I have given up on David Brooks.
I wish he'd give up on me.
He's never been a strong conservative, but he often pushed for conservative ideals. But now he's abandoned those. He puts himself in the "Reformer" camp of the Republican Party, and notes:
[The Reformers] argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government.
I won't bother with going over the entire piece, but I'll just note that if you are not in favor of small government, you are not a conservative (and you're a poor Republican, though one with a long tradition). Small government is the path to liberty. You cannot have liberty without small government. And if you're not willing to push for small government, you shouldn't be a Republican.
The problem is not that American voters won't support slashing government, it's that the Republican Party has not given the people a reason to want to. This is why conservatives desire another Ronald Reagan, not because of some mythical ideal of this Pure Conservative Leader who will lead us to a Promised Land, but because Reagan like no one else was able to communicate why small government was better, and he got the country to agree with him. This is what matters to us.
Brooks bemoans the fact that there is "Republican Leadership Council to nurture modernizing conservative ideas." Brooks is basically saying to us conservatives -- it's not how he sees it, of course, but it's how we see it -- that liberty itself is old-fashioned. We should just give in to socialism, give in to big government, give up our freedom. But the reason we're conservatives is because we reject that. This is what we fight for. It is our political raison d'être.
It's all about liberty. This is the bottom line. This is why our nation was founded, this is why our forefathers died, and it is the only reason why I bother to care about politics at all. For the Republicans and "conservatives" who will abandon liberty, I'd rather they just went all the way and abandoned the Republican Party. (Maybe after over 100 years of this uncomfortable coalition between moderates and conservatives, it's finally time for a split. Maybe not. Ask me again in a few months.)
I don't know whether Brooks is a "coward" or "sellout." I doubt it. Being a coward or sellout would mean that he had held to conservative principles, but one who would so easily abandon those principles in the face of adversity probably didn't.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at November 16, 2008 09:21 AM | Email ThisNotice I say "need" and not "want". People in the cities live in more complicated environments. They have problems that they feel requires big Government infrastructure.
People who live in Alaska, or Eastern Washington, don't need light rail, so of course they're Republicans.
If the Republicans want to succeed, they have to grow the base of people who need less Government. They have to attract people away from the cities into the rural and exurbian areas.
I don't think it's that hard a sell -- many people could easily be persuaded to trade high crime, high tax, high density living for a less costly, healthier lifestyle.
Those newcomers would quickly turn Red as they suddenly see that the need for big Government is not there any more.
So, the best we can do is extend the classic Republican message of creating ever more wealth, not simply taxing the winners (or propping them up with bailout monies either).
Posted by: John Bailo on November 16, 2008 09:37 AMThe GOP only supports one thing. Taking tax payers money, and filling the bank accounts of the extremely wealthy with it.
Too many Americans have finally figured this out. The lies, hate, false patriotism, and fear mongering of the GOP have little effect any more. Even the morons like Joe the Plumber are starting to understand how they are getting screwed.
Why else do you think they sent children to manage the billions that were supposed to go into Iraq's reconstruction? So it can all be stolen. Jeez. If you can count, you can see this one.
You know I'm right.
It appears Brooks, who always puts the best GOP spin on their numerous fraudulent acts, agrees with me.
Along with reform, we need prosecution. Ted Stevens style!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 16, 2008 09:42 AMI suppose pudge would therefore say Alaskans hate liberty.
Posted by: Bruce on November 16, 2008 09:46 AMWhat a shock that you are lying.
I stopped reading at "Republicons." Try growing up and I'll bother reading what you have to say.
This may get you motivated to read some Thomas Sowell, Adam Smith, Vin Suprinowicz (www.lvrj.com - Lost Wages paper opinion writer), and others. You may understand freedom and liberty at some point.
Good luck, big grasshopper.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on November 16, 2008 10:00 AMNothing you say here has anything to do with me. You clearly know nothing about me. I've said many good things about Ron Paul, for years, and all through the primary.
I am not "coming around," I am saying the same things I've always said.
Typical Ron Paul supporter ... you assume that because I opposed Ron Paul for the nomination, or that I criticized him on some points, that I therefore fit into the little establishment box you've prepared for me.
You've never backed up the claim, but continue to make it.
That's dishonest.
An oxymoron if ever I've read one.
"The GOP only supports one thing. Taking tax payers money, and filling the bank accounts of the extremely wealthy with it."
Clearly, factless, you've changed your drugs of choice to move from your "moron" pills to that of high doses of "idiot" meds.
Posted by: Hinton on November 16, 2008 10:23 AM7 trillion added to our national debt, and nothing to show for it but swollen Swiss bank accounts, and an economy in ruins.
Even though Brooks is a smart man, and he is, he is wrong on so many things, at so many levels it is mind boggling. I have seen him put the very best spin on the very worst acts for years. That takes talent. Kinda like being Bush's press secretary.
Pushing "Conservatism" and as DeMint says "Reaganite values" will doom the GOP. They are truly on a bridge to nowhere....
What is sad is the fact that we need a "good" unified Republicon Party. We need a right wing (which I used to be part of) to offset the excesses of the left for America to function properly. We need someone to stand up for the little people, the middle class, rural America, accountability, oversight, and eliminating waste. The dems need help doing exactly that. Believe me they need help...... I mean they really, really, really, really need help.....
There is more to governing that cutting medicare, and cutting taxes on the top 1% while the rest of us pay more, and more, and more to make up the difference. Subsidizing the oil, and coal industries with trillions, while they ignore true problems.
The sooner the party of greed figures this out, the more quickly we will begin to recover from Reaganomics "trickle down" destruction.
Pudge, I will give you $20 if you can name one piece of major legislation that the Republicon congress passed, and Bush signed into law that hurt the top 1% and large corporations, and helped me and you.
You can't. That is what Brooks is talking about, and what right wing lunatics will never ever, ever, ever, ever be able to defend.
It is what makes me right.
All Facts Support My Positions!
Have a great day! Heck. It ain't raining....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 16, 2008 10:25 AM$20
Name one piece of major legislation that the Republicon congress passed, and Bush signed into law that hurt the top 1% and large corporations, and helped me and you.
I put my money where my mouth is.
By the way. Ron Paul was right about the war. His other ideas may work in a country without cities.... Not in the real world.
