Republican-centric stuff

[dteowner]

As the sequel to the much-loved but locked "Expectations" thread...

We'll start off with a quasi book review for Michael Steele's (GOP party chief) new book. It's pretty obvious to me that the article's author hasn't read the book beyond the table of contents and index.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100105/ap_on_el_ge/us_steele_book

 

[magerette]

Hard to tell from the quoted bits, but it sounds about like what I'd expect from Michael Steele. He's totally right about the "We screwed up." part, but he doesn't seem to understand the concomitant feelings of betrayal that many who once voted republican have, nor do many more politically savvy repubs.

"We should just admit we blew all our principals, go back to them, and move on.." is a fairly honest appraisal of what needs to happen, but neither he nor anyone else seems to understand that you're not going to get there by the same tired hyper-partisan road. People are sick of politicians catfighting with each other at the expense of the country. Many of us have real problems that pols of both sides seem tone deaf to, but for me the repubs are spinning their wheels in the ruts of an old old road right now. Got to find some new cards to play and offer some twenty-first century ideas if they want to just "move on."

In my humble lefty opinion, of course.

 

[txa1265]

"We should just admit we blew all our principals, go back to them, and move on.." is a fairly honest appraisal of what needs to happen, but neither he nor anyone else seems to understand that you're not going to get there by the same tired hyper-partisan road.

Exactly - but what are the principles that need to be returned in order to get a R back next to MY name? Certainly nothing espoused by the tax-shift & spend neo-cons ...

 

[Thrasher]

A "return" to Reaganomics? We've seen the destructive results of that.

So what exactly are these principles?

I would guess that the aren'ts would do better by listening to the needs of the average guy, rather than focusing on partisanship and protecting their core constituency - big corporations and the super rich.

 

[Rithrandil]

A "return" to Reaganomics? We've seen the destructive results of that.

So what exactly are these principles?

Smaller government and personal freedom.

I would guess that the aren'ts would do better by listening to the needs of the average guy, rather than focusing on partisanship and protecting their core constituency - big corporations and the super rich.

You do realize that just as many big corporations and 'super rich' people contribute to the Democrats and vote for them, don't you?

And what about the Democrats? Protecting *their* core constituency: hyper-partisan quasi-marxist class warriors, Teacher's unions, other unions, and sanctimonious holier-than-thou Hollywood types?

 

[Thrasher]

Smaller government = less regulation = the mess we are in now.

But the core constituency of the R's (corporations and the super rich) are still for this and have always been for this. There is nothing to return to here, because the R's are ALREADY there.

Also this "principle" doesn't help the average American.

 

[Rithrandil]

Smaller government = less regulation = the mess we are in now.

But the core constituency of the R's (corporations and the super rich) are still for this and have always been for this. There is nothing to return to here, because the R's are ALREADY there.

Also this "principle" doesn't help the average American.

Ah, I love your pointless straw manning. It's so endearing.

No, smaller government means preventing gross expenditures, high taxes, and other things that launch a torpedo in the economy. Running 600+ billion dollar deficits is a Really Bad Thing (tm).

I mean, you just assert that the core constituency of the GOP are corporations and the rich, conveniently ignoring that your own party is JUST as corporatist as you claim the GOP is. I mean, I expect you to be intellectually dishonest, but you are utterly incapable of admitting even the slightest bit of wrong in your own party. No explanation on how taxing the shit out of corporations or the wealthy is going to benefit the average American. No acknowledgement of the fact that the state with the economic and tax policies that you are in love with - California - is completely falling apart while states with much lower business and income taxes are doing far better. No acknowledgment of how the teachers unions and corrupt unions like the auto workers have destroyed our education system and our ability to be competitive.

You're a Michael Moore/Nancy Pelosi puppet who wants to just blame everything on the other party and close their eyes and ears to anything resembling honest discourse or facts.

 

[Thrasher]

Stop with the personal attacks and slanders.

Clearly that's all you have and can do when I time and time and again I have shown you to be wrong.

You ignore the failure of "less government" and Reagonomics, and the fact that they are still core R principles.

It turns out that the US was most prosperous when the tax on the rich was MUCH higher (look at the tax rates) for the 50s. Lol, the R's have managed to drop the max tax rate from the 91 in the fifties to 35 today. And they say they want to "return" to their core values? So that argument fails.

Also, if it weren't for deficit spending, the current recession would have turned into another Republican Great Depression. So that argument fails as well.

So explain to us again why less government is so much better?

 

[txa1265]

Oh dear ... can we please avoid getting this locked?

 

[Rithrandil]

I'm just curious why I have to sit back and smile if the guy wants to lie through his teeth all the time.

