The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2010 => Topic started by: GOP Congress on June 22, 2010, 03:23:19 PM
-
As many of you know, I am positive that the Republican Party will take over both houses of Congress, and if my calculations are correct, by a significant margin in each. I'm going to go on the assumption that not only will the Congress have republicans in the majority, but that the direction in each house will be directed by the more conservative than moderate branch.
So I'm not going to argue differences with regard to internal GOP issues in both houses. While such differences will indeed be present, I have belief that the significant conservative shift in both houses will dictate the agenda, despite all the politicking that the dems will try to woo on the most liberal of the GOP office holders.
So while the soccer weenies on the left try to get the media to promote those GOP yahoos, the real elements of the GOP will have to start governing. And that is the purpose of this thread: What actions should a Congress with a definite conservative tilt enact?
Obviously, much of our anger will carry over from the election to that of vindictive action, such as setting up investigatory committees to determine the extent of criminal activity in both the legislative and executive branches of government. These committees are valid, to a point. We need to ensure that the committees are used PRIMARILY for exposing the actual problems, and coming up with solutions to actually implement their fixes, or at least establish a course of governance that actually addresses the fixes in a rational, production-based manner. The SECONDARY issue, actual sanctions (including impeachment charges), should remain secondary to the more pertinent immediacy of fixing the problem in the first place.
So, where do we start? Imagine Jim DeMint as Majority leader, and John Boehner as the Speaker, FOR NOW. This may change, and actually infers a bias on my part based upon both reasonable outcome results and personal preference, but the purpose of this thread is more of a business plan to incorporate the return of the second branch of government to it's Constitutional mission.
These are the main things I'd like to see Congress move on, not in any particular order as they are all vitally important:
1. Real economic change, starting with lowering tax rates, but coming up with a valid plan that Obama cannot veto.
2. Real corruption reform, starting with following the money on the "stimulus" packages
3. Traditional energy industry affirmation and support, in particular the oil and coal industries. "DRILL BABY DRILL" should continue to be our mantra, as most conservatives p
4. A commitment to defining the exit strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq that can only be triggered by winning
5. A commitment to ensuring that the Internet remains open to capitalist investment, to ensure the free dissemination of media and, in fact, offer "TRUE 'Net Neutrality'", and NOT the socialist version pushed by both the current Administration and large search engine companies (Google) and infrastructure giants
Of course, the entire mission depends on being able to avoid being distracted by Democrats who will now be politicking for their very lives. In 1995 Clinton and the Democratic minority, aided and abetted by the then-Internet-less mainstream media, was able to derail the conservative elements of the congressional agenda. That can NOT HAPPEN this time around, and I am of the opinion it will not.
OK, start hammering away. I will work on some of the specifics on specific action items, but I'd like to look forward.
-
1. Cut federal spending across the board with the possible exception of the military.
2. Lower taxes across the board. Completely eliminate the death tax.
3. Secure our geograpical borders.
4. Enforce the existing laws concerning illegals found in this country and those that are hiring illegals.
5. Rescind as much of the new healthcare reform as possible.
6. Drastically reduce foriegn aide.
-
7. Open up as much for oil exploration as possible, and allow refineries and reactors to be built.
8. Drastically reduce the amount of regulations imposed on businesses.
9. Drastically reduce corporate taxes.
10. STOP SPENDING SO MUCH OF OUR MONEY!
-
BANtheDNC! :-)
-
I thought it was nothing more than a PR move when McCain said "freeze spending."
And even now, a freeze would still destroy the nation. Hard decisions need to be made, and the hardest one will be laying off 60% of the gov't employees while simultaniously cutting entitlments down to 1/4 of what they are today... I don't know that there is any way around these two items if we want the economy to survive.
-
I thought it was nothing more than a PR move when McCain said "freeze spending."
And even now, a freeze would still destroy the nation. Hard decisions need to be made, and the hardest one will be laying off 60% of the gov't employees while simultaniously cutting entitlments down to 1/4 of what they are today... I don't know that there is any way around these two items if we want the economy to survive.
I suspect he meant freeze additions to spending, not existing spending.
Yes, we need to get rid of at least 50% of the current federal civilian work force. It will be painful, but it needs to be done. We aren't going to get out of our current mess without a lot of pain. Pain that most folks are unwilling to endure. So... Nothing much will change until the country goes bankrupt and then the REAL pain will be felt by all.
-
#1 - Keep their own hubris in check. If they win big, it WON'T be because America wants a different bunch of special interests taken care of, it'll be because we've have e-f*cking-nuff of Big Government.
#2 - Rein in the runaway entitlement spending, and give States the tools to deal with their own unions and other issues without the DOJ and DOL shooting them in the back.
#3 - Cut the damned pork, including the GOP pork.
#4 - Get the frickin' border under positive control, THEN we can talk about fair and just ways to handle people and families already here.
Most of my other top ten would require a GOP President with actual balls, or a veto-proof majority in both Houses.
-
I thought it was nothing more than a PR move when McCain said "freeze spending."
And even now, a freeze would still destroy the nation. Hard decisions need to be made, and the hardest one will be laying off 60% of the gov't employees while simultaniously cutting entitlments down to 1/4 of what they are today... I don't know that there is any way around these two items if we want the economy to survive.
Edit: emphasis mine.
And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.
BTW--the ignore feature works both ways. You don't like what I have to say? Hey, free country, man.
-
Shoot everybody that ain't brand new to the house and senate.... :-)
Hey, it only takes one rotten apple to ruin the whole barrel....and they're a lot of rotten apples in Washington. :-)
-
Edit: emphasis mine.
And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.
BTW--the ignore feature works both ways. You don't like what I have to say? Hey, free country, man.
I notice you didn't mention why you disagree with his opinion. What are your prospective solutions?
Or are you merely content to merely attack those that you don't like? I thought you were better than that.
Are you now going to attack me for agreeing with a lot of BKGs points? Or accuse me of being a drama queen? We all see things from a different POV Sparky. I strongly suspect that BKG made a lot of enemies here over his "Why should I vote for the GOP" thread. I suspect that a lot of folks took it as a personal insult to themselves instead of the noticing that he was talking about the GOP leadership.
But that is my own personal perspective and I know that others will have their own.
-
1. Defund the healthcare bill
2. Reverse the higher capital gains tax
3. Extend Bush's tax cuts
4. Enforce the federal law on immigration
5. Build the damn fence.
6. Push through the Fair Tax
7. Eliminate pork spending
8. Push back unemployment benefits to 6 months.
9. Lower corporate tax (so they don't send jobs oversees)
10. Find a way to fire all the czars
-
I notice you didn't mention why you disagree with his opinion. What are your prospective solutions?
Or are you merely content to merely attack those that you don't like? I thought you were better than that.
Are you now going to attack me for agreeing with a lot of BKGs points? Or accuse me of being a drama queen? We all see things from a different POV Sparky. I strongly suspect that BKG made a lot of enemies here over his "Why should I vote for the GOP" thread. I suspect that a lot of folks took it as a personal insult to themselves instead of the noticing that he was talking about the GOP leadership.
But that is my own personal perspective and I know that others will have their own.
Yeah, let's cut all those SSI, military retiree, et al, benefits to 1/4 what they are today, what the ****, right?
Are you SERIOUSLY agreeing with that statement?
-
#1 - Keep their own hubris in check. If they win big, it WON'T be because America wants a different bunch of special interests taken care of, it'll be because we've have e-f*cking-nuff of Big Government.
#2 - Rein in the runaway entitlement spending, and give States the tools to deal with their own unions and other issues without the DOJ and DOL shooting them in the back.
#3 - Cut the damned pork, including the GOP pork.
#4 - Get the frickin' border under positive control, THEN we can talk about fair and just ways to handle people and families already here.
Most of my other top ten would require a GOP President with actual balls, or a veto-proof majority in both Houses.
See, boys and girls? THAT is what is called, "being realistic."
Oh, but I would have added start finding ways to reverse Obamacare.
-
#1 - Keep their own hubris in check. If they win big, it WON'T be because America wants a different bunch of special interests taken care of, it'll be because we've have e-f*cking-nuff of Big Government.
#2 - Rein in the runaway entitlement spending, and give States the tools to deal with their own unions and other issues without the DOJ and DOL shooting them in the back.
#3 - Cut the damned pork, including the GOP pork.
#4 - Get the frickin' border under positive control, THEN we can talk about fair and just ways to handle people and families already here.
Most of my other top ten would require a GOP President with actual balls, or a veto-proof majority in both Houses.
This is a great list -- especially the highlighted section.
-
Yeah, let's cut all those SSI, military retiree, et al, benefits to 1/4 what they are today, what the ****, right?
Are you SERIOUSLY agreeing with that statement?
I didn't view his post that way as he didn't actually post that.
But you did.
See my point about differing perspectives?
BTW... If it were up to me, SSI would be phased out over the next 20 years.
-
Yeah, let's cut all those SSI, military retiree, et al, benefits to 1/4 what they are today, what the ****, right?
Are you SERIOUSLY agreeing with that statement?
BTW...
You never did mention your own ideas. You obviously don't like some of the ideas mentioend here.
Why is that?
Man the **** up and put your own ideas out there. Are you afraid that folks won't like them?
-
BTW... If it were up to me, SSI would be phased out over the next 20 years.
SSI covers severely disabled (physically and cognitively) adults. I have no issue with providing for the most vulnerable of our population.
-
Medicaid should also be phased out. Only the truly disabled should receive them.
-
Medicaid should also be phased out. Only the truly disabled should receive them.
I agree with you there. Medicaid has become a lifestyle for generations of people.
-
I agree with you there. Medicaid has become a lifestyle for generations of people.
Indeed it has.
Isn't Medicare also on the verge of bankruptcy? Government run programs just do not work. They are grossly mismanaged, and the taxpayers are picking up the tab.
-
I didn't view his post that way as he didn't actually post that.
But you did.
See my point about differing perspectives?
BTW... If it were up to me, SSI would be phased out over the next 20 years.
Oh, really? Here, let me post it again for you, just so there's no confusion...
I thought it was nothing more than a PR move when McCain said "freeze spending."
And even now, a freeze would still destroy the nation. Hard decisions need to be made, and the hardest one will be laying off 60% of the gov't employees while simultaniously cutting entitlments down to 1/4 of what they are today... I don't know that there is any way around these two items if we want the economy to survive.
So not only are you being obtuse, obviously you can't read, either.
Great--get rid of SSI. How, pray tell? How do you propose giving back to those folks who have paid in 20, 30, 40 years or more?
See, this is where I get upset with the Ronulans, the 100-percenters, and those who don't think past the initial, "Screw 'em all!" mentality. You want anarchy and chaos? Go right ahead. I'll agree we can't sustain the spending and entitlements as they are now, but neither can you just cut everyone off cold turkey.
-
BTW...
You never did mention your own ideas. You obviously don't like some of the ideas mentioend here.
Why is that?
Man the **** up and put your own ideas out there. Are you afraid that folks won't like them?
Because most of the ideas have already been mentioned. Man the **** up and support your own ideas with facts and logic, and tell me where your ideas won't result in upheval on a massive scale for a generation or more.
-
I tend to think that the Dems will try to pass "cap'n'trade" in the "lame duck" session after the election, as a way to "punish" the voters for kicking their asses to the curb. So, on every piece of legislation that is passed by Congress, not only should a repeal of the health care deform be attached, but a repeal of cap'n'tax.
For some reason, I think that they'll try to negate whatever the SCOTUS did re: campaign finance by corporations, and the McDonald v. City of Chicago decision due out Monday. How? The same lame duck session.
-
Because most of the ideas have already been mentioned. Man the **** up and support your own ideas with facts and logic, and tell me where your ideas won't result in upheval on a massive scale for a generation or more.
I know that the changes needed will cause a lot of pain. I'm willing to not only impose that pain, but to endure it personally.
Are you under the mistaken assumption that fixing the damage incurred by the asshole politicians will be pain free?
Freedom isn't free and it is painful to implement and defend.
-
Oh, really? Here, let me post it again for you, just so there's no confusion...
So not only are you being obtuse, obviously you can't read, either.
Great--get rid of SSI. How, pray tell? How do you propose giving back to those folks who have paid in 20, 30, 40 years or more?
See, this is where I get upset with the Ronulans, the 100-percenters, and those who don't think past the initial, "Screw 'em all!" mentality. You want anarchy and chaos? Go right ahead. I'll agree we can't sustain the spending and entitlements as they are now, but neither can you just cut everyone off cold turkey.
Oh good Lord...
The dumbing down of America is complete. A so called conservative is defending SSI.
The Republic is ****ed.
-
Oh good Lord...
The dumbing down of America is complete. A so called conservative is defending SSI.
The Republic is ****ed.
Oh, GFY, you drama queen. I never "defended" perpetuating it, but you're going to have to come up with something that's going to enable those who have contributed to it for DECADES to recoup their contributions. I've been for privatizing SSI, or at least encouraging more private investment similar to 401(k)s.
So for you to claim I'm for SSI, is a strawman, not to mention shows you don't look very bright at all.