What I love most about Ron Paul is his preaching "constitution" and then keeping his mouth shut while we were shredding it. I will never call him a fraud though. I think he truly believes the drivel coming out of his mouth.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 16, 2008 10:32 AM"The immoral hypocritical values that drive the unequal/prejudiced/preferrential policies of the Republican Party betray the democratic and moral principles of the majority of America's citizens who still believe that America is about the freedom and equality of ALL people. Republicans are the ANTI-party who offer only more of the same unevolved dogmas, fears, prejudices and social intolerances trying to stem the tide of intellectual, emotional, moral and governmental evolution of a complex pluraistic society. Republicans are anti-government, anti-birth control, anti-choice, anti-immigration, anti-gay rights equality, anti-unions, anti-conservation, anti-environment, anti-diplomacy, anti-free speech, anti-protest, anti-checks and balances, anti-oversight, anti-accountability and anti-government transparency. Most Americans can tell you what Republicans are AGAINST, but few can tell you what they are FOR? What has the last eight years of Republican leadership done but damage or destroy nearly everything it touched? Are Republicans pro-unilateral government, pro-economic collapse, pro-corporatism, pro-carpetbagging, pro-failed and costly phony war, pro-infrastucture rot and decay, pro-pollution, pro-energy dependence, pro-incompetent governance, pro-international alienation, pro-religious extremism, pro-social, economic, racial, sexual and moral segregation? What exactly can Republicans point to over the last eight years that constructively exemplifies Republican principles in action? How could McCain have betrayed Republican principles, when today's Republicans can't legitimately offer examples of how any of their principles have improved the lives of non-wealthy Americans? How does one betray a lie?"
This was written about DeMint blaming McCain for what happened on November 4th. It is entirely true, and relevant.
I win.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 16, 2008 10:42 AMI know you read my whole post Pudge.
No, I really didn't.
When the cons start calling the Democratic Party Democrats, instead of Democrat, I will stop using my slurs.
You're an idiot, and I will not read the rest of any of your three posts here.
You can't even get your correction right: you mean "Democratic" instead of "Democrat," not "Democrats" instead of "Democrat." And the reason the overwhelming majority of people make that mistake is because "Republican" is both a noun and an adjective, so "Democrat" also gets used as both. No one with any sense intends "Democrat"-as-an-adjective as a slur, nor takes it as one.
Note to factless- I'm not looking to go back and forth with you on this matter. I had a couple minutes to clear up one point with you. Life is too short to spend being angry at the MAN for keeping you down.
Posted by: Moondoggie on November 16, 2008 11:18 AMNote to factless- I'm not looking to go back and forth with you on this matter. I had a couple minutes to clear up one point with you. Life is too short to spend being angry at the MAN for keeping you down.
Posted by: Moondoggie on November 16, 2008 11:18 AMName one piece of major legislation that the Republicon congress passed, and Bush signed into law that hurt the top 1% and large corporations, and helped me and you.
See, Republicans believe in helping EVERYONE, and not playing the class warfare game of you Slavery Party dolts... So laws like tax reductions for EVERYONE are passed, and opening up energy generation for EVERYONE, rather than just a certain segment of society.
So how about you tell me what policies that the current Slavery Party run Congress have pushed that help EVERYONE, rather than penalizing those of whom they are envious..
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 16, 2008 11:18 AMBINGO!
It's always a matter of pitting folks against each other with liberals and democrats.
It's always "interest" groups: blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, pro-ports, unions.
ALWAYS.
And the saddest most devious part of all is that NONE of those "interest" groups realize that the pandering TO them is never in the groups best interest. Oh they may get a few side benefits from the attention, but it always costs them.
The difference is that the "interest" groups never think outside their own little interest, forgetting that ultimately they belong to a bigger "interest" group: The United States of America.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 16, 2008 11:57 AMAnn Coulter has a good bit about Brooks in her columns "GOP VOTE DECLINES LESS THAN NYT PROFIT"
http://www.anncoulter.com/
From the column:
For years, New York Times columnist David Brooks has been writing mash notes to John McCain. In November 2007, he quoted an allegedly "smart-alecky" political consultant who exclaimed, in private, "You know, there's really only one great man running for president this year, and that's McCain."
"My friend's remark," Brooks somberly intoned, "had the added weight of truth."
Brooks gushed, "I can tell you there is nobody in politics remotely like him," and even threw down the gauntlet, saying: "You will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men."
That took guts at the Times, where McCain is constantly praised by the op-ed columnists and was endorsed by the paper in the Republican primary. Even Frank Rich has hailed McCain as the "most experienced and principled" of the Republicans and said no one in either party "has more experience in matters of war than the Arizona senator" -- the biggest rave issued by Rich since "Rent" opened on Broadway.
They adored McCain at the Times! Does anyone here not see a cluster of bright red flags?
In January this year, Brooks boasted of McCain's ability to attract "independents."
And then Election Day arrived, and all the liberals who had spent years praising McCain all voted for Obama. Independents voted for Palin or voted against Obama. No one outside of McCain's immediate family was specifically voting for McCain.
But now Brooks presumes to lecture Republicans about what to do next time. How about: "Don't take David Brooks' advice"?
Posted by: pbj on November 16, 2008 12:03 PMSame thing should apply today, make a list of reforms and challenge the majority to adopt these reforms to make government run better. Start with medicare reform, health care reform, immigration reform (something other than build a fence and kick everyone out), offer ideas on how to combat climate change (other than saying it doesn't exist) and the list goes on and on.
If all Republicans do is say we believe in slashing government (as opposed to reforming), offer no solutions on how to get people out of poverty and into college, keep repeating the word tax cuts as the only economic solution and deny global warming, republicans will have a party made up of 65 year old men who live in the midwest. The only way to make government smaller is to first reform it then, as a result of the reforms, you should see a reduction in government (as you did with welfare reform in 94).
Up yours, Brooks.
Posted by: Sasquatch on November 16, 2008 01:09 PMI do agree with a lot of what David Brooks has to say. Republicans need to get back to the ideals of the "Contract with America". The contract was about reforming government programs, not so much slashing government.
I agree strongly that those things are important, but small government must be a part of it. If it's not, then I have no reason to care about the Republican Party anymore. I am a Republican because it's the best way, for me, to get my ideals of liberty implemented. Period. And it's the same for most Republicans I know. Abandon limited government and we abandon the party.
This is, of course, why the Republican Party is shrinking, because this process has already begun: Bush and the Congress have abandoned those principles, and it has been costly.
Now government got smaller after many programs were reformed, but if the republicans had ran by saying they were going to "do away with welfare" then they would have got slaughtered instead they talked about reform.
They never said they would get rid of it, and didn't try: they DID say they would reform and shrink it, and they DID do it, and now even the Democrats say that was a good thing! This is a perfect example: small government wins. Sure, many of us want it to be even smaller, but at least it is going in the right direction.
Start with medicare reform, health care reform, immigration reform (something other than build a fence and kick everyone out), offer ideas on how to combat climate change (other than saying it doesn't exist) and the list goes on and on.