 

[txa1265]

I think the differentiation is between 'you are a fool' and 'why is it that so many on both sides resort to blind talking points rather than informed discussions'?

 

[Thrasher]

Because all you do is call someone a liar when you're plainly wrong.

 

[txa1265]

Because all you do is call someone a liar when you're plainly wrong.

Um ... I was talking to you as well. Let;'s try discussing the ISSUES rather than trashing each other!

 

[Rithrandil]

Mike, because when I have said it that way he just ignores it and doesn't change his tune. He's not worthy of respect or any sort of dialog. He's incapable of rational discourse or actually having an intellectually honest discussion.

Why should I have to humor him and pretend he's none of these things?

And plainly wrong, Thrasher? Fuck it, here we go:

Stop with the personal attacks and slanders.

It's not slander. You *are* intellectually dishonest and incapable of recognizing any faults on your own side. You're also a hypocrite.

Clearly that's all you have and can do when I time and time and again I have shown you to be wrong.

You have never *once* shown me to be wrong. Please, PLEASE provide quotes, sunshine. I'd love to see this - perhaps you'll pull out the quotes where you said all Republicans were evil and that military spending was greater then social spending? Oh, wait …

Or the quotes where you accuse people of using hyperbole and then say that all Republicans just want to steal money from the poor because they hate them? Oh, wait..

I'll be surprised if you can name where I stand on even three issues. You know absolutely nothing, kid.

You ignore the failure of "less government" and Reagonomics, and the fact that they are still core R principles.

You brought up Reaganomics. Not me or anyone else who replied here. The failures of less government - what, you mean like the insane amount of EPA and agriculture regulations that are killing farmers in California? Oh, wait, no there's more government. You mean like the CRA? Oh, wait, no, that's more government.

You mean like the tax codes that are so byzantine that people have to hire others to do their taxes for them? Tax codes so byzantine that even the person in charge of paying taxes "didn't realize" he had to pay taxes on property he owned? Oh, wait…

Go back further then Reagan. It's not my fault you're not educated enough to know anything other then "GUMMYMENT GOOD, REPUBLICANS BAD!"

It turns out the the US was most prosperous when the tax on the rich was MUCH higher (look at statistics for the 50s). So that argument fails.

We also had zero competition because of the rest of the world was still a smoldering heap from WW2 whereas we had nothing but capital and no one standing in our way to invest it. Sorry, you fail.

Like I said, compare California - with the highest taxes in the country - to states with lower taxes.

Also, if it weren't for deficit spending, the current recession would have turned into another Republican Great Depression. So that argument fails as well.

Did I mention anything about the current recession? No? Do you even know where I stand on the stimulus? No?

I'm talking about sustained budget deficits - something your Messiah says are going to be around for the rest of the decade. No plan from Obama McJesus or Pelosi the Baptist on how these deficits are *actually* going to taper down and disappear, and no mention on how we will ever start paying down the debt.

So explain to us again why less government is so much better?

Explain to me why tax rates so high that businesses flee the country and anyone with money finds ways to hide or move their wealth around to avoid taxes is so much better? Explain to me why the teacher's unions, auto workers unions, etc are so wonderful and should be protected to such an absurd amount?

You are the equivalent of the Birthers or those who claim that Obama is a closet Marxist who wants to turn us into the United Socialist States of America.

 

[dteowner]

I thought about weighing in, but I believe Rith's last post does a far better job of presenting the facts without attacking Thrasher than I could at this point. Extremely well said, Rith.

 

[magerette]

Sigh...moving on...

I had a thought earlier in this discussion when Rith mentioned "small government and personal liberties" as core values of the repubs. I'm just wondering how small a government we can have in a country as huge and populous and diverse as the US. I think some party--repubs, dems, teabaggers or whoever--needs to get a platform together advocating SMART government, functional government, cost-effective government. It isn't the fact that the government is B*I*G, per se--it's that it's freakin incompetent. You can't really make it much smaller, in the sense of keeping it out of things more, but you could make what it does make sense and benefit the country.

A party with that approach might get a few votes.

 

[Rithrandil]

Sigh…moving on…

I had a thought earlier in this discussion when Rith mentioned "small government and personal liberties" as core values of the repubs. I'm just wondering how small a government we can have in a country as huge and populous and diverse as the US. I think some party—repubs, dems, teabaggers or whoever—needs to get a platform together advocating SMART government, functional government, cost-effective government. It isn't the fact that the government is B*I*G, per se—it's that it's freakin incompetent. You can't really make it much smaller, in the sense of keeping it out of things more, but you could make what it does make sense and benefit the country.