Yeah, let's just cut everybody off--**** Granny, the old bitch!
-
Hang on folks,I think we have a issue with terms.
Is SSI referring to Social Security or Supplemental Security Income which is related but also much different?
-
Hang on folks,I think we have a issue with terms.
Is SSI referring to Social Security or Supplemental Security Income which is related but also much different?
I'm referring to Social Security.
What a GOP-led Congress needs to do is undo the changes which have damaged our security FIRST, then those which have damaged our economy...
In a generic sense, what we need to work on first are the changes which have occured most recently, and as we go along, work on issues which have plagued us for longer periods of time. Just saying, "No more SS for you!" tomorrow isn't realistic, but incrementally changing the system so that it becomes more of a privatized system and gets the government out of the Ponzi scheme it created is more realistic and smarter than just slamming on the brakes and saying, "Oh I'm willing to take the pain."
The people who say that the loudest are usually the ones who are either affected the least, or will start squealing first (and loudest) when the "change" hits them.
-
I'm referring to Social Security.
What a GOP-led Congress needs to do is undo the changes which have damaged our security FIRST, then those which have damaged our economy...
In a generic sense, what we need to work on first are the changes which have occured most recently, and as we go along, work on issues which have plagued us for longer periods of time. Just saying, "No more SS for you!" tomorrow isn't realistic, but incrementally changing the system so that it becomes more of a privatized system and gets the government out of the Ponzi scheme it created is more realistic and smarter than just slamming on the brakes and saying, "Oh I'm willing to take the pain."
The people who say that the loudest are usually the ones who are either affected the least, or will start squealing first (and loudest) when the "change" hits them.
The only reason I put that out is so that there isn`t an argument as far as apples and oranges.
Supplemental Security Income is somewhat more prone to abuse because it based not on a universal enrollment but by certain criteria.
Social Security is on its own right arguable for many reasons,to me the first is that the eligibility age was set higher then life expectancy when started.
-
SSI -- disabled and indigent. This covers the severely disabled (pays for housing, etc.) and those who milk the system and claim they are disabled.
SSDI -- disabled. Your monthly payment is a % of earnings/what you paid into SS. Abused? yes. However not as much.
SS -- call it what it is, a tax. We definitely won't be seeing this when we retire.
-
Yeah, let's cut all those SSI, military retiree, et al, benefits to 1/4 what they are today, what the ****, right?
Are you SERIOUSLY agreeing with that statement?
Almost 14 TRILLION in debt. Please explain to me how, without doing what I believe needs to be done, we are going to not only stop the growth of the debt, but REVERSE it to the point of survivable levels.
I'd like a reasoned answer to that, please.
-
Oh, GFY, you drama queen. I never "defended" perpetuating it, but you're going to have to come up with something that's going to enable those who have contributed to it for DECADES to recoup their contributions. I've been for privatizing SSI, or at least encouraging more private investment similar to 401(k)s.
So for you to claim I'm for SSI, is a strawman, not to mention shows you don't look very bright at all.
Yeah, let's just cut everybody off--**** Granny, the old bitch!
And you call ME a 100%-er? Where exactly did I say "cut everybody off?" I'll wait while you point that out for me.
Also, if you paid any attention at all to the mathematics of it all, you'd know that rarely does a person get back what is paid in.
You'd also know that SS is pushing (what is it now?) well over 25 Trillion - T.R.I.L.L.I.O.N. in unfunded liabilities. How do you plan for us to pay for that?
What portion of our annual budget goes to entitlements? Not just SSI, but ALL entitlements? Including things like farm subsidies, energy subsidies and the like? All of those hand out that "the rich" pay for that are not just in SSI.
-
The only reason I put that out is so that there isn`t an argument as far as apples and oranges.
Supplemental Security Income is somewhat more prone to abuse because it based not on a universal enrollment but by certain criteria.
Social Security is on its own right arguable for many reasons,to me the first is that the eligibility age was set higher then life expectancy when started.
Good point - I've been using them interchangeably, which I shouldn't have, because they all fall under the same umbrella and are all an entitlement.
-
I'd have to say that we are all in agreement that the economy is the first order of business, behind defense of course.
Yes, we have to cut, cut, cut. and we also have to deal with Obama who will do his damnedest to screw up the works as much as possible. MSNBC will be proclaiming how the veto pen will save America or some crap like that.
The bottom line is that the next Congress will be critical not so much in reversing everything, but to ensure that we stop everything COLD, while keeping the bleeding to a minimum. During this time period, we need to ensure that we put out our tax cut proposals to the American public, that we tell them HOW and WHY they will work, and that we unequivocally need presidential support to get them through.
Therefore, the key, in my opinion to how effective the Congress will be is to ensure that we don't promise the moon. We WILL be hated, vilified, and smeared by what's left of the mainstream media. It will be incomubant on our representatives to constantly keep up a dialog with their constituents on the REAL reasons that the economy isn't rebounding, etc. Keep in mind that the next wave of economic strife is about to hit next year, and the Obama Administration will do its damnedest to keep the economy weak, so he can blame the republican congress, and try to get back power in 2012.
To that end, we will be looking at this from the same angle as a Japanese kamikazi / Islamic suicide bombers (hey, secret service Google term alert). We have to stay above the fray, and we can't promise too much too soon as far as actually getting things done. As everyone must know, Obama has manipulated the BP disaster to maximize the damage that the oil spill caused, so he can milk it for all its worth. Don't think he won't do the same once the tax cuts expire and take another 10% of the economy with it.
I'll be formulating the Executive branch effect on a republican congress in the next couple of weeks.
-
Almost 14 TRILLION in debt. Please explain to me how, without doing what I believe needs to be done, we are going to not only stop the growth of the debt, but REVERSE it to the point of survivable levels.
I'd like a reasoned answer to that, please.
Still waiting for an answer here....
-
And you call ME a 100%-er? Where exactly did I say "cut everybody off?" I'll wait while you point that out for me.
Also, if you paid any attention at all to the mathematics of it all, you'd know that rarely does a person get back what is paid in.
You'd also know that SS is pushing (what is it now?) well over 25 Trillion - T.R.I.L.L.I.O.N. in unfunded liabilities. How do you plan for us to pay for that?
What portion of our annual budget goes to entitlements? Not just SSI, but ALL entitlements? Including things like farm subsidies, energy subsidies and the like? All of those hand out that "the rich" pay for that are not just in SSI.
And here...
-
Newsflash, genius--some of us are paying for that "unfunded liability" and don't have time to respond to your drivel as quickly as you like.
Notice where I said we need to START privatizing SS and getting younger workers into their own retirement funds?
While you might be able to eliminate most farm and energy subsidies with minimal damage to the economy, you can't say the same for military retirement/medical and SS. The effects of cutting those off cold turkey would be devastating, to say the least.
Oh, and good luck maintaining a competent military and professional NCO/officer corps when they realize they'll be working for nada after they retire.
Didn't think that far ahead, did ya? Nah, didn't think you did.
-
...For instance, an everyday example of that 'Hubris' which a GOP Congress needs to avoid would be to think that people care enough about your opinion to want to argue with you on the internet, once it's clear that both you and the person you want to argue with disagree completely on something.
Cutting back Federal spending, or programmed future spending more importantly, is very important, but it can't be done in a way that violates law or equity itself; you can't for instance change the military retirement system on those who have already retired, you can't turn off Social Security on those already vested in it, and you can't just default on bonds. What CAN be cut is current, unvested 'entitlement program' payments, pay schedules, subsidies, pork projects, and the HCR mandates (But that last one won't be feasible until there is either a GOP President or a veto-proof GOP Congress, i.e. not until at least January 2013 if then).
The other part of the problem is that the Federal spending involved is a major input to the economy in a very distributed and invisible way, for instance the large sums spent on school subsidies add up to a lot of net jobs out in the wider economy, not just faculty and staff but service industries like food service suppliers as well. Careless chainsaw surgery could have very drastic unintended consequences, the Democrat fiscal bomb has to be defuzed with great care. Going after it with a blunt instrument or going off on a purely Social Conservative program is exactly the kind of hubris that caused Gingrich's ultimate failure as Speaker.
-
1. Cut federal spending across the board with the possible exception of the military.
2. Lower taxes across the board. Completely and permanently eliminate the death tax.
3. Secure our geograpical borders.
4. Enforce the existing laws concerning illegals found in this country and those that are hiring illegals.
5. Rescind as much of the new healthcare reform as possible.
6. Drastically reduce foriegn aide.
fify
-
Newsflash, genius--some of us are paying for that "unfunded liability" and don't have time to respond to your drivel as quickly as you like.
Notice where I said we need to START privatizing SS and getting younger workers into their own retirement funds?
While you might be able to eliminate most farm and energy subsidies with minimal damage to the economy, you can't say the same for military retirement/medical and SS. The effects of cutting those off cold turkey would be devastating, to say the least.
Oh, and good luck maintaining a competent military and professional NCO/officer corps when they realize they'll be working for nada after they retire.
Didn't think that far ahead, did ya? Nah, didn't think you did.
Eliminating military retirement would prompt a draft because not many would serve -- or stay past initial commitment.
-
I know that the changes needed will cause a lot of pain. I'm willing to not only impose that pain, but to endure it personally.
Are you under the mistaken assumption that fixing the damage incurred by the asshole politicians will be pain free?
Freedom isn't free and it is painful to implement and defend.
It is not the fault of taxpayers who have contributed to the SS fund for many years that the greedy politicians spent all the money rather than putting it in the fund as originally designed. So cutting my SS that I contributed to for many years by 75% is f...insane.
You want pain. Raise the age up and increase taxes. How is that for a little pain.
-
Obviously, there are a lot of micro-issues we need to take care of once we take over Congress. However, we have to ensure that we are not enmeshed in the minutae that we let the overall objective of returning the US back to Constitutional authority get out of our grasp.
The plain fact is that we will be inheriting the biggest mess, the biggest albatross of any governmental agency in history. That is why it is IMPERATIVE that we enter the new session with a TEAM, not a disparate group of individuals who will scheme to better their own interests. For the most part, that is why I'm proud of the overall candidacy group this coming cycle; they all recognize that this is a ******* WAR we are in, not just a political fight. We are at war not just with terrorists, but with people who will give their very lives to take out everything we hold dear. People who will sell out for political purpose and pseudo control based on fear and hatred, like the Democratic Party, are just as detrimental and dangerous as those terrorists who fly our planes into buildings.
In short, there are no room for individual races. And like a CONVENTIONAL war, the enemy will offer bribes and incentives for us to "turn on our own"...and in the same context, anyone who runs as a republican but, in fact, plays both sides of the fence for personal gain is, in my eyes, just as much of a traitor as those in uniform who rat out their own military units to the enemy.
I am not exaggerating. I am being consistent to the oath I took in 1976 to defend the Constitution of the United states from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and incorporating it to public service. RINOS at best are ignorant of the real objective at hand; worse, they use the association with the GOP to "leverage" their own individual agenda at the expense of the US Constitution.
Frankly, if you are in business, you make the rules as far as your own associations and your own productive efforts. You follow the laws that the government puts out, so you have as great an incentive to ensure the government stays OUT of your business by maintaining an ethical, but competitively agressive stance. BUT...if you are IN the government, that same ethical stance, means you AGGRESSIVELY enforce the rules, but NOT use the rules to YOUR advantage. To that end, the definition of good government is to allow the GREATEST amount of freedom with the LEAST amount of interference while maintaining the general welfare and defense of the state.
OK, I'm being a bit esoteric here. To simplify, we need to ensure that we return this government back to its constitutional roots, remove government shackles, reduce overall corruption, and enforce our laws; once we prosper again, we rigorously export these principles to as many people we can around the world. But we have to get our OWN house in order first. And that starts with a Constitutional Congress. And the constitutional congress starts in January, 2011, with the election mandate we present on November 3 of this year.
-
Oh, GFY, you drama queen. I never "defended" perpetuating it, but you're going to have to come up with something that's going to enable those who have contributed to it for DECADES to recoup their contributions. I've been for privatizing SSI, or at least encouraging more private investment similar to 401(k)s.
So for you to claim I'm for SSI, is a strawman, not to mention shows you don't look very bright at all.
Yeah, let's just cut everybody off--**** Granny, the old bitch!
That's why I said phase it out. I never said just up and cut everyone off.
-
Newsflash, genius--some of us are paying for that "unfunded liability" and don't have time to respond to your drivel as quickly as you like.
Notice where I said we need to START privatizing SS and getting younger workers into their own retirement funds?
While you might be able to eliminate most farm and energy subsidies with minimal damage to the economy, you can't say the same for military retirement/medical and SS. The effects of cutting those off cold turkey would be devastating, to say the least.
Oh, and good luck maintaining a competent military and professional NCO/officer corps when they realize they'll be working for nada after they retire.
Didn't think that far ahead, did ya? Nah, didn't think you did.
STill hurling insults and still refusing to answer the question or put forth a workable solution. I usually see that when a person has nothing to offer, but still wants to be right.
