes. "Change" gets votes even if you don't plan to change a thing.
Definately needs to be done. But, it needs to be done reasonably. How about a plan to reduce the deficit to zero in 30 years (like a mortgage). That is a pill that can be swallowed. 11 years is just way too painful. Also, I personally think balanced budgets are moronic budgets (look at California). CA is forced by its balanced budget to hire people in good times (the budget is balanced, they have to spend the surplus). Then in bad times CA is forced to raise taxes or fire people (making the recession far worse). Neither option is a good option. Balanced budgets over a 10-year time frame is prudent and possible (build a little surplus in the good times by firing government workers, and use that surplus up in the bad times by cutting taxes). Balanced budgets over a 1-year time frame is short-sighted. Just don't try to back-load the long-term budget plans like Bush did and Obama intends to do, it must be evenly spaced out.
IRS needs major overhauling. The problem is that people don't realize that the fair tax plans are grossly misleading. Think 30%-40% tax rates (not the ~16% tax that is commonly floating around). Then think what a 30% sales tax will do to the housing market. Enough said, since I doubt I'll convince you on this issue.
Global warming is a red herring. It is a wedge issue meant to deflect the debate to the unprovable. But, you are correct, the GOP needs to embrace the idea of stewardship. Forget the potential for global warming. Instead, clean up LA and Huston air because you want good air to breathe for yourself and your kids. Proper environmentalism is done because it is fiscally conservative. Recycle aluminum since you are paid cash for it. Reuse jet planes since we don't need to waste US money buying new ones every year. Be fuel efficient since we don't want to waste US taxes buying oil from foreign countries. All good environmental plans are money savers. If it isn't a money saver, it isn't environmentally friendly. That is a plan that both social and fiscal conservatives can accept.
A bit too much stuff to comment on here. I will say that: (1) I disagree about increasing teacher's pay. They already make far above the median salary and we don't need bigger government. (2) We are damn competitive. We far outproduce in numbers of college graduates and in the economic sense compared to the rest of the world. Don't let meaningless test scores delude you otherwise. I'd be okay with school choice, new funding, firing of administrators who don't encourage or require homework, and eliminating teacher's unions. But, dubious freedom removers (such as uniforms) sound good in preliminary studies but never turn out to be beneficial in the long run. Stick to personal freedoms (school choice) and forget any issue to impede personal freedom in your new plan for the GOP.
I'd strongly support fines for hiring (and housing) illegals. The GOP hates that idea though (business unfriendly). Good luck there. Deportation is just fine, but again the GOP hates that idea (they won't let us deport Guantanimo prisoners in case they might be terrorists). Increased border control might get votes, but it is ineffective in an increasingly mobile world; the GOP will have to address that fact eventually. I'd agree with all of your citizenship changes. If you made those changes, you'd no longer need nearly as much border control since people will come over legally.
I'd be ok with national IDs if they replaced state IDs. I'll trade one form of big brother for another. But I don't need too forms of big government's hands on my identity. I can't see why the GOP doesn't focus on personal freedom here.
I'd be more focussed on personal freedom. Raising some ages and lowering others diffuses that idea. I can support lowering the drinking age if you drastically increase fines for violating existing laws. I can support partial legalization of drugs, but I don't know if the GOP will let you tax them.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
I encourage all Moderates and Independents to read FreeRepublic and listen to Rush before deciding if they want to align themselves with the Republican base politically.
Now you can argue that there are far left elements in Democratic party, but the Democrats at least realize they need Moderates to win, and are reaching for the middle. Republican base is uncompromising and is instead working hard to push moderates out.
Now you can argue that there are far left elements in Democratic party, but the Democrats at least realize they need Moderates to win, and are reaching for the middle. Republican base is uncompromising and is instead working hard to push moderates out.
