Redstate

...Federated States of Micronesia?

Madhouse Thought and The Minority Report

n/t

It's not banging on the high chair to just be asking our elected leadership to challenge the Democrats. Sitting back and "giving them their day" is not how you win back the majority.

Whining about being in the minority is banging on the high chair.

However, insisting on our elected representatives actually taking policy positions and then acting on them, instead of being rolled, is another thing. Yes, they will lose the votes on the floor, but they don't have to vote for them to be nice.

I am not one for agreeing with the Democrats because I don't want to be called mean or a bad person in the press.

Would you have voted for the items those Republicans voted for? I know that I would not have, and voting against them is not whining, it is taking a position and showing you don't agree with the Democrats.

Wubbies World - The odds of hitting your target go up dramatically when you actually aim for it!

Would you have voted for the items those Republicans voted for? I know that I would not have, and voting against them is not whining, it is taking a position and showing you don't agree with the Democrats.

But what does that have to do with Boehner? (Unless he was one of those voting with the Democrats, of course.) There is very little he can do to make any GOP House member vote as he likes. Maybe people will start to realise how remarkable it was that the slim GOP majority held together as often as it did.

If you don't like the way certain House members vote, its up to you to replace them. Too much faith is placed in the great leader theory of politics on our side. We're like fans of a football team with a weak defence and a poor offensive line, demanding a superb quarterback to somehow lead us to victory.

What we really need is a conservative movement. Imagine if conservatives had the same degree of influence as the NRA, only upgraded to reflect their greater numbers. Then we'd be a force to be reckoned with.

I have a Democrat as my Representative and I have been working to get a Republican elected. It is not because the effort isn't there.

Wubbies World - The odds of hitting your target go up dramatically when you actually aim for it!

...but it is always proper to remember that an elected official's conscience is not necessarily in sync with his constituents' preferences.

That said, my sense is that most so-called social issues are far less black and white than many candidates/campaigns would like us to believe.

Something to keep in mind is that the Democratic leadership who set up the “first 100 hours” legislative agenda tried to focus on issues that were poll-tested to be very popular with the American electorate (just as Republicans did with the Contract with America). It stands to reason that there are going to be a lot of items in there that some Republicans might actually support personally or support because they believe their constituents support them.

The 9/11 Commission recommendations were bipartisan (which doesn’t make them good) which makes it likely that the final recommendations were such that a number of Democrats and Republicans could support them. There are also a lot of Republicans who support increasing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (it did pass a GOP House and Senate last term).

I wouldn’t take a Republican “yes” vote on these items (which I generally disagree with) as a sign that Republicans are looking forward to 40 more years in the desert but rather a simple realization that just as many Democrats voted for the provisions in the Contract with America, there are going to be some bills authored in a Democratic House that will get at least some Republicans to vote for them.

....and see how many Republicans side with the Dems on the "non-binding" resolution on George Bush's plan for Iraq. Rush's website has a great graphic depicting this, showing vultures labeled with the names of RINOs hovering over George Bush. I fear that self-preservation might wind up trumping principles.

"Blue State by Birth, Red State by Choice"

I tend to be one of those who think the cries of “quagmire” and “sectarian civil war” are probably exaggerated and agree with pushing harder (not just against the terrorists but also the Iraqi government to either fish or cut bait as we say in Minnesota). If someone in Iraq gets killed with an IED, it gets splayed all over the MSM for days. If we wipe out another terrorist cell and continue moving forward with reconstruction in areas that aren’t under attack (which I tend to think are the majority), the only place you’ll read about it are on blogs.

That being said, there have been a number of members of Congress who have been apprehensive about the Iraqi phase of the War for quite some time. If they vote to retreat including our own Senator Norm Coleman, I for one will remember in 2008 and either support a primary challenger or run myself.

I cannot claim credit for the NSA diary.

The Hagel Diary? That one's all me.

Just saying.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

I had to actually work for money today. Cut my RS time way down and my research to nil. That really difficult research, like reading who wrote the diary. At least I spelled your name right.

And to make matters worse, there are now so many blogs on the NSA, I can't remember which one I was referring to. So whoever wrote the blog on the NSA program that I read this morning, please accept my apologies for the mis-attribution.

If the powers would be so kind as to take up a collection and send me money I could better focus on RS. I would be pleased to do so, just contact me via the contact form and I will lay out our basic needs so you get the number right. It's a little one. Well, some people would think it's a little one...