And every one of those solutions MUST come from a foundation built on the notion that the government that governs least, governs best.
If all Republicans do is say we believe in slashing government (as opposed to reforming), offer no solutions on how to get people out of poverty and into college
I reject the notion that federal government has ANY business in trying to get ANYONE out of poverty OR into college. This is the wrongheaded thinking that's given us a multi-trillion-dollar deficit. This is socialism, and unconstitutional. It is duly rejected.
keep repeating the word tax cuts as the only economic solution
Straw man. No one does that.
and deny global warming
Why do you hate science?
Posted by: pudge on November 16, 2008 01:26 PMShe IS a cancer in the GOP.
So is Obama.
She represents another move from the rational thought of Buckley to complete mindlessness.
Just like Obama represents a move from the rational thought of Moynihan to complete mindlessness represented in mantras like "change" and "hope" and "si se puede."
It may be successful as some sort of faux-populist cover for policies to benefit the rich, but she doesn't represent a thoughtful philosophy behind the idea of limited government.
Just like Obama does not represent a thoughtful philosophy behind any ideas.
And while you're thinking of all the ways in which I'm wrong about Obama, realize that I have just as many about how you're wrong about Palin. If you can't come to such a realization, then you're the problem.
You know who you are.
funny: Obama is a cancer on the republicans - maybe because he just kicked your butts.
What Palin does not know about government would be an embarassment to a third grader (how the senate works and the VP duties, any supreme court decisions besides RoevWade, what the Bush doctrine is, what she did with the money for the bridge to nowhere that she supported).
That little immature (and supposedly intellectual) Pudgie is a strong supporter of Palin, tells me all I need to know about the lack of intelligence and the rampant stupidity of one "Pudgie"...grow up and sart living in raelity. You guys lost and lost big.
Howeve, I hope the view of the pathetic "pudge" types prevailes in the GOP, because it will guarantee that republicans remain a small, fetid minoty party for years to come.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 16, 2008 03:03 PMShrug. You're one to talk. Nothing you say is reasonable. To take your first example: she knows the Constitutional duties of the VP. She was not saying she didn't. She was saying she did not know what President McCain would want from the VP, which is obviously not the same thing.
Any third grader should know this. You don't. Pathetic.
Sarah Palin Will Never Be President -- Trust Me
"....The small smear of red on the otherwise blue electoral map looks more like a minor bloodstain on a dirty Band-Aid than anything resembling a national political party. Who voted for McCain/Palin in bigger numbers than they even voted for Bush/Cheney? Only one shrinking group: uneducated white folks in the deep south and a few folks in Appalachia. Take away the white no-college-backwoods-and/or-southern McCain/Palin vote and the Republicans would have been approaching single digit electoral college oblivion.
Sarah Palin will never hold national office nor will any Republican at the presidential level for a long time to come. Why? Because America has uneducated jerks in it but is not a nation of uneducated jerks. The Republicans are done, hoisted on the petard of their own "southern strategy."
The Republican Party is only a step away from becoming the fringe of the fringe, identified more with cross-burning weirdoes wearing hoods, folks like the Alaska secessionist party, all those gun owners stocking up on assault weapons before the "Socialist/United Nations/Obama/Muslim" conspiracy comes to fruition, than with anything remotely like a serious national political force.
The Republican Party--and I speak as a former lifelong Republican who, up through the 2000 primary campaign supported John McCain and even worked for him by arguing his case on various conservative and religious radio stations--is now the toy of the Rush Limbaugh windbags. These folks include outright crazies (such as Sarah Palin's Assemblies of God pals who are waiting for Spaceship Jesus to rescue them and/or rooting out "witches" from their midst), white racists and a few not-very-bright attention seekers, including Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity etc.
Read their blogs! Listen to their talk radio! You'll be in the twilight zone of front page tabloid fantasy on a par with Bat Boy Attacks! headlines. Bill Buckley roll over.
The Religious Right, the racists, the anti-gay hate-mongers are now not only marginalized but thoroughly out of step with even members of their own former constituency. For instance the Gordon College student newspaper (Gordon is an influential Evangelical College north of Boston) endorsed Obama this year. Many young evangelicals voted for the Democrats. James Dobson, Fox News, Limbaugh et al. were utterly powerless to do more than stir up hate. They are losing the next generation of their "base."
Meanwhile many former Republicans--like me--ran to Obama as fast as our legs could carry us and away from our willfully "we're not an elite" moronic former party. Republican commentators such as David Brooks and George Will mourned the loss of the Republican center. Others noted the Republicans have become anti-intellectual. "Anti-intellectual?" They wish! How about simply anti-literate?
Meanwhile the fringe of the fringe is holding meetings where they'll talk to themselves and look at the "facts" of their alternative universe in order to figure out "what went wrong." These are the same "leaders" (like William Kristal) who think Sarah Palin has a big political future!
Sarah Palin will never be president because the right wing of the Republican Party has perfected the art of believing their own bullshit, starting with the idea that Palin has a future. Palin and her fans don't know it yet, but having reduced itself to a grim angry joke, the Republican Party has also divorced itself from American politics and, along with that dirty used Band-Aid, is destined for the garbage can.
What's the best defense against the rube/Palin voters derailing the Republican Party forever? If the statistics of who voted for whom are correct, the education of white people in the deep South and their economic empowerment is the best answer. Maybe it will take a black Democratic president to figure out some affirmative action program that can get our southern born-again white underclass into colleges and thereby save the Republican party."
Frank Schaeffer is the author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back. Now in paperback
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/sarah-palin-will-never-be_b_143036.html
Pudge and the rest of the wackos love to call everyone who disagrees with them a liar or commie.
Pudge's claim to fame is he attempted to manipulate the ballots in a baseball contest, a bit of computer highjinx. Slightly dishonest, don't you think? Wouldn't that make him a liar. The Everett Herald reported on this.
So in the second paragraph, when I read "Sarah Palin will never hold national office nor will any Republican at the presidential level for a long time to come," I just move on.
We have never had more than three consecutive Presidents from one party, when there was another serious party. It's only happened twice, once after the Federalist Party disbanded, and the other after the Civil War. And since the President's been term limited we've never had more than 12 years by one party, and that's only happened once.
No, semi-permanent control by either party is a dumb myth that no serious person buys into. Frank Schaeffer is no political expert. He doesn't know what he is talking about.
Pudge and the rest of the wackos love to call everyone who disagrees with them a liar or commie.
You're lying. I have never, ever done that.
Pudge's claim to fame is he attempted to manipulate the ballots in a baseball contest, a bit of computer highjinx.
Oh please. Most people around here don't even know about that.
Slightly dishonest, don't you think?