And you're not paying for "Unfunded" liabilities... You're paying for "funded" liabilities... There's a difference... big one.
Where did I say cut anything from the military?
You're throwing out so many red-herrings that it's becoming laughable. So I'll ask one more time - where am I wrong? And what is YOUR plan to eliminate the ~$14T debt?
-
You said cut entitlements, genius. How else would you classify military retirement pay and VA benefits?
You're only "insulted" because you've been exposed for your shallow thinking. Not my fault you can't see past the surface of a problem.
Bottom line, the issues which got us to this point are legion and not fixable with a mission statement or bullet points. You want easy answers to complex issues. Sorry, I'm not here to blow sunshine up your ass.
-
What I said is:
1. Cut federal spending across the board with the possible exception of the military.
2. Lower taxes across the board. Completely eliminate the death tax.
3. Secure our geograpical borders.
4. Enforce the existing laws concerning illegals found in this country and those that are hiring illegals.
5. Rescind as much of the new healthcare reform as possible.
6. Drastically reduce foriegn aide.
And for the record, I'm not at all insulted. It's amusing that you seem to think so.
Nor am I looking for simple answers to complex problems, but I do know we have to start somewhere and no matter what is done some folks aren't going to like it.
-
It is not the fault of taxpayers who have contributed to the SS fund for many years that the greedy politicians spent all the money rather than putting it in the fund as originally designed. So cutting my SS that I contributed to for many years by 75% is f...insane.
You want pain. Raise the age up and increase taxes. How is that for a little pain.
The politicians have already done that over the decades since SS was 1st implemented and I won't be at all surprised when they do it again.
That won't change the fact that it is still IMO going to go bankrupt. Especially if this country keeps bleeding jobs.
-
The politicians have already done that over the decades since SS was 1st implemented and I won't be at all surprised when they do it again.
That won't change the fact that it is still IMO going to go bankrupt. Especially if this country keeps bleeding jobs.
Not nearly as much as they SHOULD have. If they had stuck with raising as life expectancies rose, if a person started drawing SS at age 65 in 1937, the age should be 77 for men, and 82 for women today.
As it is, my age for "full" benefits only changed once--from 65 to 67. I can still draw reduced benefits starting at age 62.
-
Not nearly as much as they SHOULD have. If they had stuck with raising as life expectancies rose, if a person started drawing SS at age 65 in 1937, the age should be 77 for men, and 82 for women today.
As it is, my age for "full" benefits only changed once--from 65 to 67. I can still draw reduced benefits starting at age 62.
You and I must be in the same age bracket as far as SS retirement benefits go.
In 1967 the average life expectancy (both sexes, all races) was 70.5. That means they were expected (read forced) to pay into the system for their entire working lives yet only be expected to draw benefits for 5.5 years under your scenario. Hardly seems reasonable to me.
That is one of the reasons why I think that SS needs to be phased out over the next 20 years or so. Expects too much pay in for the pay out. Couple that with the fact that even if they raise the percentage and retirement age, the FED will still find some way to FUBAR the program.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/nvsr52_14t12.pdf
*note: The tables in the above link only go up until 2001.
-
You said cut entitlements, genius. How else would you classify military retirement pay and VA benefits?
You're only "insulted" because you've been exposed for your shallow thinking. Not my fault you can't see past the surface of a problem.
Bottom line, the issues which got us to this point are legion and not fixable with a mission statement or bullet points. You want easy answers to complex issues. Sorry, I'm not here to blow sunshine up your ass.
I'm still waiting for you to offer something more tangible than whining and moaning about my opinion... At this point, I conclude, after having asked a number of times, that you have nothing to offer...
"Retirement pay..." that's brilliant... :rotf: :rotf:
-
The politicians have already done that over the decades since SS was 1st implemented and I won't be at all surprised when they do it again.
That won't change the fact that it is still IMO going to go bankrupt. Especially if this country keeps bleeding jobs.
SS could be fixed and made whole if we would do 1 single thing and that is go back to when this program was started. All of these add on benefits like widows, children,illegals, etc. are adding huge costs. Raise the age limit and go back to what the program was originally intended. The program might stand a fighting chance then. Also, put the money in the Trust Fund rather than in the General Fund. Politicians that raided and spent our money are criminals in my opinion.
-
Raising the age limit is ridiculous. By the time one is ready to collect..they would probably be dead. Who wants to work right up until they die? What about the golden years?
Remove spouses and children....that's what I would like...I would highly object to raising the age limit. I've paid into SS since I was 15. By age 62, I want to retire, and yeah, I want my money.
-
Raising the age limit is ridiculous. By the time one is ready to collect..they would probably be dead. Who wants to work right up until they die? What about the golden years?
Remove spouses and children....that's what I would like...I would highly object to raising the age limit. I've paid into SS since I was 15. By age 62, I want to retire, and yeah, I want my money.
If I were you, I would not like that idea either. Cutting benefits and raising taxes may be the only other solution. The system is taking a beating with 12 million people unemployed now.
-
I'm still waiting for you to offer something more tangible than whining and moaning about my opinion... At this point, I conclude, after having asked a number of times, that you have nothing to offer...
"Retirement pay..." that's brilliant... :rotf: :rotf:
How many times do I have to quote your earlier post?
Whazza matter? Does my use of facts and logic to blow your shit out of the water leave you all butt-hurt?
Good. Come correct next time then.
And answer my question--if military retirement pay is not an entitlement per your definition, what is it then?
-
How many times do I have to quote your earlier post?
Whazza matter? Does my use of facts and logic to blow your shit out of the water leave you all butt-hurt?
Good. Come correct next time then.
And answer my question--if military retirement pay is not an entitlement per your definition, what is it then?
You make me giggle. I'm still waiting for your "solution" that cuts our $13T+ debt w/o cutting entitlements. Still waiting. Have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time.. I won't hold my breath.
But fine, let's play your game. Exclude Military retirement. Now what? You okay with cutting non-military entitlements? Or are you going to argue that Social Security can't be cut? Can we cut Medicare? Or do we have to keep that as well?
How about I ask it this way: What entitlements would you allow to be cut?
-
In 1967 the average life expectancy (both sexes, all races) was 70.5. That means they were expected (read forced) to pay into the system for their entire working lives yet only be expected to draw benefits for 5.5 years under your scenario. Hardly seems reasonable to me.
Yeah, but it actually was a lot more reasonable once you take into account what the historical FICA tax rate was, back in the day. You didn't pay very much in over a long working life, and you didn't collect SS all that long -"You" being the actuarial statistic 'you' back then, not 'you' in particular now.
The whole scheme didn't really take account of increasing life expectancy or expansion of benefits very well, and reacted slowly to those increases in obligations, but ultimately the FICA tax rate ballooned to several times what it was a mere three or four decades ago, still below the power curve of the growth of program obligations, though.
-
You make me giggle. I'm still waiting for your "solution" that cuts our $13T+ debt w/o cutting entitlements. Still waiting. Have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time.. I won't hold my breath.
But fine, let's play your game. Exclude Military retirement. Now what? You okay with cutting non-military entitlements? Or are you going to argue that Social Security can't be cut? Can we cut Medicare? Or do we have to keep that as well?
How about I ask it this way: What entitlements would you allow to be cut?
I gave several suggestions. However, it look like all you want to do is argue. BTW, I would not cut military retirement or SS (the original plan without the add on for children, spouse, illegals, etc) FYI, Medicare premiums and COSTS will go up and benefits will go down under Obamacare.
-
I gave several suggestions. However, it look like all you want to do is argue. BTW, I would not cut military retirement or SS (the original plan without the add on for children, spouse, illegals, etc) FYI, Medicare premiums and COSTS will go up and benefits will go down under Obamacare.
Was'nt directed at you, Lacarnut. Was directed only at the sparkly-one.
Not cutting SS may not be an option - it's all but bankrupt.
-
Was'nt directed at you, Lacarnut. Was directed only at the sparkly-one.
Not cutting SS may not be an option - it's all but bankrupt.
Okay, then I'll say it. You're just blathering on for the sake of hearing your own voice.
You can't answer my questions, you won't consider any of my answer, you just want to be a contrarian "ista" POS.
Frankly, I'd rather punch myself in the nuts than try to discuss anything with you--it would be less painful and would eventually fade away.
ETA: You're just butt-hurt that you made an overreaching blanket statement and got caught on it. Admit it, and we can all move on and be one big happy family, m'kay?
-
Yeah, but it actually was a lot more reasonable once you take into account what the historical FICA tax rate was, back in the day. You didn't pay very much in over a long working life, and you didn't collect SS all that long -"You" being the actuarial statistic 'you' back then, not 'you' in particular now.
The whole scheme didn't really take account of increasing life expectancy or expansion of benefits very well, and reacted slowly to those increases in obligations, but ultimately the FICA tax rate ballooned to several times what it was a mere three or four decades ago, still below the power curve of the growth of program obligations, though.
True... The SS tax was about 2% when it 1st started IIRC. It hasn't kept up with increased life expectancy and has had a lot of "add ons" that are deducting from the over all fund as well.
-
Okay, then I'll say it. You're just blathering on for the sake of hearing your own voice.
You can't answer my questions, you won't consider any of my answer, you just want to be a contrarian "ista" POS.
All of your questions were answered. I'm still waiting for your plan, but I'd settle for a post that was filled with somethign other than insults..
Frankly, I'd rather punch myself in the nuts than try to discuss anything with you--it would be less painful and would eventually fade away.
Awesome - use the ignore option.
ETA: You're just butt-hurt that you made an overreaching blanket statement and got caught on it. Admit it, and we can all move on and be one big happy family, m'kay?
Again, you make me chuckle. I said cut entitlemtns - yes. I said that. I even offered to pull all military retirement off of the table. Still waiting for you to offer a solution to cutting the debt w/o cutting entitlements.
-
Entitlements WILL have to be cut in order to bring down the deficit. It's just a matter of which ones.
Europe didn't go along with Lord Zero's plans to spend more money...they even said they're looking into cutting entitlements. Pork projects also have to be nixed.
-
Entitlements WILL have to be cut in order to bring down the deficit. It's just a matter of which ones.
Europe didn't go along with Lord Zero's plans to spend more money...they even said they're looking into cutting entitlements. Pork projects also have to be nixed.
You know it's a strange time when the Europeans start lecturing the USA to cut spending and entitlements... We've gone way off-course...
-
You know it's a strange time when the Europeans start lecturing the USA to cut spending and entitlements... We've gone way off-course...
Yes, and Canada was one of them, following Merkel who looked at Obama like he was an idiot when he suggested a worldwide Stimulus plan.
-
Here's more...
G-20 nations pledge to cut deficits despite Obama's push for stimulus
By Sam Youngman - 06/27/10 05:40 PM ET
President Barack Obama's push for continued global stimulus in light of a tenuous economic recovery was largely pushed back at the G-20 as world leaders agreed to focus on deficit reduction.
Obama and his team have repeatedly warned that while the worst of the crisis has passed, the recovery is still "uneven and fragile" and ongoing stimulus efforts are needed.
But European leaders, led largely by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have pushed back on increased spending as deficits rage out of control.
Those European leaders appeared to win out over the weekend at the G-20 summit in Toronto as the world's leaders agreed to cut deficits in half by 2013.
LINK (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/105779-g-20-countries-pledge-to-cut-deficits-despite-obamas-push-for-stimulus)
-
Yes, and Canada was one of them, following Merkel who looked at Obama like he was an idiot when he suggested a worldwide Stimulus plan.
Don't worry, he'll cut the deficite in half by end of 1st term. :rotf:
At the end of the day, entitlements have to be nixed. There's no other way around it.
-
And even now, a freeze would still destroy the nation. Hard decisions need to be made, and the hardest one will be laying off 60% of the gov't employees while simultaniously cutting entitlments down to 1/4 of what they are today... I don't know that there is any way around these two items if we want the economy to survive.
Entitlements are not defined. 60% of the government employees? again not defined.
Civilian employees (full and part time) -- 2,768,886
DoD -- 1,137,568 active duty alone.
Cutting 60% of that total is 2,344,000 or so people (pretty much all of the federal civilian full time staff). The feds being self-insured for unemployment, meaning your cost savings would be only half of their salary until they found another job.
Yeah that is totally realistic. I can see it happening........ :whatever:
What can they do? require a balanced budget. Eliminate pork (line item veto). Medicare fraud is completely out of control as it is a system run by the government. Contract this out to people who deal with provider fraud well (private insurance carriers). I think the amendments of bills is completely out of control, and would like to see that somewhat overhauled. Social Security -- the political suicide discussion no one wants to have? needs to be tackled, and I honestly don't even know where to begin that will bring the results that are tenable.
In other words, a realistic start.
-
I'm going to ask a question related to disciplinary actions, perhaps investigation into criminal activity. Having said, earlier, that our primary focus shouldn't actually be on prosecutions at this time, especially because of the time and resources it may cost valuable time for proposing and enacting any bills, I believe that there is some merit in emotively let out some hits here.
So, what committees need to be started, what is the substantive motive behind the committees, and who are the targets of these committees?
