What should a GOP-controlled Congress do, starting from swear-in?

[NHSparky]

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.

[bkg]

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.

[bkg]

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.

[NHSparky]

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.

[NHSparky]

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:



WELL, BYE....

[bkg]

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.

[GOP Congress]

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.

[NHSparky]

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.

[NHSparky]

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?

[GOP Congress]

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.

[NHSparky]

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.

[GOP Congress]

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.

[Hawkgirl]

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.

[NHSparky]

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.

[Hawkgirl]

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. 

[NHSparky]

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.

[GOP Congress]

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.

[bkg]

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.

[Carl]

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.

[ardentconservative]

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.

[Lacarnut]

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.  

[ardentconservative]

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.

[Lacarnut]

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. 

[ardentconservative]

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. 

[ColonialMarine0431]

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. 
Outlaw MSNBC. 
Make using the phrase Man-made Global Warming a federal offense punishable with up to 5 years in a federal prison.