Hey GOP! If you don't broaden the party...

[Iriemon]

I don't know what is going to happen with the former Grand Old Party. The problem with it is that it is currently dominated by religious folks who will not compromise on social issues and tax cut zealots who will not compromise on budet issues. And so the few moderates left are being outed.

By putting up McCain, one of the few more moderate voices (and even he was caving hard to the right to get the nomination) in a year when any Republican would have had a very tough time winning, the purists got a sacrificial lamb moderate with whom they could blame the ills of the party.

I expect them to put up a charismatic but very right wing candidate in 2012, someone like Palin. And unless the economy is still in the pits, that hard right candidate will be crushed. That will force a catharsis in the Republican party in which they may have to accept a more compromising view in order to survive as a major force in the political sphere.

Because I don't see a great religious right revival of the scope to propel them back, and while the boomers loved their tax cuts when they were earning, as they retire they are not going to support candidates who talk about cutting their retirement benefits. Eventually the GOP is going to have to adapt to these conditions or become a permanent minority.

Of course, if the economy still sucks, all bets are off. There is a reason the Murdoch outlets are doing the best they can to undermine confidence and economic growth.

Yeah with you guys for competition, we'll have a really tough time I can see. Most of the drivel that you posted here is straight off of the left wing blogosphere, and you people are sadly stereotyping what you think of as the 'GOP' completely and entirely wrong. It's going to be your fatal mistake, that is my prediction.

I didn't get anything off the blogosphere, I created it myself. But other than your generalizations, is there anything specifically in my opinion do you contest is inaccurate? What? That the baby boomers will want there benes and vote against cutting them? That the nation would go religious right enough to make up the difference? The economy will have an impact?

 

[Newby]

I don't know what is going to happen with the former Grand Old Party. The problem with it is that it is currently dominated by religious folks who will not compromise on social issues and tax cut zealots who will not compromise on budet issues. And so the few moderates left are being outed.

By putting up McCain, one of the few more moderate voices (and even he was caving hard to the right to get the nomination) in a year when any Republican would have had a very tough time winning, the purists got a sacrificial lamb moderate with whom they could blame the ills of the party.

I expect them to put up a charismatic but very right wing candidate in 2012, someone like Palin. And unless the economy is still in the pits, that hard right candidate will be crushed. That will force a catharsis in the Republican party in which they may have to accept a more compromising view in order to survive as a major force in the political sphere.

Because I don't see a great religious right revival of the scope to propel them back, and while the boomers loved their tax cuts when they were earning, as they retire they are not going to support candidates who talk about cutting their retirement benefits. Eventually the GOP is going to have to adapt to these conditions or become a permanent minority.

Of course, if the economy still sucks, all bets are off. There is a reason the Murdoch outlets are doing the best they can to undermine confidence and economic growth.

Yeah with you guys for competition, we'll have a really tough time I can see. Most of the drivel that you posted here is straight off of the left wing blogosphere, and you people are sadly stereotyping what you think of as the 'GOP' completely and entirely wrong. It's going to be your fatal mistake, that is my prediction.

I didn't get anything off the blogosphere, I created it myself. But other than your generalizations, is there anything specifically in my opinion do you contest is inaccurate? What? That the baby boomers will want there benes and vote against cutting them? That the nation would go religious right enough to make up the difference? The economy will have an impact?

The 'religious right' is a figment of the left wing blogosphere's imagination, and they use people like you to keep parroting it every where you go. Most of the conservatives who post on this board are mainstream Americans, as are most conservatives in this country, and they're not religious whackos. Exactly what percentage of conservatives in this country do you think are religious whackos and are only conservative because of their religious beliefs?

 

[Iriemon]

No. First of all, it cannot be indefintely sustained. That should be obvious by now. It really is a Ponzi scheme.

It cannot be sustained with the conditions we have now. But kick the retirement age up a couple years, make it means tested, take off the SS tax cap so its taxed on all income and not just income below $100k; or some combination thereof and it can go on indefinitely.