One of many, that comes to mind is finding out where all the stimulus money went to, and what money was used to fund the 2010 election in certain Democrat, and perhaps Independent and RINO republican, races.
-
:
What can they do? require a balanced budget. Eliminate pork (line item veto). Medicare fraud is completely out of control as it is a system run by the government. Contract this out to people who deal with provider fraud well (private insurance carriers). I think the amendments of bills is completely out of control, and would like to see that somewhat overhauled. Social Security -- the political suicide discussion no one wants to have? needs to be tackled, and I honestly don't even know where to begin that will bring the results that are tenable.
In other words, a realistic start.
I have not heard a peep from the Magic Negro about all those hundreds of millions of savings from prosecuting crooked Medicare/Medicaid doctors and health care professionals. By now the savings should be rolling in hand over fist. :hammer: I guess Holder is too busy suing BP and the state of AZ.
-
I'm going to ask a question related to disciplinary actions, perhaps investigation into criminal activity. Having said, earlier, that our primary focus shouldn't actually be on prosecutions at this time, especially because of the time and resources it may cost valuable time for proposing and enacting any bills, I believe that there is some merit in emotively let out some hits here.
So, what committees need to be started, what is the substantive motive behind the committees, and who are the targets of these committees?
One of many, that comes to mind is finding out where all the stimulus money went to, and what money was used to fund the 2010 election in certain Democrat, and perhaps Independent and RINO republican, races.
Committees? Lord, no thanks. I can do without the millions spent on political grandstanding.
Let the GAO do an accounting of stimulus funds. The US DOE's OIG did an abbreviated version on the stimulus funds that were supposed to be spent on education -- which of course it wasn't. They only targeted a handful of states however (MA included).
-
I have not heard a peep from the Magic Negro about all those hundreds of millions of savings from prosecuting crooked Medicare/Medicaid doctors and health care professionals. By now the savings should be rolling in hand over fist. :hammer: I guess Holder is too busy suing BP and the state of AZ.
Yep. As long as the feds are running Medicare, there will always be rampant provider fraud.
-
True... The SS tax was about 2% when it 1st started IIRC. It hasn't kept up with increased life expectancy and has had a lot of "add ons" that are deducting from the over all fund as well.
Yup--1 percent each from employees and employers, and on the first $3000 of wages.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
-
All of your questions were answered. I'm still waiting for your plan, but I'd settle for a post that was filled with somethign other than insults..
Awesome - use the ignore option.
Again, you make me chuckle. I said cut entitlemtns - yes. I said that. I even offered to pull all military retirement off of the table. Still waiting for you to offer a solution to cutting the debt w/o cutting entitlements.
Tell ya what--when YOU can come up with something other than, "**** everyone!" then I might give a shit what you have to say.
And as far as ignore? Nah, you're fun to watch, in a train-wreck sort of way. You throw shit against the wall without any realistic idea of what you're talking about.
IOW, you sound like a ****ing Paulbot.
-
Tell ya what--when YOU can come up with something other than, "**** everyone!" then I might give a shit what you have to say.
And as far as ignore? Nah, you're fun to watch, in a train-wreck sort of way. You throw shit against the wall without any realistic idea of what you're talking about.
IOW, you sound like a ****ing Paulbot.
Once again, insults and no answers. You're MO is becomming clear - you have no answers so beat your chest and demand a different answer from someone else... the "I don't have to do it - YOU do it" is immature. Please quote where I said "**** everyone."
I'm still waiting for you to tell me your plan to cut $13T in debt - it's clear you are in full-on support for gov't spending and entitlements, so where are you planning to get the savings? What is your plan for cutting gov't spending? Where are you going to get $13T? When will NHSparky make a tough decision - seems thus far you're simply not capable of ackknowledging that transfer payments are a huge issue, and only getting bigger. But in your world, we just conitnue to grow the spending.. and put your head in the sand when dealing with the economic truths?
So what's your answer?
-
This thread ain't in FC yet? :popcorn:
-
This thread ain't in FC yet? :popcorn:
I thought about it, but it wouldn't change anything:
bkg - what would you do?
NHS - fawk you.
bkg - seriously - what's your answer?
NHS - you're a 100%-er, ron-paul loving idiot who hates the military
bkg - so how do you cut the debt
NHS - you're an idiot who has shit ideas
pretty much already played out there, hasn't it?
-
I thought about it, but it wouldn't change anything:
bkg - what would you do?
NHS - fawk you.
bkg - seriously - what's your answer?
NHS - you're a 100%-er, ron-paul loving idiot who hates the military
bkg - so how do you cut the debt
NHS - you're an idiot who has shit ideas
pretty much already played out there, hasn't it?
Yo, ****bubble--did I say you hated the military? No, but neither have you yet to answer my question as to whether or not military retirement benefiits (pay, VA, etc.,) are considered "entitlements" (psst--by your definition, they are.)
And yes, your "ideas" are shit. Please tell me how you would implement even the least severe of the measures you propose without decades-long devestation to the economy.
I've in fact heard your "proposals" from others. Usually from Paulbots, and usually with no deeper thought to the subject than, "Let's cut EVERYTHING!" Sounds good on the surface, but what you once again fail to grasp is that there is NO quick fix. The debt goes far beyond just SS or other "entitlement" spending, and getting to the point where national debt is less than 50 percent of GDP (as it was less than five years ago) will take DECADES to fix. Sadly, my detaling what needs to be done, and when, would not only not satisfy your "requirements", they'd not go deep enough, and frankly, you probably don't understand them anyway.
Now I realize this is going to be difficult, and in fact likely impossible for you to attempt, but try this:
Instead of using your entire mental faculties to trace your finger along the screen and mouth the words which are written there, try stopping that, and actually UNDERSTANDING what is written rather than just reading it. That's going to go above and beyond just aping what someone has told you. Again, I know you're likely out of your depth, but I have to at least ATTEMPT to give you benefit of the doubt at least once.
One thing that hasn't yet been proposed which I will throw out there as a small bone is this:
--Eliminate the EIC.
Here are a few others:
--Minimum tax bracket for ALL taxpayers of 10 percent. EVERYONE pays.
--Eliminate deduction for mortgage interest, but lower taxable income rate for singles making less than 100K (married 150K) to 15 percent. Lock in marginal federal tax rate at 28 percent starting at 200K in 2010 dollars, and index to inflation. Couple that with simplification of tax code which minimizes loopholes, but provides credit for investment in domestic companies or investments.
--Reduce budgets of Depts. of Education and Dept. of Energy to eliminate both departments in 20 years. Interior is responsible for all energy development on US soil and offshore. Essential functions such as NRC, etc., are transferred to other agencies such as Homeland Security, etc. Pare down other departments such as HHS and Homeland Security to privatize large functions such as TSA and CDC.
--Enforce border controls as set forth in 1986 immigration law, to include prosecution of companies which knowingly employ illegals. Nothing like a few CEO's doing a perp walk for having illegals on the line to discourage fraudulent employment. No amnesty, no "pay a fine", no years in immigration limbo, no "catch-and-release". If you're caught, you're gone. Try again, five years in federal prison.
--Transfer Medicare/Medicaid back to 100 percent state/local control. More conservative states will show the way to the more liberal ones.
--Re-reform welfare. No more than 2 years lifetime UEI benefits versus the current 5.
There, does that make your little cootchie feel all better now, bkg?
-
--Minimum tax bracket for ALL taxpayers of 10 percent. EVERYONE pays.
--Eliminate deduction for mortgage interest, but lower taxable income rate for singles making less than 100K (married 150K) to 15 percent. Lock in marginal federal tax rate at 28 percent starting at 200K in 2010 dollars, and index to inflation. Couple that with simplification of tax code which minimizes loopholes, but provides credit for investment in domestic companies or investments.
--Reduce budgets of Depts. of Education and Dept. of Energy to eliminate both departments in 20 years. Interior is responsible for all energy development on US soil and offshore. Essential functions such as NRC, etc., are transferred to other agencies such as Homeland Security, etc. Pare down other departments such as HHS and Homeland Security to privatize large functions such as TSA and CDC.
--Enforce border controls as set forth in 1986 immigration law, to include prosecution of companies which knowingly employ illegals. Nothing like a few CEO's doing a perp walk for having illegals on the line to discourage fraudulent employment. No amnesty, no "pay a fine", no years in immigration limbo, no "catch-and-release". If you're caught, you're gone. Try again, five years in federal prison.
--Transfer Medicare/Medicaid back to 100 percent state/local control. More conservative states will show the way to the more liberal ones.
--Re-reform welfare. No more than 2 years lifetime UEI benefits versus the current 5.
OK, all these are good points. My question: What should the Congress do to start the governing process for such action?
We got the Bamster, the judiciary, and what's left of the mainstream media that will have new-found life as the minority again. Starting November 4, Congress will become a far bigger enemy to democrats that will most probably dwarf the antipathy experienced against George W. Bush. So that obstacle will have to be overcome.
This is the point of the thread. Having bullet points is a start, but how should a GOP congress govern? Specifically, how can this Congress avoid the pitfalls that befell the Contract with America Class of '94?
Will they just throw out the bullet points and sees what sticks, or will they go in KNOWING that the media is DEAD SET against them and will do their DAMNEDEST to sow dissent, not just the president and his Chicago thugs?
-
Will they just throw out the bullet points and sees what sticks, or will they go in KNOWING that the media is DEAD SET against them and will do their DAMNEDEST to sow dissent, not just the president and his Chicago thugs?
I'd say that any GOP Congress (should it come about) had damn well better attack the attackers. One of the many things that doomed GWB in the public opinion wars was his refusal to come out and fight and, in general, to communicate to the American people.
A failure by the GOP to develop a strategy that includes attacking the element that keeps sniping at you has a pretty big impact on your agenda when the bodies continue stacking up around you.
-
Bingo. Ronaldus Maximus was known as the "Great Communicator" for a reason. He could go on the attack without it SOUNDING like an attack, and more importantly, knew how to sell his ideas to the American people, and most of those ideas resonated well with most Americans.
-
A failure by the GOP to develop a strategy that includes attacking the element that keeps sniping at you has a pretty big impact on your agenda when the bodies continue stacking up around you.
In my opinion, the biggest enemy facing the GOP is the mainstream media. You know damn well they will be coming out from all angles, trying to put out anything and everything they hope will make the GOP cower in certain trenches. As long as we have people in place who will not worry about the next election cycle, and that we put up a REAL conservative/libertarian for the presidency in 2012 who will complete the cycle, and finally, people who don't let the media get away with the shit they've been doing so for 50 years or so, then hopefully it can start the beginning of the end for American socialism, and a return to fundamentalist values.
-
In my opinion, the biggest enemy facing the GOP is the mainstream media. You know damn well they will be coming out from all angles, trying to put out anything and everything they hope will make the GOP cower in certain trenches. As long as we have people in place who will not worry about the next election cycle, and that we put up a REAL conservative/libertarian for the presidency in 2012 who will complete the cycle, and finally, people who don't let the media get away with the shit they've been doing so for 50 years or so, then hopefully it can start the beginning of the end for American socialism, and a return to fundamentalist values.
Agreed concerning the MSM. That is without a doubt the element that brought down Bush from his post 9-11 pegged-out numbers to his retired-on-active-duty that he showed (along with the lack of approval stats) in his last year in office.
I ain't too sure about the "conservative/libertarian" part for prez, but I understand your point.
-
Yo, ****bubble--did I say you hated the military? No, but neither have you yet to answer my question as to whether or not military retirement benefiits (pay, VA, etc.,) are considered "entitlements" (psst--by your definition, they are.)
Did I say cut their pensions? Nope - you started the idiotic assumptions, so I figured you'd feel more comfortable if I used your methods.
I've in fact heard your "proposals" from others. Usually from Paulbots, and usually with no deeper thought to the subject than, "Let's cut EVERYTHING!" Sounds good on the surface, but what you once again fail to grasp is that there is NO quick fix. The debt goes far beyond just SS or other "entitlement" spending, and getting to the point where national debt is less than 50 percent of GDP (as it was less than five years ago) will take DECADES to fix. Sadly, my detaling what needs to be done, and when, would not only not satisfy your "requirements", they'd not go deep enough, and frankly, you probably don't understand them anyway.
Attack, attack, attack.
Now I realize this is going to be difficult, and in fact likely impossible for you to attempt, but try this:
Instead of using your entire mental faculties to trace your finger along the screen and mouth the words which are written there, try stopping that, and actually UNDERSTANDING what is written rather than just reading it. That's going to go above and beyond just aping what someone has told you. Again, I know you're likely out of your depth, but I have to at least ATTEMPT to give you benefit of the doubt at least once.
Attack, attack, attack.
One thing that hasn't yet been proposed which I will throw out there as a small bone is this:
--Eliminate the EIC.
WHAT? That would be cutting an entitlement. I wonder if anyone ever suggested cutting an entitlement before. Hmmm... I wonder.
Yes, we agree there.
Here are a few others:
--Minimum tax bracket for ALL taxpayers of 10 percent. EVERYONE pays.