Not at all. Why would you say it is dishonest? I was completely up front about it. There was no rule against doing what I did, and I didn't try to hide it.
You are not now, nor have you EVER been a Republican. That lib sock puppetry is beyond dated. Pathetic really. Take yourself and the rest of the Obamatons to your alter at KOZ kidz and worship there.
Posted by: TheTruth on November 16, 2008 05:25 PMThe young evangelicals are not as passionate about the same issues as their parents; they focus on social justice, the environment and eradicating poverty (here and around the world). They are pro life but they see the abortion issue and an issue where you have to change peoples heart not change the law. Young evangelicals also see taxation as a good thing (so long as it is not wasted) and are more willing to give a little to give someone a hand up (not a hand out). Where the R's can win is by saying they will be the anti-corruption, efficient government party that has a heart, not the slashing government, moral majority party of the past.
I think the Newt Gingrich wing of the party will prevail in the coming years. He is a problem solver and knows how to market issues. He will work across the party and across the aisle to get things done. You won't hear him talk about banning abortion (he is pro life but understands that you won't win elections in the west, east or upper mid-west by running on this issue). You will hear him talk about reforming immigration, offering green solutions, transforming the health care system and education reform. These are also issues that Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Mark Sanford talk about, that is why they are all popular governors and the future of the republican party.
Posted by: jk on November 16, 2008 05:42 PM
(crickets chirping)
BTW. Thank you "friend".
I feel sad. Soon it won't even be enjoyable making fun of the pretty much deceased G.O.P. (Prefers GOP Party) swine, while they form circular firing squad, after circular firing squad.
They don't even understand why they lost. Until they come to grip with reality, and give up on supporting their corporatocracy fantasies, and their "world is only 6,000 years old" base, they will be the laughingstock of every rational American.
Funny how the righties wanna call me names, but can't name one single thing the G.O.P. has done to help them (non billionaires) and myself. Not even for money.....
You are not sad.
You are pathetic.
The adults are back in charge!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 16, 2008 05:51 PMI do believe that your views, and those of the hard right, are becoming more and more the minority views of this country.
Liberty never goes out of style.
The young evangelicals are not as passionate about the same issues as their parents; they focus on social justice, the environment and eradicating poverty (here and around the world).
Yes, they've not been taught what liberty really means, or why it is valuable. That's what you get with a government education system. But they still understand it, at a very deep level, and when they come face-to-face with it, they still opt for it.
They are pro life but they see the abortion issue and an issue where you have to change peoples heart not change the law. Young evangelicals also see taxation as a good thing (so long as it is not wasted) and are more willing to give a little to give someone a hand up (not a hand out).
See, that's just inconsistent. And those who are educated recognize it as such. You don't want to use government to force people to not have abortions, but you DO want to use government to force people to provide "charity"? It's illogical nonsense.
Where the R's can win is by saying they will be the anti-corruption, efficient government party that has a heart, not the slashing government ... of the past.
Again: liberty never goes out of style. And I don't consider forcing people to give to others as "having a heart." I call it what it is: legal plunder. Theft. Socialism. A violation of liberty and of the Constitution.
I think the Newt Gingrich wing of the party will prevail in the coming years.
Then you are contradicting your claim that the GOP should focus on small government. That is a mantra Newt has never given up on.
Factless:
I feel sad. Soon it won't even be enjoyable making fun of the pretty much deceased G.O.P. (Prefers GOP Party) swine, while they form circular firing squad, after circular firing squad.
So sad how uneducated you folks on the left are. This was the exact position the Democrats were in four years ago: shut out of power, lost big, and pointing fingers at themselves. Now, the Democrats had one thing in common that held them together: irrational hatred of George W. Bush. If not for Bush, the Democrats would have self-destructed.
The Republicans don't have anything like that, but we do have one thing the Democrats have not had since Kennedy: a majority of Americans who agree with them on their major principles of governance, on low spending and low taxes, on personal liberty, on property rights, and so on. The problem is simply in, first, actually putting those principles into action instead of paying mere lip service, and then in reminding the majority of Americans about why those principles are timelessly valuable.
People like Brooks think those principles are old-fashioned. They are wrong. The Democrats won not because they gave any vision for the future, other than a vision without Bush. They had no serious ideas or policies that won any major election. Democrats can only win big elections by avoiding the real philosophical issues.
And this is, therefore, where Republicans need to attack, and they need to do it without the dead wood of people like Brooks.
They don't even understand why they lost.
I know exactly why we lost. It was a combination of abandonment of conservative governance, coupled with fallout from the Iraq war, wrapped up in a failure to promote the values of liberty. That's it.
Until they come to grip with reality, and give up on supporting their corporatocracy fantasies, and their "world is only 6,000 years old" base, they will be the laughingstock of every rational American.
No rational American thinks there IS a base of voters that thinks the world is only 6,000 years old. Young Earth Creationists are mostly a figment of the left's imagination.
Funny how the righties wanna call me names, but can't name one single thing the G.O.P. has done to help them (non billionaires) and myself. Not even for money.....
The GOP cut everyone's income taxes.
Now, where's my money?
Posted by: pudge on November 16, 2008 06:20 PMYou may not agree with him on a number of points or his perceived agenda, nor do I - however he represents the mainstream. I don't see any other alternative media becoming any more influential in the near future, so we have to speak out about its partisanship and somehow win them back.
Moving toward the center with a clear, consistent conservative message, is what the Republican Party will need to do if they are to be more competitive. Most of all they need to train politicians (especially those who aren't lawyers) in debating and effective communication, two things which the Republicans seem to be woefully deficient.
I have heard that many politicians on the right do not listen to talk radio with any regularity, but am not sure if that is necessarily a bad thing, other than McCain could have developed a more concise message if he had heard and followed the advise that the more knowledgeable radio personalities gave him.
Posted by: KS on November 16, 2008 06:55 PMMoving toward the center with a clear, consistent conservative message, is what the Republican Party will need to do if they are to be more competitive.
If by "move toward the center" you mean "promote big government" -- as Brooks does -- then that is contradicted by your claim that we should have a "clear, consistent conservative message."
Posted by: pudge on November 16, 2008 07:05 PMpudge said:
"See, that's just inconsistent. And those who are educated recognize it as such. You don't want to use government to force people to not have abortions, but you DO want to use government to force people to provide "charity"? It's illogical nonsense."
If you look at countries where abortions are banned, there is a much higher rate of abortion than in countries were it is legal.
In order to reduce abortions in this country, you have to encourage and make adoptions easier, make sure that those who do have an unexpected pregnancy are taken care of with quality health care (a majority of unwanted pregnancies take place in poor homes) and if you outlaw abortion and the mother decides to keep the baby, will we just let them live in poverty where they will be on food stamps and welfare or do we help them out by giving them grants for schooling and job training?
