Schock and Awe - Can he be the face of the party?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Because, as everyone knows, the slow and gradual trend over the years leading to now is the equivalent of radical social movements of the 60s.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm not saying that there aren't gradual trends but that doesn't mean our generation will be socially liberal when we're older. You can still fantasize though.

[Mint]

Because, as everyone knows, the slow and gradual trend over the years leading to now is the equivalent of radical social movements of the 60s.

The thing is, the radicalism of the baby boomers is vastly exaggerated. Groups like College Republicans actually had very high membership rates in the '60s, for example. We just remember the vocal minority (who, not coincidentally, are in charge of academia now) as opposed to the silent majority.

[Sbane]

Right, anyone that doesn't want >40% of their income gobbled up is a right wing extremist...

I am so old, that I can remember when the top rate was 70%.  50% is a good max figure as the top marginal rate provided it includes all taxes, not just federal income taxes. Obviously, that is a subjective opinion. If the top federal income tax rate is 50% however, by the time you add state and local income and sales taxes, you are up to maybe 63% in some states, and that is just too high. That has got to influence incentives to produce, and encourage efforts to not only defer recognizing income, but also to convert income into something less tax hostile, not to speak of just plain good old failure to report income.

When people make multi million dollars, do you think raising the tax rate by 5-10% is going to "influence incentives to produce"? It would be wrong to raise the tax rate to 50% on those making $200,000 a year, hell it would ruin the city of SF and Manhattan. But don't tell me it is unfair on someone making 2-3 mil a year, especially after "bonuses". Omg how much do I hate bonuses. Especially in the financial sector they are contractually obligated to give those out regardless of the companies performance.

A 5% raise would get us to about 50% in some states. If you go much higher, the distortions I think will start to kick in at an increasingly exponential rate. If you think fairness demands higher rates, that will be one of the costs. Fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. What do you think the top marginal rate should be on income, federal, state and local combined?

Yeah some states, like California, have pretty high tax burdens to begin with. So I guess in California the tax rate would be close to 65% for those making millions of dollars. Again I don't know if that in itself would cause these multi millionaires to become hermits . And if they try the sleazy route and decide to "die" or whatever, I say the government complete their wish and send them to room temperature prematurely. As you can tell I am in a bit of a radical mood today.

Ya, you sound a bit like my nephew. I keep having to remind him, that it is not in his best interests for me to get what I "deserve" just yet. Sometimes justice delayed is best. 

Haha. Well at least a long jail term is in order for those who try to shirk their responsibilities of paying taxes.  I think we should raise federal income taxes to Clinton levels for those making 200,000. Raise it to about 42-43 for those making up to 500k. And then raise it to 45 for those making more. If we create another bracket for those above say 2 mil, I would support a 50% federal income tax rate. If you are making that much money, I don't see why taxes would be of such a huge concern to you. They could just donate a bunch of money to organizations of their choice and get a deduction if they don't want to give their money to the "omgz evil" government.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Because, as everyone knows, the slow and gradual trend over the years leading to now is the equivalent of radical social movements of the 60s.

The thing is, the radicalism of the baby boomers is vastly exaggerated. Groups like College Republicans actually had very high membership rates in the '60s, for example. We just remember the vocal minority (who, not coincidentally, are in charge of academia now) as opposed to the silent majority.

Accepting that as the truth for the sake of argument, that doesn't really do much to counter my point, assuming that was your intention.

[Mint]

Because, as everyone knows, the slow and gradual trend over the years leading to now is the equivalent of radical social movements of the 60s.

The thing is, the radicalism of the baby boomers is vastly exaggerated. Groups like College Republicans actually had very high membership rates in the '60s, for example. We just remember the vocal minority (who, not coincidentally, are in charge of academia now) as opposed to the silent majority.

Accepting that as the truth for the sake of argument, that doesn't really do much to counter my point, assuming that was your intention.

