NationStates Jolt Archive

Isn't the Republican Party supposed to be the party supporting smaller, less-intrusive government.

Smaller government? The party that increased federal spending 12% under George H.W. Bush, 53% under Ronald Reagan, and a whopping 70% under Richard Nixon?

But, wait, I’m being unfair. After all those presidents each had to deal with a Democratic Congress.

How about today, when we have a Republican president, House, and Senate? Under the current Republican administration we have a federal budget in excess of $2 trillion. Total real discretionary outlays during the first three years of the “W” administration increased 23.8%. Federal spending for 2001-2002 increased at almost twice the rate it did under Bill Clinton.

The deficit for 2003, $401 billion, was the largest in history...until 2004 came along.

Nor is this phenomenon just a national one. USA Today reporter Dennis Cauchon studied the budgets of all 50 states and found states where the GOP controlled both houses of the legislature actually increased state government spending by a greater margin than their Democratic counterparts.

We won't even talk about the liberty infringing Patriot Act and its successors.

Or maybe we should?

Where did all the conservatives go in the Republican Party?

Where did all the conservatives go in the Republican Party?

I don't know. I miss them.

Where did all the conservatives go in the Republican Party?
they were bought out

Where did all the conservatives go in the Republican Party?
they were bought out
I've seen, heard and read many conservative pundents helpfully offering the Democrats advice on how refind the heart and sould of their party.

Perhaps they should be asking what happened to the heart and soul of the majority party? If Bush had lost there is no doubt we would be witnessing a battle betwen the true ideological conservatives, the evangelicals, and the big government, internationalist neoconservatives, all seeking to redefine the GOP.

It seems victory has done more damage to conservatives than a loss would have.

I am not a huge bush fan but remember to temper your little stats with some reality.

What percentage of that spending increase was defence ~ war spending?

Not that the states should be spending all this money on war, but it is always a good thing not to bend stats to suit your own agenda.

If you want smaller govt become libertarian!

I know, we'll start by making the armed forces smaller! Reenlistment crisis anyone?

Not that the states should be spending all this money on war, but it is always a good thing not to bend stats to suit your own agenda.

Heaven forbid! Politicians would never do that.

The government has grown even when "Homeland" security is factored out. Also, this does not include the $200+ billion for the war in Iraq.

the only reason i could ever see to be a republican (since im not rich) was because they were fiscally conservative. i respected that

now that they ahve abandoned all financial good sense the only reason to be republican is because you are filthy rich

*shrug*

I am not a huge bush fan but remember to temper your little stats with some reality.

What percentage of that spending increase was defence ~ war spending?

Not that the states should be spending all this money on war, but it is always a good thing not to bend stats to suit your own agenda.

Bush has signed every single spending bill that Congress has ever presented him with. No president has ever done that before. That's not bent statistics, it's just a fact. This makes him the single biggest spending advocate in U.S. history to become president.

Senator John McCain: "It's a system that's completely out of control, and it's an absolute disgrace," commenting on the runaway spending on Capitol Hill. McCain said that Congress was spending money like "drunken sailors." [Christian Science Monitor, 1/23/04; New York Times, 1/4/04]

Bush Turned $5.6 Trillion Surplus Into $5.2 Trillion Deficit: Bush inherited a projected $5.6 trillion ten-year surplus. That $5.6 trillion surplus is now a $5.2 trillion ten-year deficit -- a fiscal decline of $10.8 trillion in just three years. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/28/04; www.govexec.com, 1/29/04]

$477 Billion Record Deficit Projected For 2004: The CBO projects that the budget deficit will be a record $477 billion in 2004. [CBO, January 2001]

Some say tax and spend is bad, others say tax-cut and not spend is bad. But one thing we can all agree on is that tax cut and spend is the worst.

Bush Turned $5.6 Surplus Into $5.2 Trillion Deficit
Lol we had a surplus of 5 dollars 60 cents? ^^

Some say tax and spend is bad, others say tax-cut and not spend is bad. But one thing we can all agree on is that tax cut and spend is the worst.

Sorry, but the Republican Party can't agree on that :headbang:

The two Republicans who I like and would vote for (except I hate Republicans now so much thanks to Bush that I would never vote for a Republican) are McCain, and Arlen Specter.

Lol we had a surplus of 5 dollars 60 cents? ^^
Don't be an ass :)

If you want smaller govt become libertarian!
If you want no government, become an Anarchist.

Lol we had a surplus of 5 dollars 60 cents? ^^

yeah, until one day on the beach Bush was wiped, he just needed that soda and hotdog combo so bad, he couldnt pass it up, and those 10 years of hard work, went right down the drain :(

If you want no government, become an Anarchist.

if you're not a complete dumbass, ignore everything that Conceptualists just said!

if you're not a complete dumbass, ignore everything that Conceptualists just said!
As well as that not making sense, I believe that could be construed as a flame.
Please refrain from making such remarks in the future.
Thank you.