That would make sense IF the gov't wasn't in the habit of running deficits most of the time for the past 50 years. The Dems have been the party of 'grow-the-gov't' for many years, and thanks to Dubya's 'leadership', the GOP joined them. Long-term, the country's heading off a fiscal cliff, and the two main parties are just debating how fast we reach oblivion.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
reagan spent a lot as well. You guys would be in a lot better place if while you had total control you did spend less. At least they would of been consistent with their stance. dubya was just the epic failure and the end of a unsustainable party idea. now look what you have. Moron southerners in suits jibbering about nonsense, xenophobic ideals and the bible. wtf?
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
GOP has been running huge deficits in times of prosperity, consistently. There is a difference between going into debt to save the economy in near term, which almost every respected economist supports, and consistently running a deficit due to some sort of deluded starve the beast" mentality that Republicans seem to participate in. Also, we would not have to run deficits anywhere near as large if not for deregulation of the financial sector that allowed the sorts of systemic risks to be created that necessitated the government intervention of the size we are seeing. Not much Obama can do about it now except either use government spending to patch the holes or let the economy collapse. There is plenty that Republicans (and to smaller extent Democrats) could have done when times were good to prevent this mess from happening in the first place.
The only time in recent history where the fed budget was close to balanced was when Democrat Bill Clinton was in office.
I voted for Mondale, he said we needed to raise taxes to close the budget deficit. He got destroyed by Reagan, who said we can cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget. Of course that was a complete lie, and Reagan left us with deficits we are still paying for.
Republican budget policies have never worked, and never will work.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
After wading through what amounts to a five page thread, I think we are missing something here about constants, random events, and cyclical social trends.
The big constant is that Republican has always been the party of the Rich who want to stay rich. While democrats have been the party of the middle class and the poor, who are only vaguely aware, the system is rigged against them.
As long as the base of the food chain, namely the poor and middle class, remain healthy, and the world economy also works to the US advantage, Republican rule can work out with a rising tide lifting all boats. But as soon as the world economy turns less USA friendly, then the Rich, to stay Rich, must make up the short fall by cannibalizing the base of the food chain, namely the middle class. And the Republicans have two basic tool to use in such events,
(1) Increase the supply of labor which depresses wages, and (2) Prevent the common sense reforms and regulations that business uses to further rig the system to their advantage.
In terms of random events, to some extent, substitute wars which always benefit big business and the Rich. Of course the first big war to benefits the Republicans was the civil war, but it was, in spite of the carnage and human misery, a rising tide lifts all boats event that really accelerated the US economy. And the post civil war trend of manifest destiny and railroad building propelled the US economy to the biggest in the world by 1900. The Few Rich were ecstatic, but when progress slowed, they started to cannibalize both themselves by financial buccaneering and the labor supply was exploited.
As a result we had reforms started with Teddy Roosevelt and various Union movements started.
Then next big random event was WW1, another big chance for the Rich to get Richer, and times stayed fairly good, at least from a Republican rule perspective, until 1929. When a long series of events, similar to our financial collapse in 2008, all came together to cause a huge crash. When in fact, its should have been the best times in US history, because productivity per man hour had soared in the decade after WW1. The problem was that the Rich had kept all the benefits of that productivity, and Big Business and the Rich had screwed themselves, because when they so damaged the base of the food chain, they killed off the one thing they needed to remain Rich, namely the customer. And the Great depression and the near extinction of the Republican party resulted.
Then, WW2 came along, another rising tide war, created full employment, and because Europe, post war, was so bombed out, WW2 was a gift that kept on giving to the USA. Because Europe was so bombed out, they spent the better part of three decades rebuilding infrastructure, while the US economy made a trade balance surplus fortune selling consumer good abroad. US corporation bore 50% of domestic taxes, Unions flourished, and the Republicans
were again competitive politically. Somewhat ignoring Vietnam as the first US war to have a decidedly negative economic impact, time were good. Uniomn members forgot what it took to get there, civil rights lost the democrats the solid South, but we all thought the USA was the greatest nation on earth. And no one noticed as our balance of trade slipped into the red in 1980.