A party with that approach might get a few votes.

The problem with our government is there's no quality control. You can make an argument that a certain sized bureaucracy is necessary for certain things, and some programs by nature will be large undertakings (the military or education). The issue in terms of 'smaller' government isn't always so much as cutting 40% of spending and positions across the board without regards for what this needs to be, but put reasonable limits on the role of government in society, private lives, and the economy.

But put simply, the United States spends too much money, gets too much tax income from income, and not enough from purchases, to shamelessly rip off a statement from the Economist. How do you address this, though? Well, to be quite honest, most of the cuts are going to have to come from the spending side. However, I - and I think most fiscal conservatives - believe that if we as a country decide a program is necessary, we should fund it properly, and not borrow from China (or any other country for that matter). For instance, I support the proposed 1% "war tax" for the duration of our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think it was criminal that Bush did not institute something similar immediately following 9/11.

You don't want the government to "crowd out" everything because it stifles growth and opportunity. From what I understand, Hong Kong and the Europeans have done pretty decent jobs in terms of regulating financial transactions to prevent things like the housing and credit shell game we were in. I think the U.S. needs to look at seriously considering less intrusive, easier to understand, and streamlined regulations that specifically target behaviors we as a society and a country deem as either unfair, unethical or criminal, whilst at the same time making it easier for those who wish to engage in legitimate business practices to do so.

I'd also argue that the government needs to divorce itself from sheltering big businesses and focus on small businesses far more. If I'm not mistaken, small businesses are responsible for 100% of new jobs *added* to the economy in the past twenty years. It's the small businesses that make or break the country, and they're the ones suffering. The folding of local banks is really damaging their ability to operate effectively (despite the fact that commercial paper is once again flowing); if Heartless Megacorp Bank isn't as willing to deal with Ma and Pa Small Business as fairly as Pa and Mom's Local Bank was, you're looking at another potential disaster if small businesses start collapsing around the country.

Social spending also needs to be brought under control - something that Britain is learning with the NHS, and many states (including California) learned after the burst of the tech bubble in the early 2000's. You have to design these programs in such a way that when a budget crunch comes they don't royally screw us over, because we won't always be rolling in the dough.

I'd also argue for potentially more up front investment in education or career training for people currently living under TANF. While giving these people a helping hand to make ends meet is all well and good, it strikes me that is merely like slapping a band-aid on a bleeding wound and telling the person to drink plenty of clear liquids and they'll be right as rain. These people - when possible - should be given access to higher education or tradesman training so they can get better paying jobs, move off of government welfare rolls, and then contribute money back in the form of the higher tax bracket they'd end up in.

 

[Thrasher]

Damn. I just lost a long post and it is not worth reconstituting.

However, there are many slanders and untruths sprinkled throughout your post about me and yourself, Rith.

incapable of recognizing any faults on your own side.

incapable of rational discourse or actually having an intellectually honest discussion.

you said all Republicans were evil

you have never *once* shown me to be wrong.

In summary, I have proven you wrong about election fraud, and the discussion over defense spending vs social programs never was resolved to my satisfaction. As is your wont, you brought in irrelevant data that clouded the water so much that it became impossible to have a logical argument with you.

And when I provide a rationale argument you conveniently ignore it and bring in other facts. Let's focus on the the current crisis rather than the farmers plight in California. So you think the deregulation of the banking industry and the securities exchange was good for this country? You think the gutting of FEMA and privatization of its functions was good for all the people who died in New Orleans? You think the privatization of military by the use of mercenaries like "Blackwater" is good?

And regarding deficits. Now is not the time to start paying them down. We shouldn't be raising taxes and/or cutting outlays during a recession. That was my point. Yet the Republicans keep harping on the deficit, just like they did before the Republican Great Depression. Now is not the time to be pushing that "principle".

In general I agree with reigning in the deficit, but not now.

Regarding the 50s. Then was not the sort of international trade and business that there is today, so I don't think the "competition" argument explains the prosperity. The US was self-sufficent back then, unlike today. And that's beside the point, the high tax rates did not hurt the prosperity.

 

[Rithrandil]

I'm going to address your arguments first:

Let's focus on the the current crisis rather than the farmers plight in California.

I mentioned that as an example of where less government would be better than the large government you have a fetish for. Perhaps you should follow the conversation?

I also mentioned the California budget crisis as they follow the taxation and economic policies you espouse. So no, it's relevant to the conversation - I know you want to ignore it because it harms your 'tax everyone with more money then me because they are evil' philosophy, but too bad.