Don't be an ass :)

I think you clicked the wrong smilie.

As well as that not making sense, I believe that could be construed as a flame.
Please refrain from making such remarks in the future.
Thank you.

Yes Mr. Moder... wait, you're not a mod! Who the hell do you think you are? Just because the both of you are anarchists doesnt mean you have the infinant power of the mods.

I think you clicked the wrong smilie.
No, I think he was trying to make sure that his remark wasn't construed as a blatant flame against Superpower07 and was instead construed as an acknowledgement of the irreverant humor.

Infinite, too. :rolleyes:

The Republicans aren't ever going to make government smaller, let alone small.
They don't really want to.

Yes Mr. Moder... wait, you're not a mod! Who the hell do you think you are? Just because the both of you are anarchists doesnt mean you have the infinant power of the mods.

Yes, it does.

Yes Mr. Moder... wait, you're not a mod! Who the hell do you think you are? Just because the both of you are anarchists doesnt mean you have the infinant power of the mods.
For starters, my politics have no bearing on this.
Second, your post made no sense. Anarchists are the people that believe there should be no government, and that is all that Conceptualists said. No more, no less.
Third, I never claimed to have the power of the moderators. I was compelled to politely warn you that flaming is against forum rules. If you take offense at that, then I am sincerely sorry.

The two Republicans who I like and would vote for (except I hate Republicans now so much thanks to Bush that I would never vote for a Republican) are McCain, and Arlen Specter.

The two Republicans I would vote for are Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.

Perhaps they should be asking what happened to the heart and soul of the majority party? If Bush had lost there is no doubt we would be witnessing a battle betwen the true ideological conservatives, the evangelicals, and the big government, internationalist neoconservatives, all seeking to redefine the GOP.

It seems victory has done more damage to conservatives than a loss would have.
This is interesting as I've never thought of it being the other way around. I think you're right, and the Democrats might gain some seats (or the presidency) if they use this time for introspection and reflection. But I doubt it.

Under the current Republican administration we have a federal budget in excess of $2 trillion. Total real discretionary outlays during the first three years of the “W” administration increased 23.8%. Federal spending for 2001-2002 increased at almost twice the rate it did under Bill Clinton.



ok the federal budget was already that high or at least close to it.
and clinton inherited a good economy then screwed it over and gave it bush.

For starters, my politics have no bearing on this.
Second, your post made no sense. Anarchists are the people that believe there should be no government, and that is all that Conceptualists said. No more, no less.
Third, I never claimed to have the power of the moderators. I was compelled to politely warn you that flaming is against forum rules. If you take offense at that, then I am sincerely sorry.


i would like to say, with all due respect to the anarchists here, that i believe anarchy is kind of crazy. if you think about if someone took a fry from your lunch with no government you could kill them. there would be much senseless violence. im sure there would also be good things there couldnt really be war since there is no government to declare it. once again no offense meant to the anarchists. and flaming is against the rules and some people, believe it or not, would prefer that you not use profanity.

ok the federal budget was already that high or at least close to it.
and clinton inherited a good economy then screwed it over and gave it bush.

Leave Clinton alone. He's no longer the president and so therefore bitching about what he or didn't do is completly irrellevent on a thread about the ideological differences in the republician party.

i would like to say, with all due respect to the anarchists here, that i believe anarchy is kind of crazy. if you think about if someone took a fry from your lunch with no government you could kill them. there would be much senseless violence. im sure there would also be good things there couldnt really be war since there is no government to declare it. once again no offense meant to the anarchists. and flaming is against the rules and some people, believe it or not, would prefer that you not use profanity.
libertarianism is idealism, anarchism is plain ludicrous

libertarianism is idealism, anarchism is plain ludicrous

Yep, although I see anarcho-capitalism as more feasible than anarcho-communism

ok the federal budget was already that high or at least close to it.
and clinton inherited a good economy then screwed it over and gave it bush.

When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion.

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. It also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion.

George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton’s. Bush blew through Clinton’s surplus in his first year. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record. Bush’s cumulative ten year deficit is $4.7 trillion, $10.3 trillion short of Clinton’s number.

Leave Clinton alone. He's no longer the president and so therefore bitching about what he or didn't do is completly irrellevent on a thread about the ideological differences in the republician party.


i know he isnt. i wasnt complaining i was only pointing out what i see as a small flaw in that statement about the budget and clinton.
and please im sure you can make comments without using profanity.

When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion.

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. It also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion.