It's not to counter your point. The reality is that the baby boomers as a whole were never that liberal. Actually, as far as generations go they've been fairly conservative (if idealistic). Let's not forget that the bulk of the evangelical movement, supply side economics, etc. have all been largely baby boomer-driven movements. The 1960s were the way they were not because the boomers as a whole were so much more liberal but because a combination of factors (courts, student movement, vietnam, etc.) all violently coincided together to force change.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Because, as everyone knows, the slow and gradual trend over the years leading to now is the equivalent of radical social movements of the 60s.

The thing is, the radicalism of the baby boomers is vastly exaggerated. Groups like College Republicans actually had very high membership rates in the '60s, for example. We just remember the vocal minority (who, not coincidentally, are in charge of academia now) as opposed to the silent majority.

Accepting that as the truth for the sake of argument, that doesn't really do much to counter my point, assuming that was your intention.

It's not to counter your point. The reality is that the baby boomers as a whole were never that liberal. Actually, as far as generations go they've been fairly conservative (if idealistic). Let's not forget that the bulk of the evangelical movement, supply side economics, etc. have all been largely baby boomer-driven movements. The 1960s were the way they were not because the boomers as a whole were so much more liberal but because a combination of factors (courts, student movement, vietnam, etc.) all violently coincided together to force change.

Take it to Phil.

[Sbane]

@ the thought that this generation is always going to hate the GOP. Really, people. Get a grip.

So you're saying the Republican party will eventually change?

Or that people might change! Imagine that! Young people not always feeling the same way throughout life!

Do you really think our generation will get more conservative on social issues? Especially gay marriage. I can see it happening on things like taxes and the amount of government involvement in our lives, but not on social issues.

Listen, every generation gets a little more socially moderate or liberal compared to their earlier generation but what you're implying is ridiculous.

The Baby Boomers were supposed to be hethens for their whole life. How'd that turn out?

Umm I don't think the baby boomers were ever heathens, but whatever. When it came to things like civil rights and gay rights(not marriage, just the right to not get beat up and arrested by cops), the boomers haven't moderated one bit. And regarding gay marriage, that generation is more liberal on the issue than you would expect considering their age. And just like that I don't think our generation will moderate on gay marriage. It is a fundamental right and we won't stop till gays have the right to marry in every state.

Also things we see as socially liberal today will become moderate 20-30 years from now. Thus our generation will seem to be moving towards the conservative direction even though our views wouldn't really change.

[War on Want]

I don't think anyone should have to give the government more than a third of what they earned. Right now when you factor in sales, property, etc. in addition to a 35% income tax it's far more than that in many cases. I don't care that we've had similarly stupid tax rates thanks to you liberals, that's just robbery.

Robbery that in turn will probably benefit everyone(at least with education, infrastructure and research). I am not going to try and argue that they aren't high but the rich can afford to pay higher taxes while those at the bottom cannot.

I don't necessarily think more spending is the answer to all of those things, especially education where we've consistently spent more since the '80s only to see continued deterioration. And who exactly is 'rich' according to you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems to be the case regardless of which party dominates, generally speaking. Now perhaps the situation would be improved with a Democrat in office and a Republican Congress as we saw before, but overall raising taxes to mitigate spending... just results in more spending. Note the trends in the 'Liberal Consensus' (1933-1973). Many of the worst deficits were when we had the highest tax rate, although that's explainable in part due to the depression resulting in lower tax receipts.

I believe that being rich should be based on standards of living and things other than but money yet at the same time including money. So I think there should be lots of tax brackets implemented in such a way so that there is no "punishment" for earning more money. Of course none of that will happen so pretty much I think there should raised taxes on those making over 250,000 $ with more brackets.

This needs to change but I expect the Democrats to do things differently this time around. Going against an inbalanced budget seems to be a very Democratic thing after Clinton and I think that it is still a part of my party's platform. Obviously we are going to have deficit issues for the next few years but this should improve when tax receipts go up.

[Keystone Phil]

@ the thought that this generation is always going to hate the GOP. Really, people. Get a grip.

So you're saying the Republican party will eventually change?