I know one can say "you made a poor choice, have a nice life" but doesn't this view cost society more in the long run?
I think it would be worth the cost to prevent abortions but, unfortunately, a majority of those that are against abortions aren't willing to adopt, they aren't willing to provide care or support those that did maybe make a bad decision. If mothers knew there was a chance they would not be subject to poverty and ridicule for one bad decision they may make a different decision and not abort. But who will step up and help them??
Posted by: jk on November 16, 2008 07:19 PMFrom the bottom up.
"The GOP cut everyone's income taxes." No, they cut the taxes mostly for the extremely wealthy, and because of the shortfalls, "most" Americans had to make up it by paying more for practically every thing they touch. And yer gonna tell me adding 5 to 7 trillion to our national debt was "good" for us? I'll keep the $20 until you name something that is not laughable. Our kids are gonna have to pay for their tax cuts with interest.
"Young Earth Creationists are mostly a figment of the left's imagination." I guess you have never been to a Texas Mega-Church....
"failure to promote the values of liberty" I will give you this one. Supporting the following did not help Republicons:
Free speech zones
Warrantless wiretapping of non terrorists
elimination of habeas corpas (a big one)
warrantless searches
was based on lies
secret government
executive privliege
torture of KNOWN TO BE innocent victims
rendition of known innocent victims
right to a speedy trial
abu gharib
Alberto Gonzales (124 I don't recalls)
Scooter Libby (treason)
Karl Rove (treason)
The list goes on. You have this part right Pudge! Republicons have urinated on many innocent victims "liberty" haven't they. The "liberty" you pretend to want to spread is right out of Orwell's 1984. Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength. Etc.
"This was the exact position the Democrats were in four years ago" No. The dems faced a very unpopular liar who fooled a bunch of ignorant cowards into voting for him and won a squeaker, if he won at all. There are still hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters in Ohio that never had their votes counted in 2004. What is the margin in the house now? The Senate? And we now will have a president that doesn't make the world want to throw rocks at us to boot! Not exactly the same situation. The prosecutions of the Bush Crime Family have not even started.... It is not so much Bush, and this you don't seem to understand. Bush could not have done as much damage to America as he did without the lock step help of the Republicons. We all blame them just as much as Bush. Oh, I forgot. Trickle down looting, and de-regulation beyond sanity hadn't completely destroyed our economy 4 years ago either. Americans all know what caused this disaster, and it sure wasn't the dems in power refusing to do ANY OVERSIGHT.
"major principles of governance, on low spending and low taxes" Huh? What? Gimmee a break. Americans want responsible, accountable, open, honest government. Period. Low spending and low taxed did not get us out of our last depression, and it will not help us this time. We need tax policies that give EVERY AMERICAN a society, and government that works. Not just policies that benefit the wealthy, and large corporations while our infrastructure, and way of life crumbles. Also 4 years ago the dems base wasn't dying off like flies, and young voters joining the cons at a 2 to 3 to one ratio.
GOP = RIP
Unless of course you listen to the people like David Brooks, Waylon Jennings, Colin Powell, and the other "conservatives" that today's GOP makes sick to their stomachs. Conservative does not mean pro corporation, and anti family. Sorry.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 16, 2008 07:22 PMThe last refuge of those who have no facts: blame the other person.
Fact: Palin said (in response to ids question about what the VP does), "[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom."
That is the exact quote. The vice presidents ONLY role in the senate is breaking a tie vote, the VP does NOT make policy changes in the senate. This is simply wrong and you would think someone running for the office would know what is about.
You would also think that Pudge would actually know what Palin said since he is a big Palin supporter (excuser).
Again, an average HS student would know more than Pudge or Palin about how government works and would be able to name more than one supreme court decision.
Sad, really the lack of intellectual integrity shown by Pudge and the Palin lovers. Competence is not a qualifiaction to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency?
Thank god we did not have to go through Palin as VP. She is an embarassment.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 16, 2008 08:03 PMI am for smaller government, but have seen little evidence of reducing government size in the past 40 years. This is what really needs to be done, but we know it won't be in the next four years. I don't believe David Brooks would be against a smaller government - he just wants to know what the Republicans are bringing to or have brought to the table lately.
Posted by: KS on November 16, 2008 08:04 PMRead and get a few facts. Oh, for something else done for EVERYONE? How about the across-the-board capital gains tax cut. The same cut and rate for EVERYONE.
So why don't you tell me what policy that your Slavery Party supports that is equal for ALL people, not just class warfare bribery?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 16, 2008 08:24 PMThey get to pay what you an I don't WITH INTEREST!!! Since you don't seem to understand how taxing (screwing) our children ('s future) is not "good" for you or me, I won't even try to explain what a credit default swap is, and how these swaps, that paid for a whole bunch of mansions on Long Island trashed our whole banking system.
Slavery party. I like that. Boy you sure got some reeeeely good names for us reality based folks.
As far as class warfare goes, Reagan started the war on the middle class, the poor, and unions. Him, and the fools that believed helping rich people get richer somehow helps poor people, who lose more, and more every day. The Reaganites dream appears to be turning America into a 3rd world country, and we could be there soon if we don't make some changes FAST!
I suggest you get behind your new president, and help him undo the damage "conservative trickle up economic policies" have done to our nation, and it's people. Won't it be nice not having a moron in the white house?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 16, 2008 09:13 PMThe list goes on, and on, and on.
The Republicons only support 2 policies. Raping and pillaging. Their time has ended. For good. Too many people now understand just how sickening their ideology of fear, hate, and greed truly is, and how far down it has taken our great nation.
America can rise again. Just watch!!!!
Yes We Can.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 16, 2008 09:26 PMBushonomics = Screw Vets
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 16, 2008 09:29 PMIf you look at countries where abortions are banned, there is a much higher rate of abortion than in countries were it is legal.
Irrelevant if true. I couldn't care less if it is true, as you even concede that it is not about whether abortion is banned, but the availability of adoption services and so on.
In order to reduce abortions in this country, you have to encourage and make adoptions easier
Adoptions are very easy in this country if you are a mother looking to give up your newborn, and it is very easy to find homes for newborns.
make sure that those who do have an unexpected pregnancy are taken care of with quality health care
A fine charity opportunity. If you mean government-supplied, then you mean stealing.
if you outlaw abortion and the mother decides to keep the baby, will we just let them live in poverty where they will be on food stamps and welfare or do we help them out by giving them grants for schooling and job training?