Secondly it's immoral. People should not be forced to partcipate in such a program. You should not be forced by government to provide for your own retirement, etc. The Social Security System is a bad idea. The only question is one of how we extricate ourselves from it. We shouldn't even be talking about whether or not it should be phased out. We should be talking about how to do it.

If no one is forced to do it no one will do it.

What the hell do you advocate, exactly? You're all about the government forcing itself on people in just about every topic I've seen discussed on this board.

I don't believe the Govt should make decisions about an abortion or using recreational drugs, at least marijuana, as a couple examples where I don't thing the Govt should force itself on the people, just as a couple topics I've taken opposite positions.

You believe in high taxes, every government social program in existance, keeping people working well into their 90's while at the same time trying to advocate for all of those 'poor' people out there who can't take care of themselves.

I believe taxes should be high enough to pay for what the Govt spends; and basic safety nets.

I've never suggested people should work into they're '90s. Lying to make a point makes you look less credible.

I do advocate for people who can't take care of themselves. True.

How can you be a champion of elderly people while you sit here and advocate that people be forced to work well into their 70's in order to sustain a system that goes against everything this country was supposed to stand for? What if people don't want to have to work into their 70's, nearly to their death bed, in order to support people like you who believe that everything a person has should be given to the state to be used as they see fit? How can you, with any moral clarity, support what you do?

What are you babbling about? I didn't advocate anything. I suggested, as *one* option to correct the SS imbalance we have after Republican administrations left the Govt $11 trillion in debt and stole the SS trust fund to finance tax cuts for the wealthy, that the retirement age be "kicked up a couple years." That would put the retirement age to 69.

Go charge those strawmen somewhere else.

How high should the taxes be in your opinion? 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%?

Again, I believe that the Govt should tax enough to cover what it spends. I disagree we should run deficits, absent exceptional circumstances (like a sever recession). How about you?

We had a surplus budget under Clinton with a 39.6% tax rate. Since then military spending has doubled, we are fighting two wars, we have a Drug Company Profit Enhancement program, and anothe $5 trillion in debt.

So while a 40% tax rate was sufficient in 2000, because of the shitty job the last president did, and the debt the Govt is running up in the recession, a 40% rate is not going to be sufficient unless spending is cut.

IMO the Bush tax cuts should be repealed completely, and a 10% surcharge tax (up to 50%) ramped up on incomes over $1 million. Cut out loopholes too. Make investment tax rates same as income tax rates like Reagan ahd them. That should about be enough to balance the budget.

I would also impose major spending cuts if I had my druthers, so maybe the surcharge could be smaller.

Or maybe you believe that people should just work and let the government take care of them? Assign them a house? A means of transportaion? Their food? Their healthcare?

Depends on the circumstances. If someone is too disabled to work or past a certain age, temporarily out of work, or work but just don't make enough to afford a house, means of transportation, food, or healthcare, then yes, I think the Govt does have a role to provide them support for a basic level of existance.

What do you think should happen to people who because of disability or age can't work but don't have assets?

I would sincerely like to hear what your social philosophy is. Are you an advocate of full blown socialism? Communism?

Social capitalist would probably best describe. Capitalism is a great system, produces wealth and fabulously rewards the successful and lucky. And we should maintain the incentives that make that work.

But capitalism doesn't give a shit about people that for whatever reason, don't have much market value. Are crippled and can't work? The capitalist economic system values at -0- and couldn't care less if you starve to death.

To me, humans have a value above -0- even if, for whatever reason, they don't have a market value above -0-. That is why I favor social net programs to provide for what capitalism does not.

Based on your posts, you sure as hell don't advocate anything that was established via the US Constitution and individual freedom and liberty.

Disagree.

 

[Iriemon]

Yeah with you guys for competition, we'll have a really tough time I can see. Most of the drivel that you posted here is straight off of the left wing blogosphere, and you people are sadly stereotyping what you think of as the 'GOP' completely and entirely wrong. It's going to be your fatal mistake, that is my prediction.

I didn't get anything off the blogosphere, I created it myself. But other than your generalizations, is there anything specifically in my opinion do you contest is inaccurate? What? That the baby boomers will want there benes and vote against cutting them? That the nation would go religious right enough to make up the difference? The economy will have an impact?

