Republicans Only: What should our Party be?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:34:19 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Republicans Only: What should our Party be?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: What should the Republican Party be?
#1
A national, mainstream center-right coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and moderates that is dedicated to small but effective government, and recognizes that diversity is a strength
 
#2
A party with a singular conservative, pure ideology that does not vary for regional concerns, does not recognize the diversity of our country, and seeks to "change reality" rather than study and adjust for real-world needs
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 33

Author Topic: Republicans Only: What should our Party be?  (Read 6021 times)
Scam of God
Einzige
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,159
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: January 28, 2009, 01:32:21 AM »
« edited: January 28, 2009, 01:34:00 AM by Einzige »

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.

The problem for the Republican Party being, of course, that people generally like an activist government, be it supply-side or Keynesian; it would be tremendously difficult to sell a 'Coolidgean' style of no-spending, no-rebate economic conservatism, even though that's what the economy needs today. Tax rebates are crack cocaine for Republican voters; you'd either have to become basically social fascists to compensate, or work out a whole new electoral strategy. Even then I don't think you could win running on such a platform.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: January 28, 2009, 12:58:05 PM »

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 Smiley


And you're using fear tactics about having to speak Chinese. Speaking Spanish isn't a problem for you (which would be for economic reasons as well) but this is? Hypocrisy at its finest.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: January 28, 2009, 01:09:49 PM »

Amused the debate, or what little there is here, has devolved into bickering over a tangent about speaking Chinese.  Then again, the way the question was put pretty much meant this would stray off into tangent land.

Obviously everyone knows what option i picked.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: January 28, 2009, 01:12:43 PM »

Amused the debate, or what little there is here, has devolved into bickering over a tangent about speaking Chinese. 

Maybe Don shouldn't lecture some of us, calling us xenophobes and stuff (when it isn't true) and then go on to actually post something that was xenophobic. Just a suggestion for next time.

I like Don personally but it's never a debate with him. We always get bogged down with his ridiculous rhetoric and political hypocrisy.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: January 28, 2009, 07:48:34 PM »

Don my pain target is big spenders, Tom Delay included. The trouble is that you are so afraid of conservatives that you are supporting some of the biggest Pork-Barrelers in congress and are contributing to you so called "China problem".

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.

Who the hell said anything about Tax rebates. I was talking about Tax cuts. I opposed the tax rebate even though I personally benefitted from. I am the biggest fan of Coolidge on this forum and I basically agree with what you said. The problem is that too often you have to add a populist element to conservativism to make it more palatible that usually screws up any chance of fiscal responsibility(ex. Kinder Gentler Conservativism, Compassionate Conservative)
Logged
Scam of God
Einzige
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,159
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: January 28, 2009, 08:34:11 PM »

Don my pain target is big spenders, Tom Delay included. The trouble is that you are so afraid of conservatives that you are supporting some of the biggest Pork-Barrelers in congress and are contributing to you so called "China problem".

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.

Who the hell said anything about Tax rebates. I was talking about Tax cuts. I opposed the tax rebate even though I personally benefitted from. I am the biggest fan of Coolidge on this forum and I basically agree with what you said. The problem is that too often you have to add a populist element to conservativism to make it more palatible that usually screws up any chance of fiscal responsibility(ex. Kinder Gentler Conservativism, Compassionate Conservative)

Then that is your fault, for being member of an ideology that cannot directly compete in a democratic election without betraying certain core premises of its philosophy. A charismatic libertarian, on the other hand, could almost certainly run and win on a purely libertarian platform, provided that he was smart enough to sell it to the right voters, a base consisting of a mix of latte liberals, Western farmers and the progressive members of the middle-class.

It isn't the electorate that's flawed. It's your ideology, being unable to compete in a purified form.

EDIT: Also, it wasn't Poppy Bushes "Kinder, Gentler Conservatism" that racked up the early 90's debt. It was directly the fault of Ronald goddamned Reagan.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 13 queries.