Agree there. Most definitely.
--Eliminate deduction for mortgage interest, but lower taxable income rate for singles making less than 100K (married 150K) to 15 percent. Lock in marginal federal tax rate at 28 percent starting at 200K in 2010 dollars, and index to inflation. Couple that with simplification of tax code which minimizes loopholes, but provides credit for investment in domestic companies or investments.
Torn on this. It would be the final nail in the coffin of the housing industry. It would initially cause massive value reductions and increase in foreclosures. For many people, it's all that keeps their house affordable. At the same time, I'm totally fine with eliminating it - ASSUMING - you also eliminate all other deductions at the same time.
--Reduce budgets of Depts. of Education and Dept. of Energy to eliminate both departments in 20 years. Interior is responsible for all energy development on US soil and offshore. Essential functions such as NRC, etc., are transferred to other agencies such as Homeland Security, etc. Pare down other departments such as HHS and Homeland Security to privatize large functions such as TSA and CDC.
You're actually attempting to answer. Good change of pace. Regan campaigned on the elimination of the Dept of Education and failed to eliminate it. Not a federally granted power, so we definitely agree here. But I would increase the timetable to 5 years. Even though you've attacked me for it, we're now both arguing for reduction in gov't... imagine that.
--Enforce border controls as set forth in 1986 immigration law, to include prosecution of companies which knowingly employ illegals. Nothing like a few CEO's doing a perp walk for having illegals on the line to discourage fraudulent employment. No amnesty, no "pay a fine", no years in immigration limbo, no "catch-and-release". If you're caught, you're gone. Try again, five years in federal prison.
I don't think the 86 immigration law went far enough, but agree it's a good start. Time to build the fence that was already budgeted for. I say this as a 2nd gen import, by the way.
--Transfer Medicare/Medicaid back to 100 percent state/local control. More conservative states will show the way to the more liberal ones.
You're attacking me for economic impacts that my general positions would likely have... yet if you do this, you're going to devistate the economies of the states... rather, what is left of the economies of the states. The entitlement needs to be put on a path to elimination.
--Re-reform welfare. No more than 2 years lifetime UEI benefits versus the current 5.
Poverty has increased faster since the implementation of welfare than prior... Needs to be on a path to elimination as well - but would require the gov't to not violate contract law (again and again) with the implementation of yet another minimum wage hike.
Change welfare to a work program - make them work.
There, does that make your little cootchie feel all better now, bkg?
You mean, since you actually made an attempt at answering the question rather than attacking opinions that you didn't like? Hell, I'm fawking impressed. Hope it didn't hurt too much. Maybe double up on the medication for a day or so to ease the pain.
-
:popcorn:
So far, my ideas are best.
-
:popcorn:
So far, my ideas are best.
What, we all play friggin soccer and sing "Kum-Bah-Ya"?
I'll pass.
-
Did I say cut their pensions? Nope - you started the idiotic assumptions, so I figured you'd feel more comfortable if I used your methods.
You said cut entitlements. What is military retired pay and benefits if it isn't an entitlement?
I love how you try to dance around this one.
And FWIW, people said that when Reagan eliminated deduction for credit card interest it would destroy banking and credit industries--quite the opposite has happened, in fact. Given the fact that bankers/mortgage brokers will no longer be able to use the carrot of shoving more house than people can afford with the "but you can deduct the interest!" bullshit tactic (and sorry, debk, don't tell me it doesn't happen), housing would actually become MORE stable, because you're weeding out people who shouldn't be buying houses or at the very least limiting how MUCH house they get. The affordability would remain roughly the same.
The biggest problem we face where you're dead wrong on the "cut all entitlement spending" (to which I'm assuming you're primarily alluding to SS, Medicare/Medicaid) is what to do with all the folks who have paid in their entire lives and will then be thrown out on their asses.
Answer that one for me.
-
What, we all play friggin soccer and sing "Kum-Bah-Ya"?
I'll pass.
You sure are a friggin grouch.....get over yourself...
And if you READ my post a few pages back..you'd know I gave a few responses to the OP and I didn't hurl insults at other posters...something you are very good at.
-
You said cut entitlements. What is military retired pay and benefits if it isn't an entitlement?
I love how you try to dance around this one.
Already aswered for you -offered to take it off the table, but you refuse. And have you noticed it's the ONLY one you've focused on? :rotf:
And FWIW, people said that when Reagan eliminated deduction for credit card interest it would destroy banking and credit industries--quite the opposite has happened, in fact. Given the fact that bankers/mortgage brokers will no longer be able to use the carrot of shoving more house than people can afford with the "but you can deduct the interest!" bullshit tactic (and sorry, debk, don't tell me it doesn't happen), housing would actually become MORE stable, because you're weeding out people who shouldn't be buying houses or at the very least limiting how MUCH house they get. The affordability would remain roughly the same.
It's the banker's fault people buy more than they can afford? Holy hell - you're true colors are coming out aren't they?
The biggest problem we face where you're dead wrong on the "cut all entitlement spending" (to which I'm assuming you're primarily alluding to SS, Medicare/Medicaid) is what to do with all the folks who have paid in their entire lives and will then be thrown out on their asses.
Answer that one for me.
Again, arlready gave you an answer for that one. But again, you've ignored it. You will NOT get back everything you paid into SS as it is... So why the fawk are you bitching about cutting it? Somoene may not get their fair share? Sheesh - your "fairness" attach here is quite in line with the current administration. The money is gone - get over it. Deal with it and move on. How many times do I need to remind you that we're almost $14T in debt? You're upset that I suggest tha we cut entitlements - including SS and Medicaid (which i have family who rely on) and then you start talking about cutting Earned income and mortgage deduction and STILL bitch at me for wanting to cut entitlements. :rotf: :rotf:
-
You sure are a friggin grouch.....get over yourself.
:cheersmate: :cheersmate: Troof... Everyone but NHS is WRONG, dammit! WRONG! Only took him 6 pages to quit bitching enough to actually present some ideas... :rotf: :rotf:
Hey Sparky - send me your address... I'll send you a "CUT ENTITLEMENTS!" T-shirt... Girls size small?
-
:cheersmate: :cheersmate: Troof... Everyone but NHS is WRONG, dammit! WRONG! Only took him 6 pages to quit bitching enough to actually present some ideas... :rotf: :rotf:
Hey Sparky - send me your address... I'll send you a "CUT ENTITLEMENTS!" T-shirt... Girls size small?
Yeah, that about sums it up...no use even engaging him.
-
Already aswered for you -offered to take it off the table, but you refuse. And have you noticed it's the ONLY one you've focused on? :rotf:
It's the banker's fault people buy more than they can afford? Holy hell - you're true colors are coming out aren't they?
Again, arlready gave you an answer for that one. But again, you've ignored it. You will NOT get back everything you paid into SS as it is... So why the fawk are you bitching about cutting it? Somoene may not get their fair share? Sheesh - your "fairness" attach here is quite in line with the current administration. The money is gone - get over it. Deal with it and move on. How many times do I need to remind you that we're almost $14T in debt? You're upset that I suggest tha we cut entitlements - including SS and Medicaid (which i have family who rely on) and then you start talking about cutting Earned income and mortgage deduction and STILL bitch at me for wanting to cut entitlements. :rotf: :rotf:
Actually taking Medicare and SS benefits together one living to the average life expectancy age will likely get more in benefits then in payments.
That is the problem with the pyramid as it exists now.
-
Actually taking Medicare and SS benefits together one living to the average life expectancy age will likely get more in benefits then in payments.
That is the problem with the pyramid as it exists now.
If you include the increased business taxes? Or just the personal tax dollars? IIRC (been a couple of years, admittedly), the individual doesn't get back what they put in.
-
In my opinion, the biggest enemy facing the GOP is the mainstream media. You know damn well they will be coming out from all angles, trying to put out anything and everything they hope will make the GOP cower in certain trenches. As long as we have people in place who will not worry about the next election cycle, and that we put up a REAL conservative/libertarian for the presidency in 2012 who will complete the cycle, and finally, people who don't let the media get away with the shit they've been doing so for 50 years or so, then hopefully it can start the beginning of the end for American socialism, and a return to fundamentalist values.
I'd have to insert MSM as enemy #2. GOP's largest enemy is themselves.
Even the SCOTUS confirmations - GOP can't seem to find a backbone strong enough to ask all the tough questions necessary. :(
-
If you include the increased business taxes? Or just the personal tax dollars? IIRC (been a couple of years, admittedly), the individual doesn't get back what they put in.
If you Google rate of return on Social Security it averages out to always be a positive percent.
Obviously that can vary individual to individual and how it compares with other "investments" but I do believe on average more benefits are collected then are paid into the system.
It requires a pool of contributers much larger then collectors to maintain a balance and thus the problem facing it...that ratio is closing while life expectancy is rising.
I am not sure they are taking into account the employer half for those on payroll deduction as being a contribution for the person or just what is deducted.
Still to average out as a positive it would take into account the self employed who do pay the full shot.
-
If you Google rate of return on Social Security it averages out to always be a positive percent.
Obviously that can vary individual to individual and how it compares with other "investments" but I do believe on average more benefits are collected then are paid into the system.
It requires a pool of contributers much larger then collectors to maintain a balance and thus the problem facing it...that ratio is closing while life expectancy is rising.
I am not sure they are taking into account the employer half for those on payroll deduction as being a contribution for the person or just what is deducted.
Still to average out as a positive it would take into account the self employed who do pay the full shot.
Got it. My point to the sparkly one was purely on the individual side. Youcan't lose what you don't put in - the company contribution is a good chunk of contributions. Having said that, the rate of return for SS is a fake number - borrowing to make the payments doesn't really count as a rate of return.
EDIT: But your point stands.
-
:popcorn:
-
:popcorn:
Share some of the popcorn, will ya? :-)
-
Share some of the popcorn, will ya? :-)
I bought wine...
-
I bought wine...
Wine with popcorn?
What the **** is wrong with you?
Ummm... What type of wine?
:cheersmate:
-
Wine with popcorn?
What the **** is wrong with you?
Ummm... What type of wine?
:cheersmate:
I have a migraine, so beer didn't sound too good today. And to be fair, I bought it BEFORE the popcorn suggestion... Had ya warned me, I could have made a better choice. :tongue:
Just a cheap Shiraz for tonight. Mid-week, last two days of the fiscal year... major drinking starts on Friday when the numbers come in. :(
-
Here's the deal folks, and I am not joking.
It's OK for conservatives to have differernt ideas on how to correct what we all see as wrong. It's ok to express them. It's ok to disagree with each other.
But the constant insults between us doesn't actually gain anything. Sure it can be amusing, but in the long run does it actually resolve anything?
Nope.
-
Here's the deal folks, and I am not joking.
It's OK for conservatives to have differernt ideas on how to correct what we all see as wrong. It's ok to express them. It's ok to disagree with each other.
But the constant insults between us doesn't actually gain anything. Sure it can be amusing, but in the long run does it actually resolve anything?
Nope.
I think it's quite childish actually.
-
If you Google rate of return on Social Security it averages out to always be a positive percent.
Obviously that can vary individual to individual and how it compares with other "investments" but I do believe on average more benefits are collected then are paid into the system.
It requires a pool of contributers much larger then collectors to maintain a balance and thus the problem facing it...that ratio is closing while life expectancy is rising.
I am not sure they are taking into account the employer half for those on payroll deduction as being a contribution for the person or just what is deducted.
Still to average out as a positive it would take into account the self employed who do pay the full shot.
The computations probably do not take into account that the money individual put into to the fund should have been invested and gained appreciation. The government raided and spent the money as fast as it came in and put IOU's in there. The money you put in should have doubled or tripled over a 40 year period. State and private pensions do not have the solvency problems like the Feds because they wisely invested the funds, and there is actual money in those funds. .
-
Here's the deal folks, and I am not joking.
It's OK for conservatives to have differernt ideas on how to correct what we all see as wrong. It's ok to express them. It's ok to disagree with each other.
But the constant insults between us doesn't actually gain anything. Sure it can be amusing, but in the long run does it actually resolve anything?
Nope.
I have to agree with you Rich. Conservative's biggest issue, and what will prevent real change in this country, is the vile hatred that conservatives have towards each other... The "moderate" conservatives who hate the "conservative" conservatives (and are very vocal about it) and the "conservative" conservatives who don't think the moderates are really conservative. I admit, I fall into the latter. Point taken... Seriously.
-
The computations probably do not take into account that the money individual put into to the fund should have been invested and gained appreciation. The government raided and spent the money as fast as it came in and put IOU's in there. The money you put in should have doubled or tripled over a 40 year period. State and private pensions do not have the solvency problems like the Feds because they wisely invested the funds, and there is actual money in those funds. .
So basically, if you give anything to the government, the government will be irresponsible. This is why SS should be privatized, this is why everyone should pay for their own healthcare insurance, this is why MEDICAID should be phased out...or like Giuliani did in NY, "workfare not welfare".