The 'religious right' is a figment of the left wing blogosphere's imagination, and they use people like you to keep parroting it every where you go. Most of the conservatives who post on this board are mainstream Americans, as are most conservatives in this country, and they're not religious whackos. Exactly what percentage of conservatives in this country do you think are religious whackos and are only conservative because of their religious beliefs?

Sure, there's no religious right organizations, and if there was they don't have any influence in Republican politics. Folks like Fawell, Dobson, Robertson, Reed, the Christian Coalition, Focus on Family, etc. etc. etc are all figments of imagination made up by the left wing blogosphere. Likewise, the fact that religious issues like gay marriage become Republican hot issues every election cycle is imaginary too.

Sure.

And folks here say the liberals live in a world of delusion.

 

[Newby]

I didn't get anything off the blogosphere, I created it myself. But other than your generalizations, is there anything specifically in my opinion do you contest is inaccurate? What? That the baby boomers will want there benes and vote against cutting them? That the nation would go religious right enough to make up the difference? The economy will have an impact?

The 'religious right' is a figment of the left wing blogosphere's imagination, and they use people like you to keep parroting it every where you go. Most of the conservatives who post on this board are mainstream Americans, as are most conservatives in this country, and they're not religious whackos. Exactly what percentage of conservatives in this country do you think are religious whackos and are only conservative because of their religious beliefs?

Sure, there's no religious right organizations, and if there was they don't have any influence in Republican politics. Folks like Fawell, Dobson, Robertson, Reed, the Christian Coalition, Focus on Family, etc. etc. etc are all figments of imagination made up by the left wing blogosphere. Likewise, the fact that religious issues like gay marriage become Republican hot issues every election cycle is imaginary too.

Sure.

And folks here say the liberals live in a world of delusion.

None of those people determine what my political beliefs are. And I would also say that none of them determine what 90% of the conservatives in this country believe either. I couldn't even tell you what any of them are advocating or not advocating outside of abortion issues and gay issues, which are obvious. Most conservatives do not vote only on abortion and gay issues, I certainly don't. Those are the last in a long line of concerns that I currently have. As I said, your party is making a fatal mistake if they believe what they spout about the so-called 'religious right'. Do you want to know why I think they (your leftist party) use that label? They want people like you to believe that everyone who is a conservative is trying to force their 'religious' conservative views down your throat. They want to tie everything that is conservative to 'religion' so that they can supposedly come up with some legitimate argument against anything conservative. How easy it is to refute all conservative values if they are intricately tied to religion. When you follow the Constitution, you are conservative. You advocate for individual rights and a small, unintrusive government that stays out of its citizens lives. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. You can keep spouting the 'religious right' rhetoric all you like, but the reality is far different.

 

[DiveCon]

I didn't get anything off the blogosphere, I created it myself. But other than your generalizations, is there anything specifically in my opinion do you contest is inaccurate? What? That the baby boomers will want there benes and vote against cutting them? That the nation would go religious right enough to make up the difference? The economy will have an impact?

The 'religious right' is a figment of the left wing blogosphere's imagination, and they use people like you to keep parroting it every where you go. Most of the conservatives who post on this board are mainstream Americans, as are most conservatives in this country, and they're not religious whackos. Exactly what percentage of conservatives in this country do you think are religious whackos and are only conservative because of their religious beliefs?

Sure, there's no religious right organizations, and if there was they don't have any influence in Republican politics. Folks like Fawell, Dobson, Robertson, Reed, the Christian Coalition, Focus on Family, etc. etc. etc are all figments of imagination made up by the left wing blogosphere. Likewise, the fact that religious issues like gay marriage become Republican hot issues every election cycle is imaginary too.

Sure.

And folks here say the liberals live in a world of delusion.

YOU do, thats for sure


the religious dont run the GOP
they are some of the ones pissed off at the GOP you dumb fuck

 

[Newby]

I don't believe the Govt should make decisions about an abortion or using recreational drugs, at least marijuana, as a couple examples where I don't thing the Govt should force itself on the people, just as a couple topics I've taken opposite positions.

