Republicans Only: What should our Party be?

[Nym90]

I think that ideological, center vs. left or center vs. right, intrastate battles miss the point, at least if the argument is about "which ideology gives us a better chance of victory?". Voters vote on the basis of results moreso than they do theories.

On the one hand, moderates have the advantage of appealing to certain voters that more extreme candidates cannot. You have to at least get an audience before you can have a chance of your message resonating, and moderates are able to get a larger audience.

On the other hand, more extreme candidates have the advantage of a more enthusiastic and mobilized base, which is more certain to turn out and perhaps more willing to stay loyal through tough times.

So, in the aggregate, these two factors generally tend to cancel each other out, generically speaking. Obviously individual candidates strengths and weaknesses are another matter.

But that's my point; most voters don't care about ideology that much (as long as the candidate is perceived as sane, anyway). They care more about results (or lack thereof) and that there is at least a reasonable effort being made to improve things, as opposed to just digging in one's heels and saying no to everything.

[Sam Spade]

*cough* stupid thread *cough*

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Anyway, I'm sure the tax cuts were the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to our grandchildren slaving away in a Chinese factory. 

Tax cuts.  War.  Bailouts.  Earmarks.  Pork.  Entitlements.  All things for our grandchildren to ponder while they are learning Mandarin.

Don tax cuts are not the same as Gov't spending. Tax cuts involve taking money out of Washington DC and putting it back into the hands of the people. Spending is just the opposite. We should have paid for the tax cuts by cutting spending but you can't force congressmen, who prefer to buy reelection with pork(Many of you your so called moderates are in this group like Lisa Murkowski), to cut spending.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Don tax cuts are not the same as Gov't spending. Tax cuts involve taking money out of Washington DC and putting it back into the hands of the people. Spending is just the opposite. We should have paid for the tax cuts by cutting spending but you can't force congressmen, who prefer to buy reelection with pork(Many of you your so called moderates are in this group like Lisa Murkowski), to cut spending.

Can you explain that in Chinese?  That way they don't think you're just mumbling as they throw us all into the Hudson New Yellow River.

EDIT: I'm not trying to be an ass - I respect your viewpoint because, in a perfect world, it's my viewpoint too.

Obviously spending cuts paired with tax decreases would be the best scenario.  But even when Republicans had control of the Presidency, House, and Senate - we couldn't get that done.  And if you think that's the fault of the Snowes and Specters of the world, you are deluding yourself.  All of this mess happened during the rise of RINO-hunting when moderates were excluded from leadership in favor of ultra-conservatives like Tom Delay.

Pork and earmarks are a symbolic problem that should be dealt with, but its a very small piece of the debt pie.  The war hurt, and the bailouts are killing us.  And, on top of that, we aren't collecting the money - via taxes - to pay for these things.

My point is that if we can't get rid of the spending, then we HAVE to pay for what is spent.  Obviously passing tax cuts doesn't do anything to curb spending - spending exploded after the tax cuts were passed.  A balanced budget amendment would help greatly, but we couldn't even get that done after the '94 revolution.  We have to start dealing with reality.  Living in an ideology-driven dream world has not served us, our country, or future generations well.

[Rob]

Tax cuts.  War.  Bailouts.  Earmarks.  Pork.  Entitlements. All things for our grandchildren to ponder while they are learning Mandarin.

Your grandchildren should also ponder why you enthusiastically enabled all of this.

Kids: "Granddad, what did you do when our country was sliding into hell at the turn of the century?" Don: "Well, kids, I prided myself on being a worthless hack, so I just kept
voting for the people who were doing it and blamed the Democrats!" *awkward silence*

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Tax cuts.  War.  Bailouts.  Earmarks.  Pork.  Entitlements. All things for our grandchildren to ponder while they are learning Mandarin.

Your grandchildren should also ponder why you enthusiastically enabled all of this.

Kids: "Granddad, what did you do when our country was sliding into hell at the turn of the century?" Don: "Well, kids, I prided myself on being a worthless hack, so I just kept
voting for the people who were doing it and blamed the Democrats!" *awkward silence*

Kids:  Didn't you do anything about it granddad?
Don: Yes, I attempted to change conservative hearts to return to their roots of fiscal sense and responsibility.  Paying for what you spend and not stealing from you kids.
Kids:  Did it work?
Don: What languages do you speak?
Kids: English, and a lil Spanish I guess
Don: No Chinese?
Kids: What's a Chinese? 
Don:  Exactly.

[Keystone Phil]

You know, Don, you lecture us in another thread about our alleged fears of different languages and cultures (which is totally false in my case at least) and then you go on this fear campaign against the Chinese. Just take a step back and think about that for awhile before you go branding others xenophobes.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

You know, Don, you lecture us in another thread about our alleged fears of different languages and cultures (which is totally false in my case at least) and then you go on this fear campaign against the Chinese. Just take a step back and think about that for awhile before you go branding others xenophobes.