George W. Bush immediately reversed Clinton’s. Bush blew through Clinton’s surplus in his first year. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record. Bush’s cumulative ten year deficit is $4.7 trillion, $10.3 trillion short of Clinton’s number.



ok but take a look at what happened in bushs first year and compare that to clintons first year or any of his 8 for that matter.

if you're not a complete dumbass, ignore everything that Conceptualists just said!
Is that the best flame you can come up with.

God forbid if I sum up a broad school of political thought in one clause.

ok but take a look at what happened in bushs first year and compare that to clintons first year or any of his 8 for that matter.

So, when you are proven wrong in one argument you just slide off into another?

Yes, 911 burdened the economy, but Bush's tax cuts and out of control spending goes beyond the effects of the terrorist attacks and don't even take into account the war against Iraq.

i know he isnt. i wasnt complaining i was only pointing out what i see as a small flaw in that statement about the budget and clinton.
and please im sure you can make comments without using profanity.

What profanity?

Huh?
Most of that entire post was comparing Clinton to Bush.


i know i was pointing out that clinton never had the same things to deal weith. for example the attacks on 9/11 bush responded to those by actually doing something to try to defend the country. or would have wanted him to sit there and do nothing and us getr attacked again . and even if there were no wmds saddam had weapons he said he didnt and wasnt supposed to have. and he was obviously not a good guy so in the end even if you hate bush for going to iraq you have to admit he did do a good thing by deposing saddam

Leave Clinton alone. He's no longer the president and so therefore bitching about what he or didn't do is completly irrellevent on a thread about the ideological differences in the republician party.


read the post you had

i would like to say, with all due respect to the anarchists here, that i believe anarchy is kind of crazy. if you think about if someone took a fry from your lunch with no government you could kill them. there would be much senseless violence. im sure there would also be good things there couldnt really be war since there is no government to declare it. once again no offense meant to the anarchists. and flaming is against the rules and some people, believe it or not, would prefer that you not use profanity.
Sorry if someone else has bitten.

What you described is not anarchism it is propaganda.

Think about it, if you took a chip from my lunch tommorow I could still kill you even though their is government. In fact I could just kill you anyway.* We are social creatures and I doubt if any community would tolerate a murderer or any such anti-social.

There is also much senseless violence at the moment. The US government has hardly prevent gang warfare in LA for example.

Strangley enough pronfanity isn't against the fucking rules ;). However gratuitous swearing is looked down on.

However my advice is go and TG Letila, he has lots of links to hand (which I don't), I think he tell to first look at the FAQ at www.infoshop.org though. :)




*This is not meant to be a death threat btw, just illustrating that hte government doesn't stop people killing each other.

libertarianism is idealism, anarchism is plain ludicrous
Anarchism is Order, Government is Chaos.

Look I can slogan too. This will be my last off topic post.


::EDIT:: To honour my promise. rofl @ New Genoa

So, when you are proven wrong in one argument you just slide off into another?

Yes, 911 burdened the economy, but Bush's tax cuts and out of control spending goes beyond the effects of the terrorist attacks and don't even take into account the war against Iraq.


i didnt slide off i was using it as an example. you said clinton spent less right. well he didnt have as much to deal with. bushs tax cuts were to help people and can you give me an example of his out of control spending, please?

Anarchism is Order, Government is Chaos.

Look I can slogan too. This will be my last off topic post.

Actually,

Anarchism is Chaos, Government is Chaos. You're Screwed Either Way.

i didnt slide off i was using it as an example. you said clinton spent less right. well he didnt have as much to deal with. bushs tax cuts were to help people and can you give me an example of his out of control spending, please?
Well, seeing as his spending is so much higher, it seems as though circumstance is out of the question.

Sorry if someone else has bitten.

What you described is not anarchism it is propaganda.

Think about it, if you took a chip from my lunch tommorow I could still kill you even though their is government. In fact I could just kill you anyway.* We are social creatures and I doubt if any community would tolerate a murderer or any such anti-social.

There is also much senseless violence at the moment. The US government has hardly prevent gang warfare in LA for example.

Strangley enough pronfanity isn't against the fucking rules ;). However gratuitous swearing is looked down on.

However my advice is go and TG Letila, he has lots of links to hand (which I don't), I think he tell to first look at the FAQ at www.infoshop.org though. :)




*This is not meant to be a death threat btw, just illustrating that hte government doesn't stop people killing each other.


good point. but i meant that there would be no consequences for killing someone without government and if there was government i doubt you would get away with the murder.
as for the gang violence yes they havent stopped it but you have to remember that they arent just sitting there doing nothing they are trying at least a little. and no government can stop all senseless violence and because as you pointed out we are social creatures there will never be world peace.
thanks for the enlightenment though and ill check out the link

Well, seeing as his spending is so much higher, it seems as though circumstance is out of the question.


defense costs money, alot of money

Anarchism is Chaos, Government is Chaos. You're Screwed Either Way.
:D
That's awesome!

I think you clicked the wrong smilie.
Nope. :)

It's kind of ironic that the elected republicans are becoming more liberal when they were voted in because they were supposed to be conservatives. I've heard that at one point in history Democrats shared the same viewpoints as the Republicans do today. To be honest, it makes no sense to me why it's happening again.

Senator John McCain: "It's a system that's completely out of control, and it's an absolute disgrace," commenting on the runaway spending on Capitol Hill. McCain said that Congress was spending money like "drunken sailors." [Christian Science Monitor, 1/23/04; New York Times, 1/4/04]

Bush Turned $5.6 Trillion Surplus Into $5.2 Trillion Deficit: Bush inherited a projected $5.6 trillion ten-year surplus. That $5.6 trillion surplus is now a $5.2 trillion ten-year deficit -- a fiscal decline of $10.8 trillion in just three years. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/28/04; www.govexec.com, 1/29/04]

$477 Billion Record Deficit Projected For 2004: The CBO projects that the budget deficit will be a record $477 billion in 2004. [CBO, January 2001]
Take a look at your own source. While the deficit is indeed larger in real dollars, the statistics you cite, when accompanied with the statement shown in the following link, show that the deficit is actually lower as a percentage of the economy than the late 80's and even the early 90's.CBO Deficit Projection (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4985&sequence=2)

It's kind of ironic that the elected republicans are becoming more liberal when they were voted in because they were supposed to be conservatives. I've heard that at one point in history Democrats shared the same viewpoints as the Republicans do today. To be honest, it makes no sense to me why it's happening again.


"The times they are a' changin'"
-Billy Joel-

The two Republicans who I like and would vote for (except I hate Republicans now so much thanks to Bush that I would never vote for a Republican) are McCain, and Arlen Specter.
Who are not really Republicans - RINOs.

Just a suggestion...how about starting a thread about anarchy? I am not suggesting either political party adopt anarchy as a policy, but rather fiscal conservatives reassert themselves within the Republican Party.

The only myth in Washington bigger than "Democrats care about the poor," is that "Republicans believe in smaller government."

Isn't the Republican Party supposed to be the party supporting smaller, less-intrusive government.

Smaller government? The party that increased federal spending 12% under George H.W. Bush, 53% under Ronald Reagan, and a whopping 70% under Richard Nixon?

But, wait, I’m being unfair. After all those presidents each had to deal with a Democratic Congress.

How about today, when we have a Republican president, House, and Senate? Under the current Republican administration we have a federal budget in excess of $2 trillion. Total real discretionary outlays during the first three years of the “W” administration increased 23.8%. Federal spending for 2001-2002 increased at almost twice the rate it did under Bill Clinton.

The deficit for 2003, $401 billion, was the largest in history...until 2004 came along.

Nor is this phenomenon just a national one. USA Today reporter Dennis Cauchon studied the budgets of all 50 states and found states where the GOP controlled both houses of the legislature actually increased state government spending by a greater margin than their Democratic counterparts.

We won't even talk about the liberty infringing Patriot Act and its successors.

Or maybe we should?

Where did all the conservatives go in the Republican Party?


so ur solution to resolving an national economic crisis would be to cut government spending? mmm k van buren.

5.6 isnt a huge difference from 5.2 especially in trillions

Except the difference isn't between 5.6 trillion and 5.2 trillion. It is between a $5.6 trillion surplus and a $5.2 trillion deficit. That is a $10.8 trillion dollar difference. Even in this day and age that ain't chump change.

Except the difference isn't between 5.6 trillion and 5.2 trillion. It is between a $5.6 trillion surplus is now a $5.2 trillion deficit.



oops!
but i dont think the surplus was ever that high.

The only myth in Washington bigger than "Democrats care about the poor," is that "Republicans believe in smaller government."
:p

Actually,

Anarchism is Chaos, Government is Chaos. You're Screwed Either Way.
Elegantly stated. I'd agree totally. As a Libertarian, I often find myself debating with anarchists and big-government quasisocialists.
Both systems would suck for obvious reasons.

i would like to say, with all due respect to the anarchists here, that i believe anarchy is kind of crazy. if you think about if someone took a fry from your lunch with no government you could kill them. there would be much senseless violence. im sure there would also be good things there couldnt really be war since there is no government to declare it. once again no offense meant to the anarchists. and flaming is against the rules and some people, believe it or not, would prefer that you not use profanity.
Anarchism isn't about disorder, or not having rules. See here for more:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm

BTW I'm not an anarchist myself but I sympathize with what I consider their unrealistically utopian ideal

Anarchism isn't about disorder, or not having rules. See here for more:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm

BTW I'm not an anarchist myself but I sympathize with what I consider their unrealistically utopian ideal


i know its not about diorder but if its about not having government then its got to be at least a little about not having rules.
btw utopia would be awesome but as stated before since we are social beings it can not happen

good point. but i meant that there would be no consequences for killing someone without government and if there was government i doubt you would get away with the murder.
as for the gang violence yes they havent stopped it but you have to remember that they arent just sitting there doing nothing they are trying at least a little. and no government can stop all senseless violence and because as you pointed out we are social creatures there will never be world peace.
thanks for the enlightenment though and ill check out the link
I answer that if you go here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392077) ;)

Anarchism isn't about disorder, or not having rules. See here for more:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm

BTW I'm not an anarchist myself but I sympathize with what I consider their unrealistically utopian ideal
The problem with pure anarchy is that law only exists between consenting constituents in groups.
Groups are free to fuck around as pleases.

i didnt slide off i was using it as an example. you said clinton spent less right. well he didnt have as much to deal with. bushs tax cuts were to help people and can you give me an example of his out of control spending, please?
Education -- No Child Left Behind,
Health -- Prescription Drugs for everyone
Homeland Security -- The baggage police, I mean TSA.

These are just the big objectionable ones. There's always highway pork bills, and all the little pork projects that are included in spending bills.

I answer that if you go here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392077) ;)


nice. my compliments. and thanks for the enlightenment i can always use some of that

The only way to control government is to refuse to fund it. The idea of a national retail sales tax is such a good idea. Abolish the income tax and the IRS; fund government with revenue from retail sales.

Education -- No Child Left Behind,
Health -- Prescription Drugs for everyone
Homeland Security -- The baggage police, I mean TSA.

These are just the big objectionable ones. There's always highway pork bills, and all the little pork projects that are included in spending bills.


nice.
i agree education shuold not be invested in at least in that way.
well when everyone complains about healthcare you have to do something.
homeland security good because as weve all been shown, although through an unreliable and sometimes extremely biased source known as the media, the current defense agencies dont communicate very good and this could emphasis on could help link them if not we need some sort of link so we are better protected.
about pork bills they are one of those "im a politician and i wanna be reelected so ill push this through" things right?

The only way to control government is to refuse to fund it. The idea of a national retail sales tax is such a good idea. Abolish the income tax and the IRS; fund government with revenue from retail sales.

That hurts the poor disproportionately more than the rich.

That hurts the poor disproportionately more than the rich.


yes but it would end all the complaints about taxes. :)

Government is Chaos.

I refer you to the famous quote by Chicago Mayor Daley during the 1968 Democratic convention riots:

"The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder"

That hurts the poor disproportionately more than the rich.
That's a nice little bit of demagoguery, but it's not always true. Care to discuss it?

I firmly believe that the parties are too powerful in American government.
The two party system is good, but the parties are too powerful, regardless of their views.

Money from the party committees is a big part of congressmen's campaign funds. Because of this, congressmen have a tendancy to stick closely to the party line on everything. This helps secure their campaign funds, but polarizes our country in a huge way. Few congressmen waver from the party line, choosing to support what the party tells them to rather than what they think is right. Those who would vote as their conscience dictates find themselves unsupported by their party.

Pretty much all government decisions are made with the party in mind. Any problems that arise are attributed to the party as a whole, rather than just the people responsible. Wars and battles (today and in the past) are timed to avoid embarassment around elections rather than strictly according to strategy.

The parties need to be weakened! They are too strong and are hurting our political culture.

ok the federal budget was already that high or at least close to it.
and clinton inherited a good economy then screwed it over and gave it bush.
Funny how Democrats use the phrase "biggest economic boom in history" when referring to the Clinton years whereas Repubs use the phrase when referring to the Bush years. Someone is lying and i don't see how they're getting away with it.

That's a nice little bit of demagoguery, but it's not always true. Care to discuss it?
It's because the poor spend a larger proportion of their income on retail goods than the rich. This means that the poor are paying a greater percentage of their income to the government than the rich. Therein lies the problem of this idea.

"The times they are a' changin'"
-Billy Joel-
ohmygod have i fallen into some alternate universe where billy joel writes bob dylan songs??

"The times they are a' changin'"
-Billy Joel-

Didn't Billy Joel write this the same year Bruce Springsteen appeared on the Ed Sullivan show and sang "All My Lovin'?" I'm pretty sure it was before Garth Brooks and Vanilla Ice had a hit with "Unchained Melody."

Isn't the Republican Party supposed to be the party supporting smaller, less-intrusive government.
Actually, no. That is supposed to be the Democratic party's job.

Actually, no. That is supposed to be the Democratic party's job.

Maybe Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Party.

Didn't Billy Joel write this the same year Bruce Springsteen appeared on the Ed Sullivan show and sang "All My Lovin'?" I'm pretty sure it was before Garth Brooks and Vanilla Ice had a hit with "Unchained Melody."
ohmygod this explains SO much

all i have to do is get back to my right universe and all this bush deficit, iraq invasion, neocon crap is reduce to a really weird nightmare

anyone know the way to the emerald city?

It's because the poor spend a larger proportion of their income on retail goods than the rich. This means that the poor are paying a greater percentage of their income to the government than the rich. Therein lies the problem of this idea.

How have you managed to deduce the issue to the point of pitting the minorites against each other (rich, poor).
If the last election tought us anything, it's that America is all about the middle class.

Republican Party = Smaller Government?
Not lately.

If the last election tought us anything, it's that America is all about the middle class.

in the u.s., poor people think they are middle class. the fact that they are wrong about this idea doesn't seem to impact the political process too much. the u.s. has the highest wealth and income inequality of all of the developed nations. that means we have more people at the low end of the spectrum and fewer in the middle. but we have a culture full of memes that all say that there is no class system in america and that we are all middle class. and so illusions trump reality. which pretty much sums up american politics in general.

It's because the poor spend a larger proportion of their income on retail goods than the rich. This means that the poor are paying a greater percentage of their income to the government than the rich. Therein lies the problem of this idea.
Okay. If you look at the current proposal in the House of Representatives, there will be a refund of all sales taxes paid on whatever purchases are determined to be below the poverty line. In other words, every one of us will get a substantial refund from the government each year. How does that hurt the poor?

Okay. If you look at the current proposal in the House of Representatives, there will be a refund of all sales taxes paid on whatever purchases are determined to be below the poverty line. In other words, every one of us will get a substantial refund from the government each year. How does that hurt the poor?

That's an empty proposal. Do they really think people will be able to save every single reciept? In Oklahoma they even tax groceries.

ok the federal budget was already that high or at least close to it.
and clinton inherited a good economy then screwed it over and gave it bush.

Remember Dubya was governor of Texas before he was president. He did the same thing there. It went from a large surplus to a huge deficit. Texas had a surplus for fifty years before Dubya. No more.

That's an empty proposal. Do they really think people will be able to save every single reciept? In Oklahoma they even tax groceries.



Remember Dubya was governor of Texas before he was president. He did the same thing there. It went from a large surplus to a huge deficit. Texas had a surplus for fifty years before Dubya. No more.

The Fair Tax (http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org) plan that is also known as HR 25 is not going to require anyone to save receipts. There is a rebate, calculated by family size, and distributed monthly. For example, a family of four with a single head of household would get a monthly rebate of $360. A family with married head of household would get monthly rebate of $480. No receipts, no filing, it's as automatic as welfare.

Incidently, this has nothing to do with Bush. He doesn't introduce legislation and last time I checked, doesn't even support abolishing the IRS.

defense costs money, alot of money

Military spending is a big factor, but accounts for less than half of recent increases, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Harvard economist Jeffrey Frankel argues that “the Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility, trade restriction, big government and bad microeconomics.”

The Fair Tax (http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org) plan that is also known as HR 25 is not going to require anyone to save receipts. There is a rebate, calculated by family size, and distributed monthly. For example, a family of four with a single head of household would get a monthly rebate of $360. A family with married head of household would get monthly rebate of $480. No receipts, no filing, it's as automatic as welfare.

Incidently, this has nothing to do with Bush. He doesn't introduce legislation and last time I checked, doesn't even support abolishing the IRS.

Sounds okay. But different states tax different things. In Texas they don't tax groceries, in Oklahoma they do. Sounds like a bitch to figure out state by state.

Sounds okay. But different states tax different things. In Texas they don't tax groceries, in Oklahoma they do. Sounds like a bitch to figure out state by state.
Sorry, I missed that part. This is a federal law. It replaces ALL income tax. That's personal and corporate. States and counties can still do what they want.

Thanks.

Thanks.
So are you "born again"? Are you going to start a steady stream of letters to your Senators and Representative?

It's because the poor spend a larger proportion of their income on retail goods than the rich. This means that the poor are paying a greater percentage of their income to the government than the rich. Therein lies the problem of this idea.
Assuming the rich you speak of would otherwise pay income tax, the reduced price of doing buisness would allow them pay more for things like labor. It would be necessary to pay more for labor since competitors would also be able to and lower income labor would demand higher wages to accomidate the increased costs of modern survival.

As long as the money taken in remaned the same, the economic effect on various groups would remain similar, except that those who are arbitrarily favored and punished by the tax code would no longer be. Relatively speaking, it would be 'fair'. While the current system is filled with social engineering, the only way to be rewarded by this proposed tax would be to save money. Saving money is a good thing, depsite how many stupid people equate consumer spending to the health of the economy.

Having said all that, I don't necessarily support this idea. A high-rate universal sales tax would only be a little less bad than the current income tax. Should a rape victiim be happy that her assailant chooses to utilize the less painful orifice?

Having said all that, I don't necessarily support this idea. A high-rate universal sales tax would only be a little less bad than the current income tax. Should a rape victiim be happy that her assailant chooses to utilize the less painful orifice?
If this tax is only on retail sales, the retail price is going to drop like a rock. Plus, you are going to keep all the money you would have paid in payroll taxes -- about 15%, and all the money you would have had withheld in federal income taxes. What's so "little less bad" about that? I think having control of all my money is a 'lot less bad'. Plus, just think of the economic burden of compliance with federal income tax. That's gone! Look at the schemes companies come up with to avoid paying US federal taxes. There will no longer be a need for that.

defense costs money, alot of money

What about all the discretionary (meaning, he ain't got to do it to run the country) non-defense spending increases. If you can honestly say that increasing those to the levels he has is not 'out of control spending' then I would suggest you retake your college economics classes.

What about all the discretionary (meaning, he ain't got to do it to run the country) non-defense spending increases. If you can honestly say that increasing those to the levels he has is not 'out of control spending' then I would suggest you retake your college economics classes.
What is still discretionary, anymore? Welfare isn't. SSI isn't. Foreign aid? There isn't too much money to play around with. But...I heard a report yesterday that Bush plans to freeze, not reduce, freeze non-discretionary spending to last year's levels. I'll try to dig that up.

What is still discretionary, anymore? Welfare isn't. SSI isn't. Foreign aid? There isn't too much money to play around with. But...I heard a report yesterday that Bush plans to freeze, not reduce, freeze non-discretionary spending to last year's levels. I'll try to dig that up.

Discretionary spending is what most people would call 'pork barrel' spending. Things like corporate Welfare, Industry favoring, excess expenderatures, or the $40million dollars recently spent to have 10 seperate lavish parties to celebrate Bush's reelection.

Bush can say whatever the hell he wants. His 'rhetoric does not match his record.'

Discretionary spending is what most people would call 'pork barrel' spending. Things like corporate Welfare, Industry favoring, excess expenderatures, or the $40million dollars recently spent to have 10 seperate lavish parties to celebrate Bush's reelection.

Bush can say whatever the hell he wants. His 'rhetoric does not match his record.'
So, corporate donations are part of the fed's discretionary spending, huh? You do know that the inauguration parties were paid for by private interests, don't you?

Here (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040122-113950-1435r.htm) is a link to a report about the freeze. Best news I've seen from this "conservative" administration.

Didn't Billy Joel write this the same year Bruce Springsteen appeared on the Ed Sullivan show and sang "All My Lovin'?" I'm pretty sure it was before Garth Brooks and Vanilla Ice had a hit with "Unchained Melody."

Has anybody heard that new Perfect Circle song? I never imagined someone could write a song that was so timely and appropriate.

And, @Myrmidonisia, calling No Child Left Behind "pork" is a terrible misstatement. Bush carved nearly 10 billion out of the congressional appropriation for NCLB, practically turning it into an unfunded mandate.

Has anybody heard that new Perfect Circle song? I never imagined someone could write a song that was so timely and appropriate.

And, @Myrmidonisia, calling No Child Left Behind "pork" is a terrible misstatement. Bush carved nearly 10 billion out of the congressional appropriation for NCLB, practically turning it into an unfunded mandate.
Maybe so. But adding 60,000 baggage screeners to the federal payroll was the biggest waste of money I've ever seen. Now we have the feds stealing our stuff and falling asleep instead of some guys that can be fired. I'll be glad when the airports start exercising their options to get rid of the federal losers.

So, corporate donations are part of the fed's discretionary spending, huh? You do know that the inauguration parties were paid for by private interests, don't you?

Sorry, $21.35 million is what the government spent (in addition to the $40M by private companies). Only about 5 went towards actual parties, while the rest came out of the homeland security budget. Maybe it's the fiscal conservative in me, but 9/11 or no, that seems inordinately excessive to me. (Cite (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/inauguration.costs.ap/))

Here (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040122-113950-1435r.htm) is a link to a report about the freeze. Best news I've seen from this "conservative" administration.

At the levels they currently are at, what we need is a serious reduction in spending, not a less than 1% (which is probably several billion dollars) increase.

Has anybody heard that new Perfect Circle song? I never imagined someone could write a song that was so timely and appropriate.

Do you mean Imagine?

Yes, that is an instant classic. Perfect Circle has written a song that seems as if it has been around for 35 years.

Maybe so. But adding 60,000 baggage screeners to the federal payroll was the biggest waste of money I've ever seen. Now we have the feds stealing our stuff and falling asleep instead of some guys that can be fired. I'll be glad when the airports start exercising their options to get rid of the federal losers.