I don't want a 'couple of examples'. Those are typical leftist views.

I believe taxes should be high enough to pay for what the Govt spends; and basic safety nets.

Well, no shit, I would have never believed that. You can't even answer my questions from an idealogical standpoint. What do you think the government should spend its money on? Cradle to grave care of it's citizens? Where do you draw the idealogical line. You like to get into nitty gritty details to obfuscate the higher level discussion. Guess what, I don't think the freakin' government should spend more than it takes in. How about that instead? How about they don't spend more than what they take in to begin with? How about being responsible and cutting half the bullshit out of the government that it was never intended to do to begin with?

You are an advocate of redistribution of wealth. You have class envy, which you've been taught to have by your political party of choice. You think that the wealthy have 'lucked' their way into being where they are. You seem to have no concept of how that wealth was created. What you advocate seeks to destroy how that wealth was created, and you don't even realize that you are cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I've never suggested people should work into they're '90s. Lying to make a point makes you look less credible.

Okay, what's the top age that people should have to work until in order to support your wealth redistribution scheme? Should people bother to save at all, or should the government ban that and force them to put all of their money into an SS program so that they can control it and distribute it as they see fit? Should 401K's be banned? How far are you advocating that government can control what people do with their money?

I do advocate for people who can't take care of themselves. True.

So do I. They are a very, very small percentage of the population, and do not require the kind of government programs and spending that you are in favor of.

What are you babbling about? I didn't advocate anything. I suggested, as *one* option to correct the SS imbalance we have after Republican administrations left the Govt $11 trillion in debt and stole the SS trust fund to finance tax cuts for the wealthy, that the retirement age be "kicked up a couple years." That would put the retirement age to 69.

Go charge those strawmen somewhere else.

Okay, again I ask, what is your threshold? What age? And you can't even make a comment without showing your partisan colors, you are so caught up in your partisanship, you don't reliaze how you appear to most people. Again, you advocate redistribution of wealth. Tell me, should the wealthy people who contribute to SS have a higher payout at the end depending on how much they contributed or should it be split up evenly amongst everyone? How do you think it is the government's right or even morally right to take someone else's personal assets, assets that they have worked for, and give them to someone else?

Again, I believe that the Govt should tax enough to cover what it spends. I disagree we should run deficits, absent exceptional circumstances (like a sever recession). How about you?

Again, would you advocate the government taking 100% of a person's income as long as they provided what they deemed necessary for that person to live? It's a simple question.

We had a surplus budget under Clinton with a 39.6% tax rate. Since then military spending has doubled, we are fighting two wars, we have a Drug Company Profit Enhancement program, and anothe $5 trillion in debt.

So while a 40% tax rate was sufficient in 2000, because of the shitty job the last president did, and the debt the Govt is running up in the recession, a 40% rate is not going to be sufficient unless spending is cut.

IMO the Bush tax cuts should be repealed completely, and a 10% surcharge tax (up to 50%) ramped up on incomes over $1 million. Cut out loopholes too. Make investment tax rates same as income tax rates like Reagan ahd them. That should about be enough to balance the budget.

I would also impose major spending cuts if I had my druthers, so maybe the surcharge could be smaller.

You are talking specifics, I'm asking what your overall philosophy is. Are you in favor of government cradle to grave care of its citizens since you seem to think that they know what's in everyone's best interest and you apparently think that they are a 'fair' arbiter of who should get what. Individual freedom and liberty mean nothing?

Depends on the circumstances. If someone is too disabled to work or past a certain age, temporarily out of work, or work but just don't make enough to afford a house, means of transportation, food, or healthcare, then yes, I think the Govt does have a role to provide them support for a basic level of existance.

What do you think should happen to people who because of disability or age can't work but don't have assets?

I agree that people who genuinely cannot take care of themselves should be helped out collectively as a group. I think that the percentage of people that fall into that group is incredibly small compared to what we are spending as a society on government social programs.