Do you want to steal to give them all these wonderful things? Or will you simply give of your own accord, as many people do?
a majority of those that are against abortions aren't willing to adopt
I know a ton of people who are anti-abortion who have adopted, and very few who are pro-choice who have. Shrug.
they aren't willing to provide care or support those that did maybe make a bad decision
You're just making that up. Some of the most active charities I know are those that help unwed mothers.
Once again, didn't read your comments. As I was responding to jk I read your last comment, which read "Bushonomics = Screw Vets." Another complete and total lie. First, vet spending has dramatically increased under Bush, and second, the Democrats have been in charge for the past two years and if there was a serious problem with funds they could have fixed it by now.
(And no, an Iraq bill with vet spending in it doesn't count. If the Democrats were serious about vet spending, they would have passed it as a separate bill: what really happened is the Democrats were using the vets as a political tool to attack Bush, which is unconscionably un-American.)
Um. Saying you're wrong is "blaming the other person"? No, it's called "debate."
The vice presidents ONLY role in the senate is breaking a tie vote, the VP does NOT make policy changes in the senate.
She didn't say they did. You're misrepresenting what she said. She explicitly said the VP could work WITH THE SENATORS to make those policy changes, not do it by herself. Why do you make your lies so transparent?
And what you said is comically false: no, the VP's only role is NOT to break a tie. Sigh. Do our schools teach ANYTHING these days? The Vice President is the President of the Senate. The VP can preside over the Senate at any time he chooses.
What Palin said is absolutely true: the VP can work with the Senators to make policy changes. The Senators probably wouldn't want to work with the VP -- the tradition of ignoring the input of the VP started way back with John Adams -- but that is something the VP could do.
I absolutely do. He has been increasingly hostile toward actual conservatism, and has essentially abandoned the principles of liberty behind it.
It's as though he and many other moderates were only for small government because they thought it sounded nice, whereas conservatives come to small government ideas because that is where their principles necessarily lead them. Brooks does not share those principles, so he is free to abandon the policies at will.
I forgot, you owe me money. So now scanning your comments ...
"The GOP cut everyone's income taxes." No, they cut the taxes mostly for the extremely wealthy, and because of the shortfalls, "most" Americans had to make up it by paying more for practically every thing they touch.
Sigh. You're lying to avoid paying me my money. Typical.
Oh, and the first item in your list in that comment is a lie: Democrats gave us "free speech zones," not Republicans. Oh, and the next one is a lie too, Clinton gave us the warrantless wiretapping. Oh, and there was no elimination of habeas corpus, so that's a lie too.
I am not going to bother going further, your ignorance is too depressing.
Here's a priceless one from Factless:
Shanghai Dan. I don't think you understand taxation. You can only cut taxes when you have a surplus. What Bush did was defer taxes onto our children, and their children, and their children.
So tax cuts aren't really tax cuts, they're deferred taxes, go that? Can't cut when you have a deficit...
Yes, he ACTUALLY wrote that. I know, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, apparently Factless wasted his a LONG time ago...
So Factless with your multiple posts, before I even consider your illogical questions, tell me:
How pissed are you that your Marxist Messiah was LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH when he claimed to give a tax cut to 95% of all people? He's still going to have a deficit. So these aren't tax cuts.
Slavery Party Failed Abortion, Bruce, Ivan, you guys want to straighten Facts out? Because it's clear That One will not give tax cuts. It's impossible according to your slack-jawed brother-in-socialism Factless!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 17, 2008 12:14 AMOh, and about debate, it is a discussion of opinions and facts - but you resort immediately to name calling when you are out-gunned on the facts. In third grade that was maybe acceptable, but for adults is is just juvenile.
She said, ""[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes"
The constitution says that the VP is the "president' of the senate - but senate rules for over 150 years limit the role of the VP - and they cannot make policy changes working through the senate, period.
She has NO clue about the office and neither do you.
Guess you had no reply to the Bush record deficit?
Reopublicans are the party of spending, deficit and corruption. No amount of excuses can get away from that - that is why republicans lost and why the republicans are becoming a small minority party of the deep south.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 17, 2008 07:14 AMUm. Yes. That is what I said. Why do you reply "No"?
According to senate rules, she can't do that, period.
False. Any American can work with Senators to make policy changes. Why are you making up rules that don't exist?
The constitution says that the VP is the "president' of the senate
Oh good, so you admit you were wrong when you said the VP's only role is to break a tie.
Guess you had no reply to the Bush record deficit?
There is nothing in this discussion about any "record deficit." You're really bad at this.
All Wiretaps Under Clinton Had To Be Approved By A FISA COURT. If President Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps, it would have been a crime. Just like it was when Bush did it hiding behind his 9-11 smoke screen. The difference is the prosecution thing. I remember how loud the Republicons were screaming about having the "secret court" the only thing Clinton had to do to wiretap someone. Don't you?
I will gladly send you a $20 bill when you name some major legislation the Republiconvicts passed, and Bush signed into law that BENEFITTED you, and I, and did not help large corporations, and the ultra wealthy.
I am just making a point.
Bush, and his Republicon partners in crime have looted our treasury for around 7 TRILLION dollars, and "we the people" have nothing to show for it except a bunch of swollen Swiss bank accounts for his rich friends. Don't forget Bush inherited a surplus.
I REPEAT """SURPLUS"""!!!!! -> Deal With It
If you think giving huge tax cuts to the top earners, and a muffler to the rest of us, and adding 7 TRILLION to the national debt was good for America you should give me $20 out of incomprehensible stupidity.
If you truly thing Republicons should be running our government, you belong in a rubber room.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 17, 2008 08:36 AMNot even for money.
Get that. Not even for money.
Let's hear it righties!!! Start calling me names now. It is all you can do, since you have no answer. Just like 3rd grade, when you stopped your development.
BTW. "It's all Clinton's fault" won't work.....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 17, 2008 08:42 AM
All Wiretaps Under Clinton Had To Be Approved By A FISA COURT.
False. That happened later: Clinton's administration first said they didn't have to do that, and then later agreed to do it anyway.
I remember how loud the Republicons
Oops. I have to stop reading now, both this post and the next. Next time be an adult.
Quickly scanning for my money ... ah, you're lying to get out of it again. You keep changing what you say: the last time you said nothing about not benefitting "rich" people. No legislation should be geared to not-help rich people. That's un-American.
Oops, I read too far. Ran into another lie:
Don't forget Bush inherited a surplus.
A lie by implication: Bush ALSO inherited a recession which wiped out the surplus. The recession cost us more in revenue than the surplus. That, plus the economic effects of 9/11, would necessarily have given us a deficit no matter who was President, unless that President drastically cut spending or drastically increased taxes. There's simply no doubt about this.
There. NOW I stop reading.