Thanks in advance.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer

Does anyone else upon looking at the last six years think that he pretty much squandered every opportunity he had to move a conservative agenda forward?

IMO conservatives didn’t get a damn thing on the domestic front* but nearly every big government item that was passed from NCLB, McCain-Feingold, Medicare Part D, the energy bill, farm subsidies, and the like were pushed because of rather than despite the Bush administration. Whereas conservative domestic priorities like Social Security reform, health care reform, and tort reform seemed to fall by the wayside despite our party controlling both Houses of Congress and the White House for 5 of the last 6 years.

If Bush doesn’t have any “political capital” for a conservative agenda, it’s because he squandered it on the wrong priorities.

* And yes, I’m including temporary tax cuts that don’t mean a thing when deficit spending means that some other taxpayer is going to get the bill.

I wouldn't change a word.

tax cuts always work because government is so wasteful. The rest is pretty right on.

kept the promise he made during the 2000 campaign and seen to it that a flat tax became the law of the land (but a national sales tax works for me too).

a flat tax, national sales/consumption tax, etc., enacted in this country.

No tax alternative offers the opportunity for politicians to fiddle it to serve their interests, reward their friends, feed their dreams, punish their enemies as does the current system.

No tax alternative requires the tens of thousands of unionized federal employees whose union provided campaign funds as does the current system.

No tax alternative requires the enormous, expensive burden on business and citizenry as does the current system.

No tax alternative strikes fear into the hearts of the citizenry as does the present system.

No tax alternative provides business opportunities for the armies of accountants and attorneys to "negotiate" with the IRS on behalf of the citizenry as does the current system.

You will NEVER see a flat tax, national sales/consumption tax, etc enacted in this country; the alternatives are only beneficial to the citizenry, there is nothing in it for the politicians and their friends.

John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

The reason you will never see a flat tax adapted in this country is that it would require raising taxes on a great many people. Or drastically cutting government. Neither of which would be popular.

has never shown any great reticence to raising taxes on a great many people so I can't buy that. And simply eliminating the income tax system would not require making government smaller, just moving things around. No, it has to do with politicans' self-interest.

John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

I can't think of a time in my life when Congress has raised taxes on the majority of Americans. The Pubbies are against tax increases period, and the Dems want to raise them on the "rich", which means different things at different times but usually means at most the top two quintiles of earners. Often it means the top one percent.

Most Americans now pay essentially no Fed income tax. Any flat tax worthy of the name would have to change that.

The "rich" targeted by the Democrats always seems to consist of anybody who makes $30k a year and doesn't have kids.... more like the top 40-50% than the top 1-20%.

I'm no fan of the flat tax, though. It doesn't simplify nearly as much as proponents claim it does, and is nearly as easily meddled with as the system we have now.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Re: Most Americans now pay essentially no Fed income tax.

While this may be true of the poor, it is most certainly NOT true for most of us.

the last time I checked my paycheck, the feds took a heftier chunk all by themselves than the People's Republic of Maryland did (including the locality taxes), and that's before I add in FICA (plus my employer's contribution) and Medicare. That's a pretty scary picture, beacuse I can't afford to make a mortgage payment for a house on what I make.

Ever is why tax simplification is a non starter. There are so many giveaways to special interests in the tax code that it should have its own political party.

Veritas magna est et praevalet.

It does, they are called Republocrats aka Democans.

John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

but I'll still do what I can to support such a change. Call me a dreamer.

To that extent, tax cuts backfire because at the current price point a reduction increases revenue, like it did for JFK, Reagen, Clinton and Bush. We're on the wrong side of the price curve which is why when they were increased under Bush 41 and Clinton's first term they either tanked or stymied the economy, leading to lower or flat revenues.

Cite me the last tax increase that produced the projected short term increases in revenues. Show the the last tax cut that lead to the projected tax revenue decreases.

Math matters.

Tax cuts are always much more expensive than they are and tax increases always raise much more revenue than they actually do because we use static scoring. It doesn't even matter where we are on the curve. Static scoring is about as accurate as using a Magic 8 ball to forecast revenues, but it gives a huge advantage to the Dems, so that's why we continue to do it. Have to let the Dems control the debate, you know.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It is wrong 100% of the time. Can't get much better than that.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer

The Magic 8 ball would be right 1/3 of the time and tell you it didn't know another 1/3 of the time, which would be significantly better than any recent CBO or PBO over the last 50 years.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The tax cuts produced more revenue. Why is it so difficult at Red State of all places to get people to realize rates at 100% don't maximize federal revenue? That takes rates are not a linear equation? That reduced tax rates can lead to increased revenue the same way reduced prices do. It's called a price curve.