-
The computations probably do not take into account that the money individual put into to the fund should have been invested and gained appreciation. The government raided and spent the money as fast as it came in and put IOU's in there. The money you put in should have doubled or tripled over a 40 year period. State and private pensions do not have the solvency problems like the Feds because they wisely invested the funds, and there is actual money in those funds. .
Money doubles based on Rate of Return/72... 10%=doubling every 7.2 years. So I agree to a large extent, except that I'd much rather be able to opt out than watch them spend it into oblivian.
Also, I think you're incorrect on the State AND private pensions... General Motors, nurses union, state unions, teacher's unions, etc are not solvent... are they?
-
The computations probably do not take into account that the money individual put into to the fund should have been invested and gained appreciation. The government raided and spent the money as fast as it came in and put IOU's in there. The money you put in should have doubled or tripled over a 40 year period. State and private pensions do not have the solvency problems like the Feds because they wisely invested the funds, and there is actual money in those funds. .
Not in the great liberal states like NY...they guarantee a payout that is in keeping with the very best year rate of return never taking into account that is an outlier.
Then again you did say wisely invested which almost automatically doesn`t apply to blue states.
I also for the record just so no misunderstandings think SS is or has been a good investment just that it still does on average pay out more then paid in.
-
Money doubles based on Rate of Return/72... 10%=doubling every 7.2 years. So I agree to a large extent, except that I'd much rather be able to opt out than watch them spend it into oblivian.
Also, I think you're incorrect on the State AND private pensions... General Motors, nurses union, state unions, teacher's unions, etc are not solvent... are they?
I retired after working about 20 years in the private sector and 25 years for the state (non union). My pension is 5 times as much as the pathetic amount I get from SS. My SS amount is cut in half because of the Federal offset. The State of LA earns an average of 8% on investments per year while the Federal government earns a big fat zero on non existing money in the Trust Fund. If the greedy politicians had invested the money rather than spend it, the SS and Medicare fund would not be eating up a large part of the budget. It would be revenue neutral or close to it.
Many pension funds are not solvent. We had a jerk Repub Gov. named Buddy Romner that wanted to withdraw all the money out of our retirement fund back in the 80's and put IOU's in there. The legislature put thumbs down on that stupidity.
-
So basically, if you give anything to the government, the government will be irresponsible. This is why SS should be privatized, this is why everyone should pay for their own healthcare insurance, this is why MEDICAID should be phased out...or like Giuliani did in NY, "workfare not welfare".
Anybody who believes that government really, truly looks out for the taxpayer and the voter is not paying attention. Government exists to protect and serve itself FIRST. Everything after that is doled out piecemeal.
I continually shake my head in disgust at those misguided souls who honestly, truly believe that the government serves the people.
The government is a necessary evil that should be held to the lowest possible level.
-
You sure are a friggin grouch.....get over yourself...
And if you READ my post a few pages back..you'd know I gave a few responses to the OP and I didn't hurl insults at other posters...something you are very good at.
Smartass--just one of the many services I provide.
Or as I tell people, I'll be nicer when you'll be smarter.
-
Already aswered for you -offered to take it off the table, but you refuse. And have you noticed it's the ONLY one you've focused on? :rotf:
It's the banker's fault people buy more than they can afford? Holy hell - you're true colors are coming out aren't they?
Again, arlready gave you an answer for that one. But again, you've ignored it. You will NOT get back everything you paid into SS as it is... So why the fawk are you bitching about cutting it? Somoene may not get their fair share? Sheesh - your "fairness" attach here is quite in line with the current administration. The money is gone - get over it. Deal with it and move on. How many times do I need to remind you that we're almost $14T in debt? You're upset that I suggest tha we cut entitlements - including SS and Medicaid (which i have family who rely on) and then you start talking about cutting Earned income and mortgage deduction and STILL bitch at me for wanting to cut entitlements. :rotf: :rotf:
Yes, you can say no. So can lenders, no matter how much pressure they're getting from ACORN. Notice we're pumping tens, if not hundreds, of BILLIONS of dollars into the housing market, yet foreclosures still aren't going down. Wonder why?
And GFY with your "fairness". BOTH parties are to blame for our current financial crisis, and it's going to take BOTH parties working together to get us out. Your "go-it-alone" approach is doomed before it even gets out of the gate, assuming it even gets that far.
-
Yeah, that about sums it up...no use even engaging him.
Ya know, there's an ignore button for you too. If you don't like what I have to say, pack your shit and get out of the sandbox.
-
:cheersmate: :cheersmate: Troof... Everyone but NHS is WRONG, dammit! WRONG! Only took him 6 pages to quit bitching enough to actually present some ideas... :rotf: :rotf:
Hey Sparky - send me your address... I'll send you a "CUT ENTITLEMENTS!" T-shirt... Girls size small?
Sorry, I forgot to send you your box of Tampax last month. Get over it already, will ya?
-
I bought wine...
You mean "whine", don't you? Seems that's what you're best at. And not just on this thread.
-
I think it's quite childish actually.
And yet you jump right the **** in, head first.
-
Money doubles based on Rate of Return/72... 10%=doubling every 7.2 years. So I agree to a large extent, except that I'd much rather be able to opt out than watch them spend it into oblivian.
Also, I think you're incorrect on the State AND private pensions... General Motors, nurses union, state unions, teacher's unions, etc are not solvent... are they?
More solvent than a lot of so-called "private" unions such as SEIU, UAW, etc., whose funding is 60 percent (or less) of liabilities. Depending on the state (and yes, the more liberal the state, the more underfunded, so the trent goes) it can be, but not nearly as bad.
I don't have a whole lot of time left, but I'll find something at Cato or Tax Foundation to back that assertion.
-
Yes, you can say no. So can lenders, no matter how much pressure they're getting from ACORN. Notice we're pumping tens, if not hundreds, of BILLIONS of dollars into the housing market, yet foreclosures still aren't going down. Wonder why?
You have some reading to do. Start with a logic course - you say on one hand we have a problem with foreclosures and then want to yank the deduction away... You're arguing against yourself.
Then go read CRA and the follow-on legislation to learn about the fines and regulations associated with redlining. The pressure wasn't from ACORN, it was from the friggen feds.
And GFY with your "fairness". BOTH parties are to blame for our current financial crisis, and it's going to take BOTH parties working together to get us out. Your "go-it-alone" approach is doomed before it even gets out of the gate, assuming it even gets that far.
Yo'ull have to quote the "go-it-alone" point of my argument, because I never said that. Not sure where you got it from???
-
You mean "whine", don't you? Seems that's what you're best at. And not just on this thread.
Dude... chill. Seriously. This could be an interesting discussion....
-
Dude... chill. Seriously. This could be an interesting discussion....
Fair enough. Subtlety isn't one of my strong points. Hell, it isn't even one of my weak points.
But to clarify the "go it alone" charge, it would be foolish to think that EITHER party, Dem or GOP, will simply gut spending even to a real decline in dollars without 1--a nearly veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress, 2--howling from the American people a LOT louder than what we hear even now, trains running on time and all that.
Basically, the average American doesn't understand the pain, feel it, and most sadly, care. We are agreed on one MAJOR point--the amount of pain we're feeling right now isn't anywhere NEAR what we WILL be feeling or inflicting on those down the road. As much as I hate to quote Krugman, he does make some interesting points in his column that we may be headed for a THIRD Depression at our current rate.
We're jittery enough as it is, and evicerating spending is akin to dropping the trap door on a condemned prisoner before they find a way to get the noose out from around their necks. There is NO replacement for SS for a lot of folks 45-50 years and older, and pulling money out of SS via privatization without other options or measures to lessen the blow of that is only going to make matters that much worse.
Back in 1950, there were 9 workers for every person on SS. Today, that number is 2.5 to 1, and still decreasing. That's simply not sustainable, but cutting people off at the knees isn't going to work without large segments of society collapsing.
-
You have some reading to do. Start with a logic course - you say on one hand we have a problem with foreclosures and then want to yank the deduction away... You're arguing against yourself.
Then go read CRA and the follow-on legislation to learn about the fines and regulations associated with redlining. The pressure wasn't from ACORN, it was from the friggen feds.
Yo'ull have to quote the "go-it-alone" point of my argument, because I never said that. Not sure where you got it from???
No, read the entire statement. Eliminating the deduction COUPLED WITH reducing the tax rate will actually keep total federal tax burden for someone making 100K or less roughly the same. Think of it as not giving that interest-free loan to the government every year. Me, I have no choice unless I somehow change my filing to Single-6 or 7, in which case great big flags fly up. I have to pay it in, and then file to get it back. I don't like that. It's money I could use RIGHT NOW.
Then, it will discourage people from getting into homes they can't afford in the first place, and 1--stabilize the housing market specifically, 2--improve the economy as a whole by actually LOWERING foreclosures.
BTW--the "friggin feds" put CRA on steroids because of the actions of whom, again? Do a Google on "red-lining" back in the early 90's and you'll see what I mean.
-
No, read the entire statement. Eliminating the deduction COUPLED WITH reducing the tax rate will actually keep total federal tax burden for someone making 100K or less roughly the same. Think of it as not giving that interest-free loan to the government every year. Me, I have no choice unless I somehow change my filing to Single-6 or 7, in which case great big flags fly up. I have to pay it in, and then file to get it back. I don't like that. It's money I could use RIGHT NOW.
I don't give loans - it's a matter of doing the duductions correctly. But I agree that simplification is desparately needed. What I don't agree with reducing taxes only as an offset for increased taxation. I also don't agree (at all, frankly) in putting an arbitrary income number on it.... we have way too many income limits for tax credits as it is.
Then, it will discourage people from getting into homes they can't afford in the first place, and 1--stabilize the housing market specifically, 2--improve the economy as a whole by actually LOWERING foreclosures.
How? You're just offsetting the tax. Taking from Peter to pay Paul. And while you may have a point for future acquisitions, what abou the millions who would see that deduction go away and likely not have an offsetting tax break elsewhere? Theoretically, your idea could work, but it would require strict implementation and still result in massive price drops in homes... Which ultimately, is a tax.
BTW--the "friggin feds" put CRA on steroids because of the actions of whom, again? Do a Google on "red-lining" back in the early 90's and you'll see what I mean.
CRA was in place long before redlining. And Redlining is NOT a bad practice - it's actually a very good practice. The lack of redlining is what helped get us into this mess....
-
We're jittery enough as it is, and evicerating spending is akin to dropping the trap door on a condemned prisoner before they find a way to get the noose out from around their necks. There is NO replacement for SS for a lot of folks 45-50 years and older, and pulling money out of SS via privatization without other options or measures to lessen the blow of that is only going to make matters that much worse.
Back in 1950, there were 9 workers for every person on SS. Today, that number is 2.5 to 1, and still decreasing. That's simply not sustainable, but cutting people off at the knees isn't going to work without large segments of society collapsing.
You're advocating the continuization of Keynsian economics in one statement and then calling against it in another. Spending MUST stop. Even the EU knows that now. I hate to ask it again, but how do you pay back $13T w/o massive spending cuts? As long as we are at ~100% of true GDP (private sector - including gov't spending is bullshit), we're at a tipping point, which you readily admit in your last sentence. Is it fair to cut people off? Probably not. But is it fair for an entire country to collapse because we're not willing to cut spending? No.
-
And yet you jump right the **** in, head first.
Consider yourself on ignore. Have fun spreading your bitterness around.
-
Let me be clear here. Although it's not in my control, I would like to refocus this thread back to its original intent: What actions should a Congress under significant conservative GOP control in both the Senate and the House perform, once they are sworn in?
Obviously, there are probably dozens of bullet point items that need to be tackled. But I sense that there has been a lack of focus on what the GOP Congress SHOULD do. In addition, I'd like to compare what this Congress should do compared to what the "Contract with America" '94 class did, and avoid the mistakes that that session made. And I completely agree with Hawkgirl: once you get to the point of disagreeing on the small shit, that decommissions the mission of this thread by default.
To that end, we can work with the bullet points given earlier. But I want to avoid the empty campaign sloganeering or edicts, and instead address the actual procedure that the Congress will have to follow, or perhaps create, especially with regard to a very extremely anti-GOP Congress mainstream media and a potentially activist federal judicial circuit.
Thanks for understanding.
-
Consider yourself on ignore. Have fun spreading your bitterness around.
Damn, my life no longer has any meaning...(sniff)
And bitterness? Sounds like you're the one with sour grapes, hon. Maybe you'll feel better after a nice game of kickball--I mean soccer.
-
I don't give loans - it's a matter of doing the duductions correctly. But I agree that simplification is desparately needed. What I don't agree with reducing taxes only as an offset for increased taxation. I also don't agree (at all, frankly) in putting an arbitrary income number on it.... we have way too many income limits for tax credits as it is.
How? You're just offsetting the tax. Taking from Peter to pay Paul. And while you may have a point for future acquisitions, what abou the millions who would see that deduction go away and likely not have an offsetting tax break elsewhere? Theoretically, your idea could work, but it would require strict implementation and still result in massive price drops in homes... Which ultimately, is a tax.