Despite your continued lies that no one can come up with things the GOP has done good for the American people -- and then when they come up with something you try to say "but it helps rich people so it doesn't count!" -- there's many that don't help rich people.
No Child Left Behind does not help rich people, for one obvious example, and yet, despite any problems people may have with it, it dramatically increases funds to public schools and has increased test scores.
It also steals liberty by violating the 10th Amendment, but that is not something you care at all about, of course.
Therein lies the problem: most things you would put in the category of helping Americans, but not helping rich Americans, are unconstitutional, and the Republicans are not predisposed to favor such programs. Democrats are.
You can paypal me my $20.
As to your "surplus" point. If we were headed into a recession, why did Bush give the corporate rebates (over 1 trillion), and cut taxes on the wealthy? I understood that if the Bush Regime left Clinton's tax policies in place, the surplus would have continued, but there is no way of knowing for sure.
I don't know of a single case where the Clinton Administration authorized any wiretaps without FISA which had been in place for years. They may have argued that they should have been able to, but I don't remember the cons complaining about Clinton having to follow the law like everyone else, or the pillars of our democracy will come tumbling down.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 17, 2008 09:28 AMPudge, I will look into if overall NCLB helped more than it hurt.
Nonsense. By that subjective standard you could argue against ANY policy I bring up, on the grounds that you think it hurt more than it helped.
I do hear it was so drastically under funded that it failed, and I don't know how many dems supported it versus cons, but I will find out.
That it was underfunded is an opinion, not a fact. Educators of all stripes disagree on these points. Some teachers say "we need more money to fulfill these goals," while others say "that's only because you're mismanaging your funds, and besides, you can always opt out of those things."
You should know that to many educators, there is NEVER enough money. Ever.
As to your "surplus" point. If we were headed into a recession
No. We were in one. The LATEST date of the recession beginning was March 2001, just a month after Bush took office. Most people date it before Bush took office, and even the NBER has said they are considering pushing the date back, presumably into 2000, as we had three quarters of negative GDP in 2000 (Clinton's final year in office).
But no matter how you slice it, Bush did not implement any economic policies until the recession begun.
I understood that if the Bush Regime left Clinton's tax policies in place, the surplus would have continued, but there is no way of knowing for sure.
Again: the cost of the recession to the economy, plus 9/11, far exceeded the surplus, which was a mere $128b in FY 2001 (Clinton's last budget). Now granted, much of FY 2001 took place during recession, but the effects of the recession continued through FY 2002, and were multiplied by 9/11. The loss of revenue by insurance, airline, shipping, tourism and so on drastically reduced gross receipts for FY 2002. Afghanistan cost about $10b. Direct costs on the events themselves were about $30b. PATRIOT implementation, the new Department of Homeland Security, the 9/11 Hearings and Report ... billions more.
And that is all on top of the continuing recession and its aftermath.
There is no reason to think the surplus would have remained under Clinton's policies, if we for the sake of argument assume that 9/11 would have happened anyway (and we know that the recession would have happened anyway, of course).
Find out the truth about the supposed Clinton "surplus". It NEVER existed. Period. EVERY year the total national debt INCREASED. Now, if we had a balanced budget with a surplus, the debt would decrease. But we didn't, and the debt didn't drop.
One of the BIGGEST lies of the Marxists in the media is the constant braying about the "balanced Clinton budget". It is an out-and-out LIE. Never happened.
September 30, 1994: $4.692 trillion national debt
September 29, 1995: $4.973 trillion national debt
September 30, 1996: $5.226 trillion national debt
September 30, 1997: $5.413 trillion national debt
September 30, 1998: $5.526 trillion national debt
September 30, 1999: $5.656 trillion national debt
September 30, 2000: $5.674 trillion national debt
September 30, 2001: $5.807 trillion national debt
EVERY YEAR the national debt increased. Those are Clinton's 8 budgets (year's end balance listed).
So where is the "balanced" budget, when we're adding to the national debt each year?
Your delusion is so obvious, your partisanship is blatant and your conclusions simply lies. Truly factless!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 17, 2008 12:02 PMSure. Sarbanes-Oxley.
This piece of legislation improved regulatory compliance and provided for forfeiture of benefits and civil penalties for corporate officers (the top 1%) who falsified financial reports or signed off on fraudulent reports. This greatly improved the reliability of financial statements to millions of individual investors like me and perhaps you. Corporate officers, on the other hand, hated this legislation because of the additional cost and burden it placed on them to accurately account for and report all of their financial information.
Posted by: Palouse on November 17, 2008 03:23 PMIn the 6 years Republipukes controlled congress, and Bush infected the White House, only one piece of major legislation passed that benefited regular Americans, and hurt large corporations, and the top 1%. I think it actually helped the corporations, because after Enron, Worldcom, and a few others, people weren't willing to invest as much. This bill helped everyone. Way to go Palouse!
Anything else they passed? 6 years, and only 1 bill for "almost all" Americans?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 17, 2008 03:39 PMYou can give both of us $20 though.
The odd thing, Palouse, is that Factless is actually arguing for Bush here. It's insane to want legislation that will hurt big companies.
Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2008 03:44 PMCheers.
If I find another one, you going to send another $20?
Posted by: Palouse on November 17, 2008 03:52 PMGonna ignore the deficits of Clinton?
And about an unfair law that penalizes a small section of people - how about McCain Feingold, making it illegal for the wealthy to contribute more than the "common" man (although AlGore and the Marxist Messiah figured out ways to lie about actual donation sources and get around it).
Capital gains tax. That benefited EVERYONE. Do you make interest on your bank accounts? Or any interest/dividend income? If so, you pay lower taxes thanks to that law change.
Letting the "assault weapons" ban expire. Definitely a win for the individual and a definite expansion of the Second Amendment rights we all have.
How about the President's call - and the Republican Congress' answer - for increased AIDS spending world-wide? The Clinton Administration was helping roughly 50,000 people annually around the world. The Bush Administration pushed through funding to raise that to 1.4 million - a MASSIVE increase that even fellow Leftists Bono and Bob Geldof praise the President for.
There's dozens of cases of help for all... This is 4 more. Send another $80 to Palouse.
Palouse, when I get back to Seattle, IF the Marxist Maniac Factless actually pays you the extra money, let me know and we'll go hoist a fine brew at Hale's Ale.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 17, 2008 04:56 PMLetting the assualt weapons ban expire does not help anyone except gun dealers. Not exactly major legislation. I plan on keeping my assualt weapons though....