So you think the deregulation of the banking industry and the securities exchange was good for this country?

Nope. But neither do I think over-regulation which makes it hard for legitimate business to be conducted is good. You in your partisan blinders just say 'MORE REGULATION!' like it's a cure all. I've consistently said that you need to lower the amount of regulations but target them more specifically to stop the kinds of behavior that actually damages the economy (that is, go look at Hong Kong and a few of the European markets who have more business-friendly practices then we do)

You think the gutting of FEMA and privatization of its functions was good for all the people who died in New Orleans?

That wasn't the only issue in New Orleans. Are you telling me the city and state government weren't at fault? They barely used the evacuation resources they *had*.

You think the privatization of military by the use of mercenaries like "Blackwater" is good?

We've had contractors operating for decades.

And regarding deficits. Now is not the time to start paying them down. We shouldn't be raising taxes and/or cutting outlays during a recession.

I never said we should do it during the recession. I'm talking about the fact that these huge deficits are projected to last until roughly the end of the decade. There's no end in sight. There's no plan to even begin to pay off the debt.

That was my point. Yet the Republicans keep harping on the deficit, just like they did before the Republican Great Depression. Now is not the time to be pushing that "principle".

So the Democrats winning the House and Senate back in 2006 are Republicans now? They had the power to pass legislation, and they didn't. The Presidency is not a dictatorship.

Regarding the 50s. There was not the sort of international trade and business that there is today, so I don't think the "competition" argument explains the prosperity. The US was self-sufficent back then, unlike today. And that's beside the point, the high tax rates did not hurt the prosperity.

Thrasher, everyone had to buy our crap in the '50s. No one else was MAKING anything. American businesses were rebuilding the world. We had control over everything. We didn't have any serious competition.

Now for the good stuff:

Damn. I just lost a long post and it is not worth reconstituting.

However, there are many slanders and untruths sprinkled throughout your post about me and yourself, Rith.

Let's see some of your past statements, again, shall we?

Yeah, greedy, selfish, corrupt Republicans will be pissed off when government funds are going to actually to help people in need rather than putting money in the pockets of corporate CEOs that bribed their Republican cronies.


Continue to justify your greedy and selfish ways, while people die of inadequate healthcare, get killed in gang wars, and remain stupidly ignorant because of poor education, but at least you get to keep all the money you can put your hands on…

Greed is evil, pure and simple.

Hah more irrational rantings trying to justify a bankrupt philosophy, now turning to crazed personal attacks. How very right-wing predictable.

So once again, you've demonstrated what I don't like about the Republican party, they show a strong preponderance of dishonesty and misrepresentation because that's the only way they can attempt to defend their bankrupt philosophy.

That's very characteristic of the selfish self-centered viewpoint behind Republican philosophies.

Some of your lovely quotes. Now kindly shut up and stop whining about slander, you feckless troll.

In summary, I have proven you wrong about election fraud,

You posted a highly partisan source from the House Democratic Staff and refused to back it up with anything else, yet when people have posted articles from *the associated press* you accused those articles of being biased and refused to examine their claims. You've even called people on your own side of the aisle biased against you and not worth listening to because they did not mention a fact you considered supremely important.

So, no, you proved nothing other then your own hypocrisy. Next.

and the discussion over defense spending vs social programs never was resolved to my satisfaction. As is your wont, you brought in irrelevant data that clouded the water so much that it became impossible to have a logical argument with you.

Irrelevant data? I showed you that social spending was double that of defense expenditures **WHEN I SET THE DATA UP TO BE AS MUCH IN YOUR FAVOR AS POSSIBLE**. I included the Department of Homeland Security, the VA, the DEA, and the Army Corps of Engineers as 'the military' and my point was still right. You just tried to say 'OH NOES USE USIN HYPEROBOLEESES!11' because I said double (as in, an extra 800 billion) was "far more" - and then when you accuse Republicans of personally being responsible for gang wars you say it's totally justified and not a hyperbole.

And when I provide a rationale argument you conveniently ignore it and bring in other facts.

Pot, kettle, black. Like you ever respond to anything anyone says unless you can find a quick rebuttle from Moore.

I'm sorry, Thrasher, but discussing anything with you is a waste of my time. Other people on this forum - Magerette and PJ for example, are far to the left of you. But they're honest. You're not. You are deserving of absolutely no respect - none whatsoever - from me. I'm going to just place you on ignore from now on, because quite frankly 'discussing' anything with a party shill from either side of the aisle is beneath me.

 

[Corwin]

Play nice children; there's too much good stuff here for me to want to close this thread, so consider this this a polite warning from your friendly neighbourhood moderator!!