CRA was in place long before redlining. And Redlining is NOT a bad practice - it's actually a very good practice. The lack of redlining is what helped get us into this mess....
So is it fair to people who don't have large interest payments? Again, you're the same person who was screaming and bitching when they stopped allowing deductions for credit card interest during the Reagan administration--yet somehow that actually became a plus. So would trading off a reduced tax rate (see, you keep missing that word REDUCED) in exchange for giving up mortgage interest deductions. I crunched the numbers myself, and if I paid 15 percent from the first dollar I earned (which will soon be close to the case) and eliminated mortgage interest deduction, I'd actually be paying about $1200 LESS than I am now. $1200, on top of what I had to wait for in the form of a "refund". That money could be put to work stimulating the economy, and OFF the government books. But under the current system, the government holds onto it all. It's not "offsetting" taxes as much as it is keeping as much as possible in the hands of the public sector without circulating it through the government coffers.
Oh, and for the record, Americans only deducted about $70 Billion in mortgage interest last year.
Home prices would not necessarily drop, but it WOULD, along with stricter lending practices, keep people from buying more home than they can afford. CRA was around since the Carter administration, yes--but it didn't really come into being until the Clinton administration, when at the behest of ACORN, etc., they threatened lawsuits against lenders who wouldn't underwrite shaky loans.
SOME tax increases ARE going to be inevitable, along with spending cuts in order to pay down the debt. As much as you don't want to admit it, the GOP isn't on board with that. Right now the Democrats want to increase taxation AND spending, the GOP only wants to increase spending without increasing taxes. Neither policy will work. But this 14T will NOT be paid off anytime quickly. It's going to be a DECADES-long process.
-
Damn, my life no longer has any meaning...(sniff)
And bitterness? Sounds like you're the one with sour grapes, hon. Maybe you'll feel better after a nice game of kickball--I mean soccer.
Lay off, Sparky. You've been called out for doing nothing but posting insulting threads filled with name calling and very little valuable content. Seriously, grow up.
-
So is it fair to people who don't have large interest payments? Again, you're the same person who was screaming and bitching when they stopped allowing deductions for credit card interest during the Reagan administration--yet somehow that actually became a plus.
Point out once... ONCE where I said anything about Regan cutting interest. You brough that up, not me. Please start reading before you make accusations.
So would trading off a reduced tax rate (see, you keep missing that word REDUCED) in exchange for giving up mortgage interest deductions. I crunched the numbers myself, and if I paid 15 percent from the first dollar I earned (which will soon be close to the case) and eliminated mortgage interest deduction, I'd actually be paying about $1200 LESS than I am now. $1200, on top of what I had to wait for in the form of a "refund". That money could be put to work stimulating the economy, and OFF the government books. But under the current system, the government holds onto it all. It's not "offsetting" taxes as much as it is keeping as much as possible in the hands of the public sector without circulating it through the government coffers.
Again,taking from Peter to pay Paul and ignoring the consequences from your decision. You've complained that by cutting entitlements, we'll see economic hardship that we will never recover from, yet you argue that cutting the mortgage deduction will have no impact. You are simply incorrect. Does'nt matter if you provide a tax cut at the same time - the mortgage deduction is nothing more than a tax cut. And your model is the fasted way to kill off the industry, increase rentals, and will kill jobs. You're not offering anything to the home-owenr... you're offering a lot to th enon-home owner. If you're going to cut that deduction, cut them all.
Oh, and for the record, Americans only deducted about $70 Billion in mortgage interest last year.
Home prices would not necessarily drop, but it WOULD, along with stricter lending practices, keep people from buying more home than they can afford. CRA was around since the Carter administration, yes--but it didn't really come into being until the Clinton administration, when at the behest of ACORN, etc., they threatened lawsuits against lenders who wouldn't underwrite shaky loans.
Your knowledge of economics, and more important, economic perception is weak. What happened with the $8K tax credit? Prices went up and stabilized for a bit. When that went away, prices started dropping again. If you honestly think that prices won't "necessarily" drop... You're assumption is patently false.
SOME tax increases ARE going to be inevitable, along with spending cuts in order to pay down the debt. As much as you don't want to admit it, the GOP isn't on board with that. Right now the Democrats want to increase taxation AND spending, the GOP only wants to increase spending without increasing taxes. Neither policy will work. But this 14T will NOT be paid off anytime quickly. It's going to be a DECADES-long process.
Tax increases always decrease productivity. Tax decreases increase productivity and ultimately government revenues. Take a look at th erevenues since the Bush tax cuts... Watch the revenues drop through the floor come 01/01/11 when many American's and businesses will see upwards of 25% tax increase... some seeing higher increases than that (cap gains).
You and I are on different sides of teh coin. You want entitlements to stick around and taxes to go up. I want entitlements cut and taxes to go down. You blame lenders, I blame regulations and borrowers who didn't read their mortgage statement. You're much more of a big-government type than I am. We will simply never agree. And you like to put words in my mouth and twist statemetns to meet your own needs. We cannot hav ea discussion that way. So on this, I bid you farewell - you're just not worth trying to engage in a conversation.
-
Lay off, Sparky. You've been called out for doing nothing but posting insulting threads filled with name calling and very little valuable content. Seriously, grow up.
And what have you two done so far besides acting all butt-hurt? Seriously, if she didn't want to feel slighted, she shouldn't have jumped in. She's still pissed off I don't like soccer.
-
You and I are on different sides of teh coin. You want entitlements to stick around and taxes to go up. I want entitlements cut and taxes to go down. You blame lenders, I blame regulations and borrowers who didn't read their mortgage statement. You're much more of a big-government type than I am. We will simply never agree. And you like to put words in my mouth and twist statemetns to meet your own needs. We cannot hav ea discussion that way. So on this, I bid you farewell - you're just not worth trying to engage in a conversation.
No, I didn't say that--entitlements WILL have to be reduced, but much more gradually than you want them to be. As I said before, you can't just cut people off at the knees without some SERIOUSLY disastrous results. This is a process which is going to take DECADES, not a few years. Please tell me where my GRADUAL reduction of benefits makes me a "big-government type". You remind me of the type of guy who wants to run right up to the radiator and pop the cap off that overheated engine without any regard or thought of the possible consequences. But hey, you want to throw the WORLD economy into a tailspin that'll make the Great Depression look like a hoity-toity party, be my guest.
Sorry if your view of economics and finance is a bit simplistic to fit into the world. Please tell me how you do in that macroeconomics course, won't you?
So if you can't bother to apply reading comprehension:
(http://www.theboxset.com/images/reviewcaptures/612capture_tombstone03.jpg)
WELL, BYE....
-
And what have you two done so far besides acting all butt-hurt? Seriously, if she didn't want to feel slighted, she shouldn't have jumped in. She's still pissed off I don't like soccer.
you are the only butt-hurt person in this thread. As evidence by your complete inability to have a mature conversation. You remind me of Joe Biden, only not as mature. Time to grow up, dude... seriously.
-
Taxes should be lowered. The tax rate should flatten and ideally emulate the historically Christian recommended tithe rate of 10%, which actually provides the most secure community / state while allowing for the maximum productivity and progress of human society. 15% would be more than acceptable as well.
That should end THAT argument. Pure and simple.
SO...back to the Congress. Please. I would respect that any argument with details be taken to another thread, and channel any specifics only with regard to how a GOP controlled congress should deal with the Obama administration, a cornered socialist mainstream media, and a rogue federal circuit judiciary.
OH, and not to forget: In addition to the Obama crap, the GOP Congress will inherit the biggest tax increase in history on January 1, 2011, and you KNOW DAMN WELL that the dems will pin the economic havoc that THAT will be shoved into people's lives to try to get their 2012 hopes up. We've GOT to be able to get our guys to communicate with their constituents about this vital financial occurance.
-
you are the only butt-hurt person in this thread. As evidence by your complete inability to have a mature conversation. You remind me of Joe Biden, only not as mature. Time to grow up, dude... seriously.
Sorry, but if you get all upset when you say something stupid and can't defend it, well...you remind me of Ron Paul. Stupidity comes in all political persuasions.
Seriously, FL is right. Lewrockwell.com will rot your brain.
-
Taxes should be lowered. The tax rate should flatten and ideally emulate the historically Christian recommended tithe rate of 10%, which actually provides the most secure community / state while allowing for the maximum productivity and progress of human society. 15% would be more than acceptable as well.
That should end THAT argument. Pure and simple.
SO...back to the Congress. Please. I would respect that any argument with details be taken to another thread, and channel any specifics only with regard to how a GOP controlled congress should deal with the Obama administration, a cornered socialist mainstream media, and a rogue federal circuit judiciary.
OH, and not to forget: In addition to the Obama crap, the GOP Congress will inherit the biggest tax increase in history on January 1, 2011, and you KNOW DAMN WELL that the dems will pin the economic havoc that THAT will be shoved into people's lives to try to get their 2012 hopes up. We've GOT to be able to get our guys to communicate with their constituents about this vital financial occurance.
I would point you towards the Laffer Curve...
And why is it so many corporations are moving offshore? Maybe it's that impending capital gains and corporate tax (already highest in the world) that's going to skyrocket here pretty quickly. Unfortunately, we as individuals have no choice in the matter.
No, the problem with the economy isn't JUST spending OR taxation, it's a question of both. By making ALL taxpayers have a "dog in the fight", so to speak, you on one hand take away a lot of the class warfare rhetoric the Democrats have had over the lower and lower middle classes. We accomplish this in part by simplification of the personal tax code, minimizing "gimme" programs, and ensuring ALL who earn income (not just the top 59 percent) pay SOME taxes. Then, by lowering corporate taxes, you encourage domestic investment, particularly in infrastructure. Again, simplification of the corporate tax code would be essential to minimize deductions...remember, corporations don't pay taxes, they just collect them...
We also review MFN trading status with nations which have continuously violated our trading rights, keeping in mind a few of these nations (China in particular) hold significant amounts of our debt, and we have to be willing to call their bluff.
At the same time, you wean the public OFF the social programs. This would have to be done on a sliding scale, through pushing private investment in retirement savings plans (especially tax-deferred plans) but at the same time honoring the commitment to older workers.
Again, is any of this going to be easy? Not on your life. Not unless and until the average American really understands that EVERYONE is going to have to suck it up. No more freebies. Politicians are going to have to be punished more for bringing home the bacon than not.
How many people are REALLY willing to make those kind of sacrifices?
-
Again, is any of this going to be easy? Not on your life. Not unless and until the average American really understands that EVERYONE is going to have to suck it up. No more freebies. Politicians are going to have to be punished more for bringing home the bacon than not.
How many people are REALLY willing to make those kind of sacrifices?
Exactly my point. The socialists WILL be trying to punish the GOP reps if the FEDERAL bacon is not brought back to give to their socialist minions. This won't be new ground, though, as 1995 saw our chance to solidify our conservative position, but instead morphed into the Bob Dole/John McCain brand of RINO-ism, which everyone can look at my sig to see the end result.
This go-around, though, we have a depleted MSM, a strong and vibrant Internet (though with the Kill switch sword over or heads, potentially), and finally, for the first time we have a lot of college age, young voters who are starting to see the real deal with socialist policies. Not much, but I believe a true foothold which can be solidified for a true conservative/libertarian brand of economically free, strong defense-oriented brand of constitutional freedom.
So, what should we see in a GOP-controlled Congress by the end of January? The end of February? The end of June? I'll have my own analysis later on.
-
First things first...get the GOP on board and make SURE they know that if they don't grow a set real damn soon, they'll be out too.
Remember how many of those guys of the 1994 class stayed in Congress more than 2-3 terms? Not many. A LOT of them got disillusioned real fast.
-
First things first...get the GOP on board and make SURE they know that if they don't grow a set real damn soon, they'll be out too.
Remember how many of those guys of the 1994 class stayed in Congress more than 2-3 terms? Not many. A LOT of them got disillusioned real fast.
Not so much that they didn't stay in Congress. Frankly, longevity is not the point here. Congress is TRULY the ultimate part time job, not in the context of a side job but in the sense of a professionally managed, contractual job. More specifically, Congress should be about setting rules that are not obtrusive to freedom, but allow the best opportunity for all.
This first GOP congress in 16 years, and in my opinion, the first conservative Congress since Henry Ford will have it's PR work cut out for them, and as you said, growing a set will be mandatory. Avoiding the mainstream media traps, avoiding the temptations of power and finally, not worrying about reelection at any time, but about doing what is right without compromise is more important.
Frankly, that's what I do sense this time around. I am a cynic when it comes to political promises, but I do sense an unprecedented amount of teamwork based upon principled themes. The power trips may come later on, but being a moderate this time around is not going to cut it for the most part, at least from the right. It is far easier to deal with DINO's than RINO's.
-
With a Democrat President and a Conservative/Republican Congress, we'll get gridlock at Washington...and that's a good thing.
When President Clinton had a republican congress, we were able to get a projected balanced budget and even a surplus. Clinton likes to take credit for it...but we all know Congress holds the purse strings. It will be the real recovery...and Zero will try to take the credit....hopefully, the american people will become educated and understand who really sparked the recovery and won't vote for Zero as they did for Clinton back in the 90's.