But the Rich noticed a fortune was to be made importing cheap foreign goods, the gap between the Rich and the poor started to rise, and now here we are right back in 1929 conditions with GWB policy being the jerk that really screwed the pooch. Its really going to hurt the rich and the poor, but until the Republicans realize they blew it, the nation will stay democratic for the foreseeable future, and in far worse shape than we were in 1929.
If the foreign nations quit lending us Money, we are doomed. Because we forgot how to make anything.
The big constant is that Republican has always been the party of the Rich who want to stay rich. While democrats have been the party of the middle class and the poor, who are only vaguely aware, the system is rigged against them.
As long as the base of the food chain, namely the poor and middle class, remain healthy, and the world economy also works to the US advantage, Republican rule can work out with a rising tide lifting all boats. But as soon as the world economy turns less USA friendly, then the Rich, to stay Rich, must make up the short fall by cannibalizing the base of the food chain, namely the middle class. And the Republicans have two basic tool to use in such events,
(1) Increase the supply of labor which depresses wages, and (2) Prevent the common sense reforms and regulations that business uses to further rig the system to their advantage.
In terms of random events, to some extent, substitute wars which always benefit big business and the Rich. Of course the first big war to benefits the Republicans was the civil war, but it was, in spite of the carnage and human misery, a rising tide lifts all boats event that really accelerated the US economy. And the post civil war trend of manifest destiny and railroad building propelled the US economy to the biggest in the world by 1900. The Few Rich were ecstatic, but when progress slowed, they started to cannibalize both themselves by financial buccaneering and the labor supply was exploited.
As a result we had reforms started with Teddy Roosevelt and various Union movements started.
Then next big random event was WW1, another big chance for the Rich to get Richer, and times stayed fairly good, at least from a Republican rule perspective, until 1929. When a long series of events, similar to our financial collapse in 2008, all came together to cause a huge crash. When in fact, its should have been the best times in US history, because productivity per man hour had soared in the decade after WW1. The problem was that the Rich had kept all the benefits of that productivity, and Big Business and the Rich had screwed themselves, because when they so damaged the base of the food chain, they killed off the one thing they needed to remain Rich, namely the customer. And the Great depression and the near extinction of the Republican party resulted.
Then, WW2 came along, another rising tide war, created full employment, and because Europe, post war, was so bombed out, WW2 was a gift that kept on giving to the USA. Because Europe was so bombed out, they spent the better part of three decades rebuilding infrastructure, while the US economy made a trade balance surplus fortune selling consumer good abroad. US corporation bore 50% of domestic taxes, Unions flourished, and the Republicans
were again competitive politically. Somewhat ignoring Vietnam as the first US war to have a decidedly negative economic impact, time were good. Uniomn members forgot what it took to get there, civil rights lost the democrats the solid South, but we all thought the USA was the greatest nation on earth. And no one noticed as our balance of trade slipped into the red in 1980.
But the Rich noticed a fortune was to be made importing cheap foreign goods, the gap between the Rich and the poor started to rise, and now here we are right back in 1929 conditions with GWB policy being the jerk that really screwed the pooch. Its really going to hurt the rich and the poor, but until the Republicans realize they blew it, the nation will stay democratic for the foreseeable future, and in far worse shape than we were in 1929.
If the foreign nations quit lending us Money, we are doomed. Because we forgot how to make anything.
This Chart shows you posted - unknowningly, I'm sure - a lie when you give Democrats equal blame.
Look at the history. Democrats JFK/LBJ had close to zero deficits. Republicans Nixon/Ford increased the deficit moderately. Democrat Carter at first reduced the deficit and then it was back about at the start. Then you get to the serious deficits - Republicans Reagan/Bush 41 skyrocketed the deficit. Then look at Democrat Clinton - he did exactly the opposie - and eliminated in 8 years what they created in 12 years. Then Republican GWB skyrocketed the deficit.
So, the facts show you wrong - you can't find a singe Democrat in the last 50 years (post-WWII) greatly increasing the deficit. Inf fact they either kept it low, or in Clinton's case, got rid of a huge deficit inherited from Republicans. On the other hand, Republicans since Reagan hace skyrocketed it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter