NationStates Jolt Archive

You can read the whole transcript here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/19/michael-steele-delivers-s_n_205268.html

But one little gem caught my eye:

"The argument goes that we should be careful here, because the polls suggest that President Obama is popular...

Well, the president is personally popular. Pity the fool who paid for a poll to figure that out...

The American people aren't worried about polls."


Yes, Mr Steele. The 'people' are not worried about polls. And THEY aren't saying anything about polls - you are. They aren't talking about polls because they ARE the poll.

And this is the representation (allegedly) for the conservative among us.

I read through the rest of the transcript, and anyone who wanted to could easily point out that half of it is repetition of the same claim "ok, we mean business now", and most of the rest of it is untrue and wouldn't be accepted in a presentation to anyone except the very hardline of the base.

I'm trying to make this NOT a 'OMG death of the GOP" thread. Trying hard.

I guess...

Who are conservatives supposed to vote for? Conservative Democrats? That'd just focus the power in one party. Libertarians? No, seriously... who?

Libertarians? No, seriously... who?
Woah, wait, why not? :confused:

Who are conservatives supposed to vote for? Conservative Democrats? That'd just focus the power in one party. Libertarians? No, seriously... who?Perhaps they could stop being conservatives?

"reign of error."

EWWWWWW he stole that from Robin Williams!

I don't really like him that much, lol. No, not because he's black. I have to say that because I know some fools are going to jump on that as their conclusion.

I disagree with TAI. I love Michael Steele. Every day, he gives me a new reason to think about sending a nice thank-you cookie bouquet to the Republican leadership. :D

How does someone like him end up heading the party. I mean, I like watching Keith Olbermann but I certainly wouldn't expect him to become the head of the Democratic party.

How does someone like him end up heading the party. I mean, I like watching Keith Olbermann but I certainly wouldn't expect him to become the head of the Democratic party.

Grasping for straws maybe?

Perhaps they could stop being conservatives?

One Party state isn't something I want.

That said, if we could get two liberal parties that still had real differences, that might be good.

Micheal Steele is the sort of name that Tom Clancy would be proud of.

I had been slightly impressed with Michael Steele in the past. A few years ago, I hoped he'd been elected in his runs for office. He would have been great to run against Obama. Now I think he's growing into the job of Chairman of the Republican Party.

I feel like he is now truly embracing the conservative ideals: limited reach of government into private lives, personal economic freedom, national security and defense, rule of law based on the U.S. Constitution.

The mid terms are going to be interesting if he can get people focused on how the current administration is doing to the country like Arnold (r.i.n.o.) and Maria (Shriver (Kennedy)) are doing to California.

Things are going so screwed up here that we may finally get a Republican majority in the state legisalture and senate in the next elections to fix all this union and feel good crap.

The problem with is the token black guy really doesn't make agood spokesperson. For any group much less a national party.
If the republicans want African American leadership they should find an African American who is not a Yes man.
Or at least when the African American party chair calls Mr. Limbaugh a douche, realize that Steele is the Chair and not Limbaugh and take his side.

The problem with is the token black guy really doesn't make agood spokesperson. For any group much less a national party.
If the republicans want African American leadership they should find an African American who is not a Yes man.
Or at least when the African American party chair calls Mr. Limbaugh a douche, realize that Steele is the Chair and not Limbaugh and take his side.

Steele has learned since the dust up with Limbaugh that they don't need to be enemies. The media love stories that way.

Recently, however, in respnse to Cheney's statement that he thought Powell had left the Republican Party and that Limbaugh was a better prepresentative of the party than Powell, Steele wised up and said that there was room in the party for both Powell and Limbaugh.

Obama has some really great ideas. The Democrats have the majority. The GOP members that vote against him are going to get hammered, trashed and smashed in the next few elections if Obama's plans work. And they look to have very little chance of failure. It was pretty easy for Democrats to vote against Bush since he had a different scam everytime he talked into a mic.

One Party state isn't something I want.

That said, if we could get two liberal parties that still had real differences, that might be good.They don't need to become Democrats. They could become Libertarians, or Greens, or Communists, or vote for the Constitution Party.

I had been slightly impressed with Michael Steele in the past. A few years ago, I hoped he'd been elected in his runs for office. He would have been great to run against Obama. Now I think he's growing into the job of Chairman of the Republican Party.

I feel like he is now truly embracing the conservative ideals: limited reach of government into private lives, personal economic freedom, national security and defense, rule of law based on the U.S. Constitution.

The mid terms are going to be interesting if he can get people focused on how the current administration is doing to the country like Arnold (r.i.n.o.) and Maria (Shriver (Kennedy)) are doing to California.

Things are going so screwed up here that we may finally get a Republican majority in the state legisalture and senate in the next elections to fix all this union and feel good crap.

As a Republican I believe in all of those things but it seems the national party does not. I can't square limited reach into personal lives with opposing gay rights. I guess I'm more Republican than the Republican Party.

As a Republican I believe in all of those things but it seems the national party does not. I can't square limited reach into personal lives with opposing gay rights. I guess I'm more Republican than the Republican Party.

The party isn't perfect. Still, there are more things in the Republican Party that I agree with than the other parties. For me it's that they agree with me on MORE things than those things about them that piss me off.

Woah, wait, why not? :confused:

If you have to ask, you're not ready for the answer.

In most people who are seriously into politics, 'libertarian' is a phase you go through while you're seeking a political identity, that falls foul of realism and being capable of creating a beneficial society.

Libertarianism is great for creating benefits - but only for limited portions of a society, so it's discarded rapidly by anyone more interested in creating a just and equitable society... than in creating a comfortable situation for themselves.

Add to that - there are very few people that actually walk what they talk. The Libertarian Party is just Republicans with a (more) laissez-faire approach.

Perhaps they could stop being conservatives?

Perhaps they should. But why?

There are advantages to conservatism, and it acts as a limiting factor on the excesses of the opposition, which isn't intrinsically bad.

The problem is that modern conservatism and the Republican party are becoming increasingly disjointed, with the Republican party clinging ever closer to the kind of rabid retrogressive conservatism espoused by people like Limbaugh.

You said they should stop being conservatives... well, a lot of them kind of have - at least, in terms of party. Moderate conservatives are actually finding more commonground with their Democratic representatives than their Republican representatives.

"reign of error."

EWWWWWW he stole that from Robin Williams!

The horrible thing about that 'joke' is that the historical references only really work if you've got a militaristic government acting in a punitive and draconian fashion... things like supsension of rights, border xenophobia, ideological wars, and internment and torture... those would be better exemplars.

I have the feeling Michael Steele co-opted a political history 'joke' without understanding the political history.

I don't really like him that much, lol. No, not because he's black. I have to say that because I know some fools are going to jump on that as their conclusion.

I don't really like him much.

I dislike the fact that he's a token. I don't believe that he would have been appointed to his current station if Clinton had won her nomination.

I don't really like the fact that he's spineless. I don't really like the fact that he's a puppet.

Either he believes the speeches he makes, or he doesn't. If he doesn't - he's a marionette. If he does, he's an idiot.

How does someone like him end up heading the party. I mean, I like watching Keith Olbermann but I certainly wouldn't expect him to become the head of the Democratic party.

I can't help but think it's an attempt to play 'race equity'.

The GOP has much better candidates for his role

I had been slightly impressed with Michael Steele in the past. A few years ago, I hoped he'd been elected in his runs for office. He would have been great to run against Obama. Now I think he's growing into the job of Chairman of the Republican Party.

I feel like he is now truly embracing the conservative ideals: limited reach of government into private lives, personal economic freedom, national security and defense, rule of law based on the U.S. Constitution.

The mid terms are going to be interesting if he can get people focused on how the current administration is doing to the country like Arnold (r.i.n.o.) and Maria (Shriver (Kennedy)) are doing to California.

Things are going so screwed up here that we may finally get a Republican majority in the state legisalture and senate in the next elections to fix all this union and feel good crap.

I don't think Arnie is r.i.n.o. He's moderate, and he has non-partisan appeal, but that doesn't mean he objects to central Republican ideologies. What he does seem to do, is put Californians before everything else - he really seems to want everything for everyone. You can attack him for his realism, perhaps... but that doesn't necessarily make him a party traitor.

That said, I think he's another contendor that is moderate and centrist enough, that he could cross party lines.

But I think you're being a little optimistic if you think there's going to be a big swing in California. If Californians take a long view, there'll be no major upheaval. If they try to instantly patch things, there might be.

As a Republican I believe in all of those things but it seems the national party does not. I can't square limited reach into personal lives with opposing gay rights. I guess I'm more Republican than the Republican Party.

This is a very good point.

I thought that statement about same-sex marriage harming small businesses was hilariously stupid. And he did some things during his Senate campaign that made me very angry--for instance, believing that blacks should vote for him just because he's black too.

I can't square limited reach into personal lives with opposing gay rights. I guess I'm more Republican than the Republican Party.

When has the Republican Party ever believed in "limited reach into personal lives"? I mean, more than rhetorically?

I thought that statement about same-sex marriage harming small businesses was hilariously stupid. And he did some things during his Senate campaign that made me very angry--for instance, believing that blacks should vote for him just because he's black too.

In a way, he's right. Same sex marriage WILL have an economic effect - because companies that can currently deny equal treatmant, will not be able to. So - if they pay benefits for spouses, they'll have to do so across the board.

The hilariously stupid thing about it, was trying to deny equality BECAUSE of that. In this day and age, you couldn't make that argument fly if you were trying to argue against 'mixed-race' marriage. People would just look at you and say 'So, his wife is Chinese, that doesn't mean she shouldn't get healthcare', and the argument would be over.

In a way, he's right.

Oh, he is.

It's just that we could just as easily use it as an argument against, say... Republican marriage. :)

When has the Republican Party ever believed in "limited reach into personal lives"? I mean, more than rhetorically?

when it comes to taxes.

when it comes to taxes.

Only for the rich.

Only for the rich.

Its for everyone. just the rich benefit form a flat tax more.

Its for everyone. just the rich benefit form a flat tax more.

You appear to be having a problem with either comprehending reality, or relevance - not sure which.

Republicans have ideologically, theoretically, been about lowering taxes... but in practise, they lower taxes in very limited markets, and do not favor flat taxes.

Only for the rich.
You know, I think the fearmongering "Republicans only care about the rich!" annoys me on the same level that "do it or the terrorists win" annoys the anti-authoritarian people.

You appear to be having a problem with either comprehending reality, or relevance - not sure which.

Republicans have ideologically, theoretically, been about lowering taxes... but in practise, they lower taxes in very limited markets, and do not favor flat taxes.

They have made the tax rates flatter. Unless your suggesting they made the upper tax rates lower then the poor ones.

You know, I think the fearmongering "Republicans only care about the rich!" annoys me on the same level that "do it or the terrorists win" annoys the anti-authoritarian people.

Don't feel any need to actually refer to anything that was actually said.

Nice hat. Is that aluminum?

Don't feel any need to actually refer to anything that was actually said.

Nice hat. Is that aluminum?

never mind Dick army did propose a flat tax.
and never mind they proposed it in 2009.
http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/house-gop-introduces-flat-tax-option-as-part-of-alternative-budget/

never mind Dick army did propose a flat tax.
and never mind they proposed it in 2009.
http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/house-gop-introduces-flat-tax-option-as-part-of-alternative-budget/

'as part of alternative budget'.

The Republicans have never embraced flat tax.

'as part of alternative budget'.

The Republicans have never embraced flat tax.

In the same sort of sense when Health care reform under Clinton failed the democrats never embraced Nationalized health care.
When a majority leader of the party attempts to pass a flat tax (dick army), it is pretty safe to say that's a party platform.
The results have been instead lets make the progressive tax more flat.

In the same sort of sense when Health care reform under Clinton failed the democrats never embraced Nationalized health care.
When a majority leader of the party attempts to pass a flat tax (dick army), it is pretty safe to say that's a party platform.
The results have been instead lets make the progressive tax more flat.

Yes, Republicans are great for proposing all sorts of things when there is no chance they'll become law.

Yes, Republicans are great for proposing all sorts of things when there is no chance they'll become law.

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. When they're in power, they make no mention of things that, you know, they proposed when they weren't in power. When they're not in power, they make proposals that are sometimes almost sensible! Or at least agreeable to those other than the top .5% of the population.

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. When they're in power, they make no mention of things that, you know, they proposed when they weren't in power. When they're not in power, they make proposals that are sometimes almost sensible! Or at least agreeable to those other than the top .5% of the population.

Well, that and they're only fiscal conservatives when they aren't in charge of the budget.

Do the Democrats act any more responsibly?

Serious question, mind, not trying to imply anything or anything.

Do the Democrats act any more responsibly?

Serious question, mind, not trying to imply anything or anything.

Eh, slightly. At least they only lie most of the time, instead of 90% of the time.

Do the Democrats act any more responsibly?

Serious question, mind, not trying to imply anything or anything.

Remember the focus of my topic - the displaced conservatives.

As an alternative to the Democratic party, the Republican party is pretty bad. As an alternative to the Democratic party, the Democratic party is not a good option.

I'm not saying the Democratic party is acting any more responsibly - I'm talking about where the conservatives who aren't capable of fitting into Limbaugh's mold, are supposed to end up.

Do the Democrats act any more responsibly?

Serious question, mind, not trying to imply anything or anything.

The dems don't pretend to be the party of fiscal conservatism.

I would criticize the 90s Dems where they were claiming to be the party not in the pocket of corporate interests while they, when in power, proved to be the opposite.

Yes, Republicans are great for proposing all sorts of things when there is no chance they'll become law.

Dick Armey proposed it when the republicans had the majority. This is not an reasonable time to think your party might pass bills?
What ended up happening was a compromise whereby the tax rates became closer to a flat tax.
With that criteria we could say Tom Delay(succeeded Armey) did more to bring about flat tax then Clinton did to Nationalize Health care.

The dems don't pretend to be the party of fiscal conservatism.

I would criticize the 90s Dems where they were claiming to be the party not in the pocket of corporate interests while they, when in power, proved to be the opposite.

But do the current Dems make any claims they are either not living up to or are actually performing the opposite of?

Dick Armey proposed it when the republicans had the majority. This is not an reasonable time to think your party might pass bills?
What ended up happening was a compromise whereby the tax rates became closer to a flat tax.
With that criteria we could say Tom Delay(succeeded Armey) did more to bring about flat tax then Clinton did to Nationalize Health care.

So the Republicans didn't actually do it, right? No, they didn't. Did they sincerely try? Well, that's debateable. I do find it funny how often the Republicans pay this lip service but when they were in the majority and they had the Presidency and nothing stopping them, what happened? They spent like fiends and they didn't actually create a flat tax or even anything resembling it. They didn't even reduce the complications in the code.

But do the current Dems make any claims they are either not living up to or are actually performing the opposite of?

I think it's a little early to make a determination, really. We haven't had long enough to analyze their motives or where they're going with a lot of their proposals.

So the Republicans didn't actually do it, right? No, they didn't. Did they sincerely try? Well, that's debateable. I do find it funny how often the Republicans pay this lip service but when they were in the majority and they had the Presidency and nothing stopping them, what happened? They spent like fiends and they didn't actually create a flat tax or even anything resembling it. They didn't even reduce the complications in the code.

They did make the Tax rate closer to flat with the Bush tax cuts. Hence all the whining about rich getting big tax cuts, and the poor getting none. The death of the flat tax was the same thing that killed health care reform, the threat of a filibuster. They realized they couldn't over come the the likely democratic filibuster so they compromised. With something the democrats might not filibuster(no one wants to filibuster tax cuts).

As a Republican I believe in all of those things but it seems the national party does not. I can't square limited reach into personal lives with opposing gay rights. I guess I'm more Republican than the Republican Party.

The Religious Right has taken over the Republican Party. Every year the GOP become more and more of a joke.

The party isn't perfect. Still, there are more things in the Republican Party that I agree with than the other parties. For me it's that they agree with me on MORE things than those things about them that piss me off.

If you get rid of the religious right, then you may actually see people coming back to the Republican Party.

Eh, slightly. At least they only lie most of the time, instead of 90% of the time.

So that's like what 80% for the Dems? :p

They did make the Tax rate closer to flat with the Bush tax cuts. Hence all the whining about rich getting big tax cuts, and the poor getting none. The death of the flat tax was the same thing that killed health care reform, the threat of a filibuster. They realized they couldn't over come the the likely democratic filibuster so they compromised. With something the democrats might not filibuster(no one wants to filibuster tax cuts).

I love how even when the Republicans are in charge it's all the Dems fault. It must be true because otherwise the Republicans are just giving lip service to the idea of being fiscally conservative.

See, if they actually made a flat tax in order to balance the budget they created, you'd have to make that flat tax essentially the same as the highest tax rate is now, but with the poor and the middle class living on the street. The solution could be to simply stop spending so much friggin' money, but we both know that had no intention of doing that, now did they?

I think it's a little early to make a determination, really. We haven't had long enough to analyze their motives or where they're going with a lot of their proposals.

Fair enough.

I love how even when the Republicans are in charge it's all the Dems fault. It must be true because otherwise the Republicans are just giving lip service to the idea of being fiscally conservative.

See, if they actually made a flat tax in order to balance the budget they created, you'd have to make that flat tax essentially the same as the highest tax rate is now, but with the poor and the middle class living on the street. The solution could be to simply stop spending so much friggin' money, but we both know that had no intention of doing that, now did they?

When Armey was majority leader of the house in part during the Clinton surpluses, as was his initial proposal for flat tax. I think the chance to make a flat tax was when we had surpluses. As soon as 9/11 gave us the national security(republican's favorite reason to spend) reason for spending a chance to drastically change the tax code disappeared.

I doubt people would be on the streets. It would change how things worked.

So that's like what 80% for the Dems? :p
Hey, give them some credit! :mad:

>.>

<.<

(75% :wink:)

The Religious Right has taken over the Republican Party. Every year the GOP become more and more of a joke.

yep.
pretty much. Soon it will be nothing more then a crazy group of religious nut jobs.



If you get rid of the religious right, then you may actually see people coming back to the Republican Party.



I doubt they will, they are too addicted to the religious right. Sad really they might actually be a serious party with out them.

When Armey was majority leader of the house in part during the Clinton surpluses, as was his initial proposal for flat tax. I think the chance to make a flat tax was when we had surpluses. As soon as 9/11 gave us the national security(republican's favorite reason to spend) reason for spending a chance to drastically change the tax code disappeared.

I doubt people would be on the streets. It would change how things worked.

You doubt people would be in the streets if we raised taxes on the poor and middle class? Hmmm... how does that work? You take more money from people who can't afford to give up more money and they what? Print more money? Only the government does that.

You doubt people would be in the streets if we raised taxes on the poor and middle class? Hmmm... how does that work? You take more money from people who can't afford to give up more money and they what? Print more money? Only the government does that.

Well for one then increased economic efficiency would make the economy more productive.
Louis Kaplow. "Accuracy, Complexity, and the Income Tax," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization (1998)

Armey's proposal got rid of the exemptions which vastly favor the rich.
Also the Family allowance of Dick Armey's proposal pretty much prevented the poor form being tossed out in the streets.
11,350 dollar base exemption( 22,750 for couple)+5,300 per child from all taxation would be a better exemption then current exemptions(and this is 10 years old assuming adjustment for inflation the exemption would be much higher).
Largely the shifting of rates is made up for in a shifting of exemptions from the rich to the poor.

looking at the 1995 proposal we see

A family of four earning $30,000 would pay no income tax, the same family earning $50,000 would pay 6 percent,
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/armey%27s_flat_tax.html

to be honest Armey's flat tax is more beneficial to poor then the current system.

Perhaps they should. But why?

There are advantages to conservatism, and it acts as a limiting factor on the excesses of the opposition, which isn't intrinsically bad.Certainly, but there are lots of ways to oppose the opposition without being conservatives.

The problem is that modern conservatism and the Republican party are becoming increasingly disjointed, with the Republican party clinging ever closer to the kind of rabid retrogressive conservatism espoused by people like Limbaugh.This is part of the problem, the fracturing. Both sides of the disjoint could legitimately call themselves conservative. Who's right?
Ceasing to be conservatives would eliminate the association with people like Limbaugh.

You said they should stop being conservatives... well, a lot of them kind of have - at least, in terms of party. Moderate conservatives are actually finding more commonground with their Democratic representatives than their Republican representatives.This could be one way of going about it, I suppose. Conservative Democrats do exist.

They have made the tax rates flatter. Unless your suggesting they made the upper tax rates lower then the poor ones.Making the upper tax rates lower than the poor ones would not be a flat tax, it would be a regressive tax.

Well for one then increased economic efficiency would make the economy more productive.
Louis Kaplow. "Accuracy, Complexity, and the Income Tax," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization (1998)

Armey's proposal got rid of the exemptions which vastly favor the rich.
Also the Family allowance of Dick Armey's proposal pretty much prevented the poor form being tossed out in the streets.
11,350 dollar base exemption( 22,750 for couple)+5,300 per child from all taxation would be a better exemption then current exemptions(and this is 10 years old assuming adjustment for inflation the exemption would be much higher).
Largely the shifting of rates is made up for in a shifting of exemptions from the rich to the poor.

looking at the 1995 proposal we see

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/armey%27s_flat_tax.html

to be honest Armey's flat tax is more beneficial to poor then the current system.

Ah, I see, so he didn't actually propose a flat tax then. I'm glad we've established that. I believe that's exactly what I said. A flat tax would mean that everyone pays the same percentage. Like I said, lip service.

"We tax the poor the same as the rich, but not really" is not a flat tax. So even Republicans and your sources agree that a flat tax is a bad idea. Closing the loopholes, however. Good idea. Whose plan does that sound like?