Federal revenues are at an all time high, but I know that means nothing in a zero sum world where higher rates would have produced even higher revenues from an economy that springs from the ethos regardless of tax rates.

If you believe that, set the rates at 100% and see what you get. Again, do you have even a rudimentary understanding of how pricing works in the market system, what a price CURVE is?

in different terms, that lower tax rates increase the number of everyone's transactions and thus create more taxable income for all involved.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

simply more taxable income for more parties, not "for all involved" because someone spending money in a transaction isn't increasing their own income. I was trying to say that lower tax rates create more taxable economic activity because there's more money being spent in the marketplace.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

who was running in the 2000 primaries that could have beaten Gore and delivered all the things you listed with the Pig Farmer Repubs in the House and the RINOs in the Senate against the whining and wimpering of the Dems amplified to a deafening shriek by the MSM?

Oh, and let's not forget that little distraction so fondly referred to as 9/11.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

For any of the things that I mentioned. NCLB, McCain-Feingold and the farm bill were all things that happened before 9/11. As was the decision to push for Medicare Part D instead of Social Security reform (although it didn’t happen until after the 2002 elections).

And even after 9/11 while I accept and agree with increased funding for the military and to an extent Homeland Security, most of the spending that was championed by the Bush administration didn’t have a fracking thing to do with it. A politician needs to do more than say “we must win the War” (true) to get me to look the other way when they’re raiding the public treasuring for programs that don’t have a thing to do with winning the War.

Oh and in 2000, I was a Forbes supporter but switched to Bush when Forbes dropped out in order to stop McCain from becoming the nominee (largely over McCain-Feingold which Bush promised to veto and we know how much his promised vetoes are worth). If I had to do it over again, I would have support John McCain who has not only proven himself to be better on spending (although just as bad on immigration and campaign finance reform as Bush) and entitlement reform but was a hawk while Bush was preaching a “humbler foreign policy.” 9/11 IMO proved that McCain was right and Bush (and myself) was wrong although Bush to his credit has moved in the right direction but is not nearly as aggressive as McCain.

believe McCain could have beaten Gore? After all, he demonstrated his inability to excite the Republican base sufficiently to get the nomination and his campaign organizational skills were suspect and even though he was certainly the MSM Repub favorite, as he still is. However, had he, or should he, actually get the nomination, the MSM would have ripped him the shreds and he is pretty much an inarticulate dullard when he is on the verbal defensive.

As for his leadership qualities, I wouldn't follow him across the street for a free beer and naked women.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

NCLB, the energy bill and farm subsidies when you voted for W, I'm not sure anyone can help you much. He ran as a compassionate conservative and that's what you got. He always emphasized the compassionate part more than the conservative part. As for the bits that are near and dear to your heart (and mine), they cratered when Bush pushed for them. Mostly torepedoed by Republicans in the House and Senate who assisted Democrats who seem genetically incapable of agreeing to a Republican proposal, even if it was originally a Democrat stalking point.

If you want to know why I won't ever, under any circumstances, vote for Guiliani or McCain, you just summed it up. They are every bit the compassionate conservative W is, and will deliver the same results he has. My complaint isn't with W, it's with "thank god he's gone" Jeffries, Molinari, and yes, even Arnold "the govenator" Schwartenager types who undercut the ideals essential to Republicans regaining the majority within the forseeable future. Yes, this give me pause with Mitt too, but he at least seems to be running from the libs in Taxachusettes instead of toward them.

that while he may talk a "compassionate" game, he certainly didn't govern NYC as a CC, or as a RINO for that matter. After all, he cut taxes and dramatically slashed the welfare roles in the city. Hardly the fountain of compassion.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

Nahhh....Abe Simpson is the Republican party today, not even Homer.. Doh!

But wait, does that make Tom Delay "Chief" from South Park, now departed from the show because of the episode "In the Closet"?

So confusing...

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

If Republicans are to present a set of principles to the voters, then they can't communicate those values by just attacking and nitpicking the Democrats at every opportunity.

Republicans instead ought to just go about their business as usual: Design policy, write bills, and argue for them to get passed. Be positive, not negative.

Attacking the majority, whining about debate time, and things like that ARE what the Democrats have been doing. I want to hear about the bills that Republicans wrote but Democrats failed to pass come election time. I want to know what the alternative is, and so will other voters.

Run like Reagan!