My fear campaign is against the debt, and China is the largest foreign holder of our public debt. (22%)  Feel free to insert "Japanese" (19%) or any other country you please.  Hell, the British own 12%, could you imagine if we all had to stop speaking American

[Scam of God]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

Your Party had best learn right quick the difference between economic conservatism of the genuine, Coolidgean variety and supply-side welfareism. One won't drain the treasury.

[Aizen]

Looks like the Republicans are all fighting one another. How amusing. *sips wine*

[paul718]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

Very true.

However, you live in a country with a government.  If that government accumulates liabilities on your behalf, you are responsible for these liabilities.  If you choose, via your representatives, not to pay for those liabilities through your taxes - said liabilities do not disappear just because you do not want to pay them.   Your government collects enough from you to pay for debt service, and eventually, your grandchildren become responsible for those liabilities.

[Nixon in '80]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

Your Party had best learn right quick the difference between economic conservatism of the genuine, Coolidgean variety and supply-side welfareism. One won't drain the treasury.

So instead of letting people keep their money, or giving them their money back directly, or redistributing their money, we should just... take their money, and keep it?

I don't really understand what you're getting at, here... I mean, I support your idea of genuine "low taxes, low spending", but you're saying cutting taxes is equivalent to welfare... in a bad way? If you're advocating a low, flat-tax, I can respect that, but I honestly don't get what you're saying here.

Just, clear this up for me... please.

[Scam of God]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

These rebate checks you get aren't actually your money, regardless of what El-Rushbo might tell you. Rather, they come out of the Treasury, and most people get back far too much relative to what they pay in taxes. Supply-side economics is populism for social conservatives, who just can't stomach the idea that their taxes go to support nigrahs.

An authentically conservative government, to the contrary, would focus on eliminating spending: end entitlements, auction off military bases and slash the defense budget, sell off government-owned land and utilities, stop funding to innumerable government programmes, etc. It would then take the money thus saved and place it in a Rainy Day Fund or something similar, for use during an actual catastrophe.

[Nixon in '80]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

These rebate checks you get aren't actually your money, regardless of what El-Rushbo might tell you. Rather, they come out of the Treasury, and most people get back far too much relative to what they pay in taxes. Supply-side economics is populism for social conservatives, who just can't stomach the idea that their taxes go to support nigrahs.

An authentically conservative government, to the contrary, would focus on eliminating spending: end entitlements, auction off military bases and slash the defense budget, sell off government-owned land and utilities, stop funding to innumerable government programmes, etc. It would then take the money thus saved and place it in a Rainy Day Fund or something similar, for use during an actual catastrophe.

Disregard my earlier post, I completely understand what you're saying now, and for the most part I agree with it.

[Scam of God]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

These rebate checks you get aren't actually your money, regardless of what El-Rushbo might tell you. Rather, they come out of the Treasury, and most people get back far too much relative to what they pay in taxes. Supply-side economics is populism for social conservatives, who just can't stomach the idea that their taxes go to support nigrahs.

An authentically conservative government, to the contrary, would focus on eliminating spending: end entitlements, auction off military bases and slash the defense budget, sell off government-owned land and utilities, stop funding to innumerable government programmes, etc. It would then take the money thus saved and place it in a Rainy Day Fund or something similar, for use during an actual catastrophe.

Disregard my earlier post, I completely understand what you're saying now, and for the most part I agree with it.

To Reagan's credit, he did cut spending (albeit not nearly enough). To his eternal discredit, he did the furthest possible thing from conserving the money saved: he turned around and handed everyone a welfare check in it, doing absolutely nothing to save money in the process and gutting the government's ability to handle economic downturns.

[paul718]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

These rebate checks you get aren't actually your money, regardless of what El-Rushbo might tell you. Rather, they come out of the Treasury, and most people get back far too much relative to what they pay in taxes.

 

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.  (Edit:  I think I'm looking at this too simplistically.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know if you're joking with that, but if you're honestly implying that most social conservatives are racists, and are in favor of tax cuts purely so that black people don't get government assistance, I would have to disagree.  It might have more to do with their political affiliation than anything (i.e., social conservative --> votes Republican --> thinks tax cuts are good).  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with you 100%.  My only issue with your initial post was when you said "tax cuts = handouts".  

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

That's great.  But if the government doesn't take enough from you to pay the bills that you co-signed for by being a citizen of this country, then what do you think happens?

[paul718]

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

That's great.  But if the government doesn't take enough from you to pay the bills that you co-signed for by being a citizen of this country, then what do you think happens?

No, I know.  I think I might've taken Einzige too literally when he said "tax cuts are handouts". 

Einzige:  You're saying that tax cuts have the same effect as a welfare check, right?