-
With a Democrat President and a Conservative/Republican Congress, we'll get gridlock at Washington...and that's a good thing.
When President Clinton had a republican congress, we were able to get a projected balanced budget and even a surplus. Clinton likes to take credit for it...but we all know Congress holds the purse strings. It will be the real recovery...and Zero will try to take the credit....hopefully, the american people will become educated and understand who really sparked the recovery and won't vote for Zero as they did for Clinton back in the 90's.
A good thing, but not as good as reversing some of the crap that has taken place over the past few years.
And unless Zero does some serious changes or sees 2010 as a wakeup call (like Clinton did in 1994), he won't be back after 2012.
-
A good thing, but not as good as reversing some of the crap that has taken place over the past few years.
And unless Zero does some serious changes or sees 2010 as a wakeup call (like Clinton did in 1994), he won't be back after 2012.
Many of the talking heads/political pundits are saying reversing the bills is unlikely...but the best we can hope for is de-funding them...healthcare specifically.
-
Many of the talking heads/political pundits are saying reversing the bills is unlikely...but the best we can hope for is de-funding them...healthcare specifically.
At least that, or having them declared unconstitutional based on the breaks given to union-based "Cadillac" plans.
-
Don't forget about the illegality of how many of these bills were passes as well. I'm not talking of simple rules violations, but of criminal collusion, especially when one has so many unions and no-bid corporate whores working in conjunction with the passage of many, if not most, of the bills in general.
Yes, the next Congress is going to have to do multiple duties:
1. Identify and prosecute the criminal congressional actions with regard to the earlier passage of bills.
2. Immediately defund much of the financials from the bills.
3. Work on obtaining veto overrides from the fence-sitters in the senate for expected Obama vetoes.
4. Properly use the judicial system to void laws that were enacted in the above criminal manner.
5. Understand that all of the above has to be done in the relentless attack from a potentially re-energized mainstream media.
It is going to be the hardest, but potentially the most valuable, Congressional session in modern history, if people do not disintegrate as they did in '95-'96.
-
At least that, or having them declared unconstitutional based on the breaks given to union-based "Cadillac" plans.
chances of that happening, and I think you and I can agree, is zero.
-
chances of that happening, and I think you and I can agree, is zero.
I am not sure and don`t like to search for vague nuances in interpretation to serve my goals as that can bite us but equal protection would seem to be in play as well as mandating an employer to provide coverage would be in violation of seizure of assets without compensation.
-
As many of you know, I am positive that the Republican Party will take over both houses of Congress, and if my calculations are correct, by a significant margin in each. I'm going to go on the assumption that not only will the Congress have republicans in the majority, but that the direction in each house will be directed by the more conservative than moderate branch.
So I'm not going to argue differences with regard to internal GOP issues in both houses. While such differences will indeed be present, I have belief that the significant conservative shift in both houses will dictate the agenda, despite all the politicking that the dems will try to woo on the most liberal of the GOP office holders.
So while the soccer weenies on the left try to get the media to promote those GOP yahoos, the real elements of the GOP will have to start governing. And that is the purpose of this thread: What actions should a Congress with a definite conservative tilt enact?
Obviously, much of our anger will carry over from the election to that of vindictive action, such as setting up investigatory committees to determine the extent of criminal activity in both the legislative and executive branches of government. These committees are valid, to a point. We need to ensure that the committees are used PRIMARILY for exposing the actual problems, and coming up with solutions to actually implement their fixes, or at least establish a course of governance that actually addresses the fixes in a rational, production-based manner. The SECONDARY issue, actual sanctions (including impeachment charges), should remain secondary to the more pertinent immediacy of fixing the problem in the first place.
So, where do we start? Imagine Jim DeMint as Majority leader, and John Boehner as the Speaker, FOR NOW. This may change, and actually infers a bias on my part based upon both reasonable outcome results and personal preference, but the purpose of this thread is more of a business plan to incorporate the return of the second branch of government to it's Constitutional mission.
These are the main things I'd like to see Congress move on, not in any particular order as they are all vitally important:
1. Real economic change, starting with lowering tax rates, but coming up with a valid plan that Obama cannot veto.
2. Real corruption reform, starting with following the money on the "stimulus" packages
3. Traditional energy industry affirmation and support, in particular the oil and coal industries. "DRILL BABY DRILL" should continue to be our mantra, as most conservatives p
4. A commitment to defining the exit strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq that can only be triggered by winning
5. A commitment to ensuring that the Internet remains open to capitalist investment, to ensure the free dissemination of media and, in fact, offer "TRUE 'Net Neutrality'", and NOT the socialist version pushed by both the current Administration and large search engine companies (Google) and infrastructure giants
Of course, the entire mission depends on being able to avoid being distracted by Democrats who will now be politicking for their very lives. In 1995 Clinton and the Democratic minority, aided and abetted by the then-Internet-less mainstream media, was able to derail the conservative elements of the congressional agenda. That can NOT HAPPEN this time around, and I am of the opinion it will not.
OK, start hammering away. I will work on some of the specifics on specific action items, but I'd like to look forward.
Well, one thing I would say that the GOP needs to do if they take back the House and Senate is to make sure that they don't make the same mistake that got them voted out office, that is not try to act like big spend Democrats.
Then they need to listen to the people that elected them. Make sure that Bush's tax cuts stay in effect, or better yet make them permanent. They need to reduce big government and get it off of the backs of the American people. The need to close the borders, deport illegal aliens, penalize business' that use illegal aliens, reduce the welfare state and make people go back to work. They need to build up the national defense that has been gutted by Clinton and Obama and stand firm with America's friends and allies in in the world.
Just to mention a few.
-
Well, one thing I would say that the GOP needs to do if they take back the House and Senate is to make sure that they don't make the same mistake that got them voted out office, that is not try to act like big spend Democrats.
Then they need to listen to the people that elected them. Make sure that Bush's tax cuts stay in effect, or better yet make them permanent. They need to reduce big government and get it off of the backs of the American people. The need to close the borders, deport illegal aliens, penalize business' that use illegal aliens, reduce the welfare state and make people go back to work. They need to build up the national defense that has been gutted by Clinton and Obama and stand firm with America's friends and allies in in the world.
Just to mention a few.
Agree. However, the immigration part is rather tricky. The Democrats want amnesty so that they will vote for them. Repubs see illegals as cheap labor for their factories so they are against raids and deporting the working ones. Neither side wants to deport all 12 million of them.
-
Agree. However, the immigration part is rather tricky. The Democrats want amnesty so that they will vote for them. Repubs see illegals as cheap labor for their factories so they are against raids and deporting the working ones. Neither side wants to deport all 12 million of them.
I agree with that completely, but if the Republicans want to win, and stay in power, I really believe that they are going to have to face up to the immigration issue. Seems to me people are tried of it, it's cost, and the criminal activity that is associated with much of the illegal alien population. Especially in the mid-West and West.
-
I agree with that completely, but if the Republicans want to win, and stay in power, I really believe that they are going to have to face up to the immigration issue. Seems to me people are tried of it, it's cost, and the criminal activity that is associated with much of the illegal alien population. Especially in the mid-West and West.
The Repubs answer is to seal the border first then deal with the amnesty issue. Most Repubs state that 12 million illegals can not be deported. Not if the government does not try. Busting employer's balls with fines for knowingly hiring them will cause the job market to dry up and they will go back home if they can earn a living here. That will never happen though. I am looking for round #2 of some sort of amnesty.
-
The Repubs answer is to seal the border first then deal with the amnesty issue. Most Repubs state that 12 million illegals can not be deported. Not if the government does not try. Busting employer's balls with fines for knowingly hiring them will cause the job market to dry up and they will go back home if they can earn a living here. That will never happen though. I am looking for round #2 of some sort of amnesty.
I am looking for round #2 of some sort of amnesty.
And, I fear you are right, but I do think it will be an albatross around the neck of the Republicans.
-
Work to repeal Obamacare.
Flush Cap & Tax down the toilet.
Reinstate the Bush tax cuts.
Cut the tax rates.
Kill any so-called "death taxes'.
Make it unconstitutional for anyone who voted for Obama to ever vote again. :tongue:
Outlaw MSNBC. :tongue:
Make using the phrase Man-made Global Warming a federal offense punishable with up to 5 years in a federal prison. :tongue:
-
Work to repeal Obamacare.
Flush Cap & Tax down the toilet.
Reinstate the Bush tax cuts.
Cut the tax rates.
Kill any so-called "death taxes'.
Make it unconstitutional for anyone who voted for Obama to ever vote again. :tongue:
Outlaw MSNBC. :tongue:
Make using the phrase Man-made Global Warming a federal offense punishable with up to 5 years in a federal prison. :tongue:
Now there is some solutions I could live with. :hi5: :hi5: :rotf:
-
The BIGGEST issue the GOP Congress will have to deal with is the fallout of the tax cut expiration on January 1. The rates will increase a cumulative 19% in one fell swoop, and as all real economists know, this will be devastating to the private sector economy.
I believe the democrat/socialists will be COUNTING on this, and they will probably have political game plans in place to pass on to their state run media cohorts to place THIS economic malady, caused entirely by the democrats, to demonize the new GOP Congress.
Therefore, the biggest challenge will be for the new GOP members to "stay the course." They will be barraged with unprecedented attacks by the media blame the GOP congressmen. This is similar to the tactic employed in 1995 with the budget crisis that ultimately turned the public away from the republican-controlled congress, ensuring the rise of the RINO's to prominence, starting with the Bob Dole nomination.
This will be very important to the GOP contingent to understand. If they don't adhere to their principles, the battle will be lost, and the war in danger of precipitating toward the socialist/communists.
-
Ahead of the trend, that I am!
I wrote the above on Saturday, and on Sunday, Robert Gibbs goes on Meet the Press:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
Now, anyone with any brain cells still attached will easily determine that the GOP will most probably take control of the Congress. Gibbs is starting to prepare the country for the fact that the Congress will be the "bad guys" in the Obama agenda in the next session. This indicates that the Obama administration have ceded the House and are actively trying to prepare their attack on the next Congress with help from the media.
The KEY to beating this maneuver is exactly as was earlier stated: The conservatives in the House (and Senate, though the dimbulb dems haven't yet figured that out yet) will have to stay true to their Constitutional principles and not get taken out ala 1995-96. If they keep the RINO's in check, and this time there will be a lot fewer (except for defecting DINO's) to watch for, then they should be able to maintain their focus on returning the 2nd Branch to its Constitutional authority.
-
/
The KEY to beating this maneuver is exactly as was earlier stated: The conservatives in the House (and Senate, though the dimbulb dems haven't yet figured that out yet) will have to stay true to their Constitutional principles and not get taken out ala 1995-96. If they keep the RINO's in check, and this time there will be a lot fewer (except for defecting DINO's) to watch for, then they should be able to maintain their focus on returning the 2nd Branch to its Constitutional authority.
Lets say the Repubs take control of the House by a wide margin and squeak by a majority in the Senate, who do you think will wind up with chairmanships of the different committees? It will be the old crusty dogs that have been there a long time. That could be a big problem because there are not many of them who will not cotton to Junior/Tea Party members running the show. It does do not work like that. Plus it is my belief that many of the old guard do not want to slash agencies, programs and employees. It is not in their DNA to cut spending. Now they talk a good game but putting band aids or just freezing spending is not going to solve our financial problems. The Repubs better get it right or else they may get thrown out in 012.
-
Lets say the Repubs take control of the House by a wide margin and squeak by a majority in the Senate, who do you think will wind up with chairmanships of the different committees?
Excellent question. We DO have a lot of consistent, low-key conservatives in the House whom I would be very comfortable at the helm of departments. I am good with John Boehner taking control of the House, for instance, and for the most part I am certain that the GOP makeup of the House will be the most conservative in decades, and not allow for a RINO-led committee in important departments.
The senate, however, will be difficult to project. This depends on potentially four or five races that I project to be nailbiters in November. If we squeak by and end up with 52, but including Snowe and Brown, that effectively gives a lot of leverage to these two people. But if we have a 55-58 seat Senate, then we have a good chance of negating the RINO's. (Brown was an unexpected gift, but appears to be, at best, a McCain-RINO, at least in the current Dem-controlled chamber.)
So this question may better be answered either on November 4, or perhaps before if some races can be predicted. The democrats are more probably going to stay at home this time around; conversely, the conservatives will be driven to the point where they may even achieve or exceed the percentage of voting than they did for the presidential election.
The final answer is based on the fact that, unlike prior elections in MY lifetime, the well is now dry for fooling the people. People have always known that politics is a strange, ugly bidnezz in the first place, but this time around they are not going to put up with the same bull puckey. This is not a hope, but rather my take on talking with over 400 campaigns across the country. Those tea parties are NOT fake, they are the real deal this time around. '94 will seem like a blip compared to the voracity and focus that this Congress will partake in.
If they DON'T have hat voracity and focus, though, it will be a complete loss in my opinion.