Yeah. TSAs were a total botch. There was all that hub-bub in the beginning with the bad background checks, where there were a disporoprtionate number of felons and registered sex offenders in the TSA. And all of this, yet we still don't have enough hardware to scan all checked bags. Bah.

I thought perfect circles song imagine was a remix of an older song

Do you mean Imagine?

Yes, that is an instant classic. Perfect Circle has written a song that seems as if it has been around for 35 years.
Is that the John Lennon "Imagine", or am I just ima...Sorry I got carried away.

First the Don Henley clones, now the Lennonettes. Can't your generation get it's own music?

Obviously not.

did any of y'all think that maybe that perfectcircle/imagine thing might have been a JOKE?

Can't your generation get it's own music?
I agree. The sheer amount of retrospection in "new" music is almost disturbing. I really don't want to be a part of "the generation that did nothing new".

Actually, no. That is supposed to be the Democratic party's job.
I was under the impression that you and most Republicans considered them to be socialist.
How have you managed to deduce the issue to the point of pitting the minorites against each other (rich, poor).
If the last election tought us anything, it's that America is all about the middle class.
I'm not talking about America, but rather the idea of a sales tax. And how do I know? It's because in my country we have a sales tax of 21% on almost everything. We call it Value Added Tax though.

But if you want to talk about the middle class I'll note that the sales tax affects them more than the rich but not as much as the poor.

Okay. If you look at the current proposal in the House of Representatives, there will be a refund of all sales taxes paid on whatever purchases are determined to be below the poverty line. In other words, every one of us will get a substantial refund from the government each year. How does that hurt the poor?
That's an improvement, but it only mitigates the inequality, doesn't eliminate it. I think there should should be a flat income tax.

Remember Dubya was governor of Texas before he was president. He did the same thing there. It went from a large surplus to a huge deficit. Texas had a surplus for fifty years before Dubya. No more.
What could he have spent all that money on? It's not as if he had a neoconservative foreign policy to execute when he was Texas governor.

That's an improvement, but it only mitigates the inequality, doesn't eliminate it. I think there should should be a flat income tax.

Two things about a flat tax.
1. The rate and threshold can still be manipulated for "social engineering". A flat tax would last as long as it was convenient.

2. All of us would still be paying payroll taxes. Our employers would still be matching those taxes. The Fair Tax, as introduced in HR25, would do away with payroll taxes.

2a. There would still be the illusory "corporate income tax" that we all pay on everything we buy.

The Republican party was born as the party of big government. It always has been, except when big-government Democrats like FDR and LBJ were in power. Even then, the opposition to big government is mostly rhetoric.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/gop-future.html

The Republican party was born as the party of big government. It always has been, except when big-government Democrats like FDR and LBJ were in power. Even then, the opposition to big government is mostly rhetoric.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/gop-future.html

Good article.

"...here is a partial litany of what the Bush administration has done by way of using and expanding government power: the Patriot Act, the Patriot Act II (as part of Intelligence Reform), No Child Left Behind, Medicare drug benefits, the Transportation Safety Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security, not to mention two major wars that have cost hundreds of billions, and left only destruction and chaos in their wake. Government spending in Bush's first term soared more than 29%, twice Clinton's average."

If it had been Al Gore or Bill Clinton who did these things the Right would being having fits of collective apoplexy.

Good article.

"...here is a partial litany of what the Bush administration has done by way of using and expanding government power: the Patriot Act, the Patriot Act II (as part of Intelligence Reform), No Child Left Behind, Medicare drug benefits, the Transportation Safety Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security, not to mention two major wars that have cost hundreds of billions, and left only destruction and chaos in their wake. Government spending in Bush's first term soared more than 29%, twice Clinton's average."

If it had been Al Gore or Bill Clinton who did these things the Right would being having fits of collective apoplexy.
And since they were enacted during a Republican administration, the Left is crying about too little money being spent.

And since they were enacted during a Republican administration, the Left is crying about too little money being spent.
True, more or less. I've seen lists of complaints about how Bush cut spending here, cut spend there, refused to fund this or that, and I wonder why I only hear about this from Bush's opposition.

And since they were enacted during a Republican administration, the Left is crying about too little money being spent.

Once upon a time the Left, i.e. the Progressive Party of the early part of the 20th century, was all about government efficency and wise utilization of the people's money.

To return to power the Democratic Party needs to return to those progressive roots.

Or better yet, the Democratic Party needs to be replaced by a true Progressive Party.

The Republican party was born as the party of big government. It always has been, except when big-government Democrats like FDR and LBJ were in power. Even then, the opposition to big government is mostly rhetoric.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/gop-future.html
Damn good article. It put into better words what I had known for some time now: The Republicans are a party primarily concrened with POWER.
That's not very compatible with the "less is more" ideal they rhetorically spout.