Redstate

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

It doesn't always go the way people think it will. It just might be the year of the.. liberal... Republican.

For the good of the country. Conservatives can compromise. And some long-time Dems can compromise (due to the inexperienced candidates their party is offering and/or because giving Dems control of everything-house,senate,pres, makes no sense right now). And we will all be better off.

I respect your argument, but the electorate is going to look at the candidate's personal life.
Judy & Rudy does not work. New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago and San Francisco have the kind of moral demography that will cut Rudy some slack - and they will vote Democratic. And the rest of America? Rudy won't have a prayer.
You've seen the kind of examination the candidates who have not been ducking the early primaries have undergone.
If Rudy wins Florida, the media will go full bore on his marriages, children, and other aspects of his personal that simply will not play.
At a time when responsible people worry that America has lost its moral compass, do you honestly believe Americans could hold their nose and vote for this guy?

Do you really think Rudy's personal life is going to matter compared to Bill Clinton two presidents ago, especially since his likely opponent is going to be Hillary Clinton?

Can you name me *anyone* that's going to switch to voting *for* Hillary Clinton based on Rudy's personal life?

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Do you really think that the MS will take the Clinton to task on anything? They run all over any GOP, including (maybe especially) Rudy. And not dare go after the King, and therefore the queen, of shame on a single issue.

Our only True chance was to offer up a TRUE conservative that the American people as a whole would have gotten behind. The closest we have right now is Thompson,, the real man was hunter. But thanks to RINO globalist talk show hosts like Rush, Sean, and many others he was kept out of the discussion... Now we have nothing to contrast Bush "the worst steward of conservative values an ideas ever".

So going with the more RINO BUSH like candidate is exactly what eh demwits want... Did you see the DemDebate last night... all three basically have decided that McCant is the GOP nominee... They're pushing their guy so they can run on the "No more Bush" ticket instead of the ideas and solutions tickets... because they don't have any that make sense!!

My choices are shaping up like this: Thompson (since the best man is now out), Romney, Giuli, Huck... And there is no other republican running...McCant is a true blue Demwit with a red coat on and Pauly is s libertarian with an identity problem....

I directed your attention to a pressing issue. I even gave you a second chance to cooperate. You failed to comply. Now get your sorry, racist self out of here.

HTML Help for Red Staters

exactly saints in real life. If the divorce rate in Red States was something like 4 percent and say, 60 percent in blue states, you might have a point. Reality shows otherwise, and most people are based in reality.

You claim Red States will not vote for Rudy? And whom will they be voting for, using the template of personal sinlessness? Hillary?

I am actually glad "average Republicans" are often more realistic than political zealots such as we.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

There are two Republicans right now-those who will vote and those who will not.

Those planning on voting are in almost equal parts driven to keep the Dems OUT as much as they are in getting IN an ideology or pet issue.

It is what it is-and I don't like it-but...

well, I repeat myself.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

I am motivated to keep the Democrats out and to advance what you characterize as a "pet issue." My primary motives are (1) protection of the law for the unborn, and (2) restoration of political equality (i.e., rejection of judicial activism) for those of us who don't agree with the prevailing mores of the secular elites. I oppose Democrats for that reason, and I vote Republican for that reason.

There are other "pet issues" too. But the above take priority.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

my choice of the term "pet" is based on how those who don't CARE about abortion enough to drive their votes have chosen to look down their noses at it...not how I feel personally.

I consider abortion the number one issue in life...above and beyond all others in the matters of our Republic...but none of these candidates share that concern to the degree I do...and you...so we stay home or vote. If we vote, we have to pick from the least of the bad on the most of what they can do to keep things from getting even worse.

I will be the first to say Giuliani's position on abortion is an abomination against everything I believe. Know what?

Not enough of the people engaging their brains and their feet to the ballot boxes share my opinion on the matter.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

But I did assume that you were reffering to the pro-life cause as one of those side issues that we should agree to disagree on, meanwhile we get back to the supposedly "important" stuff we all apparently agree on, like cutting the capital-gains tax.

Thanks for the clarification.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

whetever reason. So where do you get the statement "Not enough of the people engaging their brains and their feet to the ballot boxes share my opinion on the matter."

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Who reduced Abortion rates anywhere. Do you care about the babies or about bellowing ?

Or to borrow from the great communicator "Its amazing how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit for it"
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Query to what extent the abortion rate went down (1) because of something he did, (2) despite anything he did, or (3) regardless of anything he did.

Do you know the answer?

Let me provide one answer, the abortion rate sure as heck didn't go down BECAUSE he used his bully pulpit to characterize abortion as merely an issue of "choice," and to say that abortion, like any other medical procedure, should be payed for by the government.