You think cutting capitol gains tax helps poor people? Really? And it doesn't help folks that make "passive" income sitting by some pool sipping martinis? Who is gonna pay the interest on the money we are borrowing to spend in Iraq, and bailing out the banks who were supposed to regulate themselves? (sic)
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, is what you are referring to when you talk about McCain-Feingold. Good try though. It was definitely a step in the right direction, but now the rich just give the same money to Swiftboat Lying Maggots for Bush, and Freedom's Crotch, and other pathetic lying piles of human feces. Someone needs to spread the lies, and right wing propaganda.
Doing more to fund Aids spending was good, but didn't exactly hurt the wealthy, or large corporations. It is definitely something I would agree needs to be done.
----------
Now list all the things Bush, and the Republiconvicts did that helped large corporations, and the wealthy, and hurt the rest of us?
Got a million years to type?
Get my point?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 17, 2008 07:38 PMYou don't get it, do you... All men are created equal. We have the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (we are NOT guaranteed to be happy, nor even told that the Government will help us reach that Happiness, only make it possible for us).
So explain your twisted, Marxist redistributionist viewpoint that demands you take/punish a few so that others can feel superior. How stealing from a few to give to others is moral.
Please, we're waiting!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 17, 2008 07:47 PMDan, I believe in a flat tax.
Tax net worth, and not wages, including trust funds. The more you have, the easier it is to make money. Duh. The rich need a society that works for all Americans to grow their wealth even more. If America becomes a 3rd world nation, no one will profit, rich or poor. Sometimes we have to suck it up, and do what our country needs. I just wish there were more people from both parties screaming about "bridges to nowhere", and fraud, waste, and abuse, along with unchecked war profiteering, lack of oversight, and no bid contracts. The list of "well connected" slimebuckets living off tax payers is endless. Arianna Huffington calls them the pigs.
Why should the people that have to work, instead of getting an inheritance, pay the lion's share of ALL THE taxes?
The top 1/10 of 1% makes over half the money in America. They don't pay half the TOTAL taxes.
If we weren't drowning in debt we could help "everyone" by cutting "everyone's" taxes, but at this time, we need to tax the "haves" or our nation will be as bankrupt as Iceland. Iceland another right wing privatizing, low corporate tax, disaster.
Taxes suck. Having America go bankrupt, and we are close with Bush's 7 trillion in new debt, will suck far, far worse.
Roosevelt did not bring America out of the DEPRESSION by cutting taxes. Remember?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 17, 2008 09:08 PMNow you really show your lack of facts and judgment:
1. Bush was terrible on the deficit, but the national debt went from $5.8 trillion at the end of the last Clinton budget to $10 trillion at the end of the last Bush budget. So that's $4.2 trillion more debt, not your lie of $7 trillion (or was that just ignorance on your part?)
2. Sure, tax wealth... That is so anti-flat tax as to be laughable! Taxing wealth is the ULTIMATE Communist move. Sitting on an investment? Great - give a big chunk of that to the Government, even if you don't actually cash it in.
3. Why oh WHY would you support the Marxist Messiah if you are for anything like a flat tax, or your Communist ideal of taxing wealth? And if you're such a deficit hawk, then why That One with his promise of $1.5 TRILLION additional in ANNUAL spending?
4. Roosevelt EXTENDED the Depression with his insane policies of taxation and redistribution. In fact, the ONLY reason the Great Depression ended with the war economy when WWII started. Roosevelt ended nothing; the war ended the Depression.
You really are clueless, aren't you? And you really suck at the "hey, I'm anti-tax too!" game.
So tell me, how is YOUR Marxist Messiah going to to reign in the deficit when he has pledged $1.5 TRILLION in new annual Federal spending? That's $6 TRILLION over the next 4 years, 50% more than President Bush spent.
Tell me, how is your Marxist Messiah going to do it by ONLY taxing the top 5%? Combined, the top 5% have an after-tax income of $2.3 trillion; before tax income of $3 trillion. He campaigned and promised to only add 3% additional taxes to those people - that's $90 billion additional receipts.
So if you're such the deficit hawk like you're playing here, explain to us how That One can take $90 billion MAXIMUM new income, and pay for $1.5 TRILLION in spending, and balance the budget?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 17, 2008 09:30 PMThe top 1/10 of 1% makes over half the money in America. They don't pay half the TOTAL taxes.
New statistics from the Internal Revenue Service show that the highest-earning 1% of taxpayers in America make 22.06% of all income reported to the government.
Been listening to that trust-fund baby Ariana Huffington too much! The top 1% make 22% of all income. So that's 10 times the number of people, and 44% of the income that you lumped. So you're off by a factor of 25...
And about the tax that top 1% pay? You know that top 1% who make 22% of the total income in the US?
Those earners in the top 1% pay 39.89% of all federal individual income taxes.
So they pay nearly DOUBLE in terms of taxation to income. Yet they are the evil rich, right?
Tell you what - why don't you have Ariana cut a fat check to the Government debt fund. Hey, she's got a few tens of millions laying around that she can give away...
And how about Warren Buffet? He's got $50 billion! He should give $49.9 billion to the Feds, after all that would still leave him with $100 million...
And you, you make more than $32K a year, right? Well, that's the median so you're in the richest 50%, so you need to give up every dime above that level. Give it right back to the Government like a good little stooge...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 17, 2008 09:41 PMAnd I'm always up for hoisting a brew Dan when you're back stateside. The "regulars" on a message board where I used to live did a meeting of the minds once in a while to get together and have a beer, and it was pretty cool to put some faces with the monikers. I'm up for that with this blog if anyone wants...
Posted by: Palouse on November 18, 2008 07:32 AMIf it makes you feel any better, I'll invite you to hoist a brew with Palouse and me. Even if you are a Perl hacker...:)
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 18, 2008 08:53 AMSorry Pudge...you'll have to take it up with the man. I'll buy you a non-alcoholic beverage of your choice if you can make it next week.
Posted by: Palouse on November 18, 2008 10:52 AM"The problem is not that American voters won't support slashing government, it's that the Republican Party has not given the people a reason to want to. This is why conservatives desire another Ronald Reagan, not because of some mythical ideal of this Pure Conservative Leader who will lead us to a Promised Land, but because Reagan like no one else was able to communicate why small government was better, and he got the country to agree with him."
I'm wondering how you reconcile the small government sentiment with the enormous growth of government under Reagan?
Thanks.
Of COURSE the IRS does not recognize unrealized gains as income - there IS NO INCOME! If you have an asset that has appreciated, it has no value until you sell it.
Now if you loan against it, then that can be counted as realized income from a tax standpoint and will in fact subject you to capital gains taxation.
But you dolt, unrealized gains are NOT INCOME. Of course not. And when you talk about "The top 1/10 of 1% makes over half the money" that is money - income. Not unrealized assets which are worthless until they are realized.
You really don't have a clue, do you?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 18, 2008 01:47 PM