Social capitalist would probably best describe. Capitalism is a great system, produces wealth and fabulously rewards the successful and lucky. And we should maintain the incentives that make that work. [\quote]

Rewards the successful and 'lucky'. That about says it all. You have to be one of the worst cases of class envy I've every seen, altho Bobo tops you on that you're a very close second.

But capitalism doesn't give a shit about people that for whatever reason, don't have much market value. Are crippled and can't work? The capitalist economic system values at -0- and couldn't care less if you starve to death.

Capitalism isn't supposed to 'give a shit', that's what you don't seem to understand. Each and every person is supposed to be the one who 'gives a shit' about their standard of living, their future, their education, etc. And if every person was responsible enough to do so, then there wouldn't be a need for an idealology that had to take care of every person to the detriment of their personal freedoms and liberty. The amount of people who have legitimate situations where they can't be productive in society are very small, and I'm sure no one would have any issues in helping to provide for them. What we have in social programs far exceeds what is needed for that scenario. It doesn't legitimize your belief that you can just go and raid someone else's pocket book however you decide is fair and give handouts. What gives you that right?

To me, humans have a value above -0- even if, for whatever reason, they don't have a market value above -0-. That is why I favor social net programs to provide for what capitalism does not.

You're an anti-capitalist.

Disagree.

You can disagree all you want. No where in the Constitution does it call for redistribution of wealth.

 

[Newby]

I didn't get anything off the blogosphere, I created it myself. But other than your generalizations, is there anything specifically in my opinion do you contest is inaccurate? What? That the baby boomers will want there benes and vote against cutting them? That the nation would go religious right enough to make up the difference? The economy will have an impact?

The 'religious right' is a figment of the left wing blogosphere's imagination, and they use people like you to keep parroting it every where you go. Most of the conservatives who post on this board are mainstream Americans, as are most conservatives in this country, and they're not religious whackos. Exactly what percentage of conservatives in this country do you think are religious whackos and are only conservative because of their religious beliefs?

what a god damned fucking liar you are
the $11 trillion in debt wasnt just from republican administration
and your man obama has added $2 trillion to it already
so shut the fuck up with your lies

Woah cowboy, I think you may have quoted the wrong person? I certainly never said any of those things, not even in my worse nightmare.

 

[Newby]

The 'religious right' is a figment of the left wing blogosphere's imagination, and they use people like you to keep parroting it every where you go. Most of the conservatives who post on this board are mainstream Americans, as are most conservatives in this country, and they're not religious whackos. Exactly what percentage of conservatives in this country do you think are religious whackos and are only conservative because of their religious beliefs?

Sure, there's no religious right organizations, and if there was they don't have any influence in Republican politics. Folks like Fawell, Dobson, Robertson, Reed, the Christian Coalition, Focus on Family, etc. etc. etc are all figments of imagination made up by the left wing blogosphere. Likewise, the fact that religious issues like gay marriage become Republican hot issues every election cycle is imaginary too.

Sure.

And folks here say the liberals live in a world of delusion.

YOU do, thats for sure


the religious dont run the GOP
they are some of the ones pissed off at the GOP you dumb fuck

Yes, I completely agree, and that's what I was saying.

 

[DiveCon]

The 'religious right' is a figment of the left wing blogosphere's imagination, and they use people like you to keep parroting it every where you go. Most of the conservatives who post on this board are mainstream Americans, as are most conservatives in this country, and they're not religious whackos. Exactly what percentage of conservatives in this country do you think are religious whackos and are only conservative because of their religious beliefs?

what a god damned fucking liar you are
the $11 trillion in debt wasnt just from republican administration
and your man obama has added $2 trillion to it already
so shut the fuck up with your lies

Woah cowboy, I think you may have quoted the wrong person? I certainly never said any of those things, not even in my worse nightmare.

oops
i did

 

[Newby]

what a god damned fucking liar you are
the $11 trillion in debt wasnt just from republican administration
and your man obama has added $2 trillion to it already
so shut the fuck up with your lies

Woah cowboy, I think you may have quoted the wrong person? I certainly never said any of those things, not even in my worse nightmare.

oops
i did

That's what I figured...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are not enough, blue-eyed, blond guys and girls who go to church three times on Sunday and once on Wednesday to make up a majority for the Republican party...