Or that people might change! Imagine that! Young people not always feeling the same way throughout life!

Do you really think our generation will get more conservative on social issues? Especially gay marriage. I can see it happening on things like taxes and the amount of government involvement in our lives, but not on social issues.

Listen, every generation gets a little more socially moderate or liberal compared to their earlier generation but what you're implying is ridiculous.

The Baby Boomers were supposed to be hethens for their whole life. How'd that turn out?

Umm I don't think the baby boomers were ever heathens, but whatever.

Not too familiar with the late 1960s, I guess.

It's not to counter your point. The reality is that the baby boomers as a whole were never that liberal. Actually, as far as generations go they've been fairly conservative (if idealistic). Let's not forget that the bulk of the evangelical movement, supply side economics, etc. have all been largely baby boomer-driven movements. The 1960s were the way they were not because the boomers as a whole were so much more liberal but because a combination of factors (courts, student movement, vietnam, etc.) all violently coincided together to force change.

The bolded part emphasizes my point that people change.

Ok, maybe the liberalness of the generation as been imbelished but, overall, they were liberal just like young people were a generation later.

The fact that they're fairly conservative now just proves my point that things don't last forever.

[Sbane]

@ the thought that this generation is always going to hate the GOP. Really, people. Get a grip.

So you're saying the Republican party will eventually change?

Or that people might change! Imagine that! Young people not always feeling the same way throughout life!

Do you really think our generation will get more conservative on social issues? Especially gay marriage. I can see it happening on things like taxes and the amount of government involvement in our lives, but not on social issues.

Listen, every generation gets a little more socially moderate or liberal compared to their earlier generation but what you're implying is ridiculous.

The Baby Boomers were supposed to be hethens for their whole life. How'd that turn out?

Umm I don't think the baby boomers were ever heathens, but whatever.

Not too familiar with the late 1960s, I guess.

I guess it all depends on how you define heathens.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'd be ok with him being our new face.  Although I don't see him really advancing for a while.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The baby boomers were a very divided generation from the start.  They still are.  But most of all, it's all about them, all the time.  The hippie movement had nothing to do with freedom and love and peace and everything to do with ME ME ME!

Look at Norm Coleman back in the day.  Look at him now.  Two completely different people with one thing in common:  Self infatuation.

Then there's Generation X, the loser kids in between that got ignored and demonized by the baby boomers, who are pretty much like "OMG LETS GO HANG OUT AT THE ARCADE... I AM SO VOTING FOR GEORGE BUSH WHEN HE RUNS IN '88!"

Then there's us.  And just when Gen X thought they had rid themselves of the boomers, we'll come steamrolling over them showing off our shiny participation ribbons and poverty armbands all while sending a text message, showering, and driving to work at the same time.

[Lunar]

Looks like he'll be too young to run for the open IL Senate seat.  He can always challenge Durbin in 2014.

Thus far  Schock has been acting as a mainstream conservative more than someone who is wanting to perfectly represent his district or run statewide in IL.  Makes me think he's considering the possibility of climbing up the House ranks, but he has plenty of time to figure that out.

[Torie]

The baby boomers were a very divided generation from the start.  They still are.  But most of all, it's all about them, all the time.  The hippie movement had nothing to do with freedom and love and peace and everything to do with ME ME ME!

Look at Norm Coleman back in the day.  Look at him now.  Two completely different people with one thing in common:  Self infatuation.

Then there's Generation X, the loser kids in between that got ignored and demonized by the baby boomers, who are pretty much like "OMG LETS GO HANG OUT AT THE ARCADE... I AM SO VOTING FOR GEORGE BUSH WHEN HE RUNS IN '88!"

Then there's us.  And just when Gen X thought they had rid themselves of the boomers, we'll come steamrolling over them showing off our shiny participation ribbons and poverty armbands all while sending a text message, showering, and driving to work at the same time.

You clearly read Generations. It was a fascinating thesis that was presented, no?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Constantly putting up these waste of protoplasm is the reason that I will not be voting Republican anytime soon.