[Scam of God]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

These rebate checks you get aren't actually your money, regardless of what El-Rushbo might tell you. Rather, they come out of the Treasury, and most people get back far too much relative to what they pay in taxes.

 

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

And bankrupting themselves in turn, which is allegedly what supply-siders dislike about liberal 'big spending' programmes. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go look at some of the rhetoric Reagan used when kicking off his first Presidential campaign, specifically his first appearance in Philadelphia, Mississippi. There was a massive undercurrent of racialism in his economic policies, and you'd have to be a hack not to notice it. Or I'll just let Lee Atwater say it for me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's how they sold supply-side economics to the people in the 1980's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which they are. The recipe for success for any government is a moderate level of taxation and almost no government spending, save when it is required, at which point funds can be had almost any time.

The first priority of any government is to be able to spend when necessary. That means not spending at all when not necessary, and being able to generate revenue during boom periods through moderate taxation. The government ought always to run a surplus.

[paul718]

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

And bankrupting themselves in turn, which is allegedly what supply-siders dislike about liberal 'big spending' programmes. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.   

Didn't tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush result in increases in revenue?  I could be wrong.  If those were indeed the results, do you think that was due to economic growth unrelated to cutting taxes?

[Scam of God]

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

And bankrupting themselves in turn, which is allegedly what supply-siders dislike about liberal 'big spending' programmes. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.   

Didn't tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush result in an increase in revenue?  I could be wrong.  If those were indeed the results, do you think that was due to economic growth unrelated to cutting taxes?

Under Coolidge and Kennedy it did, because neither President sent out rebate checks; they simply cut the margins and saved the money (though, of course, most of the money saved under Kennedy went straight into the jungles of Vietnam). There's a difference between keeping taxes low and engaging in supply-side economic activities. If I cut the taxes on my subjects but keep their last checks they paid me under the old rates, I have that much more money to store away. If I give it right back to them, I've gained nothing, and my coffers are that much lower. My ideal government is a penny-pincher.

[paul718]

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

And bankrupting themselves in turn, which is allegedly what supply-siders dislike about liberal 'big spending' programmes. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.   

Didn't tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush result in an increase in revenue?  I could be wrong.  If those were indeed the results, do you think that was due to economic growth unrelated to cutting taxes?

Under Coolidge and Kennedy it did, because neither President sent out rebate checks; they simply cut the margins and saved the money (though, of course, most of the money saved under Kennedy went straight into the jungles of Vietnam). There's a difference between keeping taxes low and engaging in supply-side economic activities. If I cut the taxes on my subjects but keep their last checks they paid me under the old rates, I have that much more money to store away. If I give it right back to them, I've gained nothing, and my coffers are that much lower. My ideal government is a penny-pincher.

I thought that's what supply-side economics is.  Lower marginal rates, lower corporate and capital gains taxes,  remove barriers to trade --> reward production, increase foreign investment, increase consumer spending --> more GDP --> more revenue.  What cog in the wheel am I missing?

[Scam of God]

If I have to pay less in taxes, the government isn't giving me anything.  They're taking less from me.

And bankrupting themselves in turn, which is allegedly what supply-siders dislike about liberal 'big spending' programmes. Six of one, half-dozen of the other.   

Didn't tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush result in an increase in revenue?  I could be wrong.  If those were indeed the results, do you think that was due to economic growth unrelated to cutting taxes?

Under Coolidge and Kennedy it did, because neither President sent out rebate checks; they simply cut the margins and saved the money (though, of course, most of the money saved under Kennedy went straight into the jungles of Vietnam). There's a difference between keeping taxes low and engaging in supply-side economic activities. If I cut the taxes on my subjects but keep their last checks they paid me under the old rates, I have that much more money to store away. If I give it right back to them, I've gained nothing, and my coffers are that much lower. My ideal government is a penny-pincher.

I thought that's what supply-side economics is.  Lower marginal rates, lower corporate and capital gains taxes,  remove barriers to trade --> reward production, increase foreign investment, increase consumer spending --> more GDP --> more revenue.  What cog in the wheel am I missing?

Tax refunds. Everything you mentioned happened under both the Coolidge and the Reagan Presidencies, except Coolidge never issued any refunds when he dropped the marginal rates, and Reagan did. Coolidge was thereby able to save up the biggest budget surplus before the Clinton Presidency, while Reagan ran massive deficits late into his second term that led to the 1991-92 recession and cost G.H.W. Bush his second term.

[paul718]

Tax refunds. Everything you mentioned happened under both the Coolidge and the Reagan Presidencies, except Coolidge never issued any refunds when he dropped the marginal rates, and Reagan did. Coolidge was thereby able to save up the biggest budget surplus before the Clinton Presidency, while Reagan ran massive deficits late into his second term that led to the 1991-92 recession and cost G.H.W. Bush his second term.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that.  I see your point now, and agree with it.