So Republicans need to import the brown-eyed, black boys and girls who smoke crack three times on Sunday and once on Wednesday?

DevNell, there's already a party for that.

It's called the Democrats.

Yes, and when did your momma start a party?

 

[garyd]

Chris there were already financial derivatives, there had been for decades had the value of those derivatives been as they were advertised the derivatives wouldn't have mattered. Why were the derivatives bad? They contained too much bad mortgage paper and why was there excessive amounts of bad mortgage paper? Because we've spent the last forty years passing state and local legislation in the form of housing restrictions among other things that caused the building of larger and larger houses to the point at which we now have a whole lot of houses that most people can't afford short really pecualiar financing arrangements. and a nearly constant increase in housing prices.

 

[jeffrockit]

Maybe you should pass socialized medicine and handgun control laws in your pants and leave the rest of us the hell alone then.

"the rest of us"????


the rest of us?

What the fuck is up with the royal we tactic?


friggin' doosh!

Lmao, its unbelievable that you think that other people's rights should be violated in order to provide for a few...

That is the left's mantra!

 

[jeffrockit]

I don't know what is going to happen with the former Grand Old Party. The problem with it is that it is currently dominated by religious folks who will not compromise on social issues and tax cut zealots who will not compromise on budet issues. And so the few moderates left are being outed.

By putting up McCain, one of the few more moderate voices (and even he was caving hard to the right to get the nomination) in a year when any Republican would have had a very tough time winning, the purists got a sacrificial lamb moderate with whom they could blame the ills of the party.

I expect them to put up a charismatic but very right wing candidate in 2012, someone like Palin. And unless the economy is still in the pits, that hard right candidate will be crushed. That will force a catharsis in the Republican party in which they may have to accept a more compromising view in order to survive as a major force in the political sphere.

Because I don't see a great religious right revival of the scope to propel them back, and while the boomers loved their tax cuts when they were earning, as they retire they are not going to support candidates who talk about cutting their retirement benefits. Eventually the GOP is going to have to adapt to these conditions or become a permanent minority.

Of course, if the economy still sucks, all bets are off. There is a reason the Murdoch outlets are doing the best they can to undermine confidence and economic growth.

The Liberals put McCain in the running.

 

[jeffrockit]

Again, I believe that the Govt should tax enough to cover what it spends. I disagree we should run deficits, absent exceptional circumstances (like a sever recession). How about you?

Disagree.

Does the include the many pork projects such as the study of why Pigs smell?

 

[jreeves]

If you don't broaden the party, there won't be much of a party left.

Listen to the Hyper-Patriots, Rush Boil-on-his-butt-draft dodger Limbaugh and Dick Chickenhawk-In-Chief Cheney and Karl Rove's new permanent majority will not only have been a pipe-dream (what was he smoking?), but the GOP will be right up there in the history books with the Whig Party and others.

There are not enough, blue-eyed, blond guys and girls who go to church three times on Sunday and once on Wednesday to make up a majority for the Republican party...]


the above is a direct quote right out of a former state party leader's sob story. hoooooooey!

Yes the GOP is dead...
Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere
for the second straight week, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 40% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 39% would choose the Democrat.

 

[garyd]

No it can't the population is simply aging to rapidly. By 2050 nearly half the people in the country will be over 70. Another 10% will be on welfare and another 20% working for the federal government leaving 20% of the population to support the other 80%. Since the other 20% won't all be millionaires lots of luck trying to find the money.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Arms for hostages: according to many of the right wing-nuts here and elsewhere Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama are unpatriotic and deal with our enemies (opinions based solely on philosophical disagreements absent rational argument), but when conservatives and Republicans...

you get the point.

What about the 2010 elections? Anyone see the GOP gaining any seats in the US House or US Senate? How about the Governorships up in 2010?

 

[garyd]

According to the Rasmussen poll quoted above DEV yep. By the way Bush is the only president ever to pick up congressional seats in an off year election (2002)