He may have done other things, but the abortion rate went down despite his enthusiasm for legal abortion, government-provided abortion, and Roe v. Wade.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

No offense meant here but I am going to work on the assumption you are of the male glandular persuasion. You are nineteen, living in NYC and have just found out something unplanned has happened. The last thing you care about is what the mayor is saying from his bully pulpit. What you care about is that its easier and cheaper to put the child up for adoption than it is to just end its life.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Not that you consult Giulinai's latest speech. But if invocation of the unborn child as a child has been banished from public discourse, it is more likely that an invocation of the "child" during one's personal deliberations, and discussions with the young lady in question--will be absent.

Why do you think there is so much dispute over the government simply using the word "marriage" with respect to certain relations?

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

It wouldn't have made a difference and I give thanks every day I draw breath that I was born before Roe V Wade.

The bully pulpit is important for eventually getting rid of abortion. Its not relevant in stopping horny teens from killing their unwanted get.

Teaching abstinence helps, making certain that you don't place in situations where they have no choice helps even more.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

My vote would be for 3.

Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? If so, please explain what Rudy did to cause abortions to decline in NYC?

Does the phrase promote adoption mean anything to you ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Are you implying Rudy prevented abortions by increasing adoptions?

When I ask for an explanation, I'm being serious. I keep hearing Rudy supporters saying he caused abortions to be reduced in NYC. I'm skeptical, but willing to listen to a rational argument supported by facts. I've yet to hear one.

As the preferred alternative to abortion. Adoptions are up abortions are down. Its about as clear as anything in politics.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

What does this even mean? Did he give speeches about adoptions, did he pay people to put kids up for adoption, what are we talking about here.

Note that abortion rates fell across the entire United States in the 90s and adoption rates rose. New York City fell further but it had a *lot* farther to fall. Its abortion rates are still a lot higher than elsewhere. In fact, its an abortion mecca for late-term abortions. I don't blame Rudy for this, because NYC is what it is, but no one thought Rudy was some kind of pro-life hero until it was discovered pro-lifers weren't buying his campaign like he wanted.

What specific policies did Rudy do to promote adoptions? What are the stats on adoptions in NYC? Do they show some massive increase that can be attributable to a Rudy policy? Still skeptical and waiting on facts.

He established the first child protection agency in NYC history that reported directly to the mayor. He streamlined the adoption process and established government outreach programs that paired potential adoptees with potential parents. He got family courts to hold adoption saturday sessions with specific purpose of getting adoptions done.

As a result adoptions were up 66% in NYC.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

...isn't that welcome to our world?

Good show haystack.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Of course, if you're like me, anything that goes against your very being can still be enough to allow you [with a clear conscience] to abstain from voting or vote according to your beliefs.

So. by all means, reject the candidate...but to be honest, you'd be more consistent with that righteous indignation thing you got going there to ABSTAIN...otherwise you're pulling the lever for a pro-choicer in ANY of the Dems. I fail to see how that furthers your cause...one which I share, by the way-Pro-Choice is an abomination.

It's not like Giuliani's going to start performing MORE abortions because he's ok with them. The SCOTUS fight is where we check his personal beliefs at the door...not the ballot boxes.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

If a Pro Choice Republican gets elected, We would most likely have a pro choice president for 8 years. As it is almost impossible to defeat a sitting president in a primary, and the odds of democrats selecting a Pro life candidate are almost nil. Its actually better to vote for a democrat NOW and then hope the party comes around in four years and nominates a Pro life candidate that can win.

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

But, let's be honest, the President's real control over social policy comes through the court system. Giuliani has pledged that he will appoint strict constructionist judges. Hillary or Obama? We know we'll get activist judges with those folks.

add that pressure can be applied to a pro-choice republican president (by the base) to move him in a pro-life direction. Harriet Miers and immigration were examples of what can happen when the base raises it's collective voice. I've said it before, if Rudy stands a chance for re-election, he'll be forced to move to the right on social issues. I also can't think of any politician alive today, aside from Bush, with a stronger commitment to the GWOT and national defense than Rudy. He is so far beyond his counterparts they are almost non-existent.

I'm with haystack...

forgetting that a majority of Democrats are in Congress, so getting the judges you want are less likely. Thats a fact.

--roxer

4 years of Hillary means that two, maybe three 80+ year-old liberal judges become 40-or-50-year-old liberal judges.

And there goes any chance of overturning Roe v Wade anytime in the next 25 to 30 years. Just because you're too proud and short-sighted to vote for a Republican that's not pro-life but willing to nominate judges that'll overturn Roe v Wade.

Thanks for nothing.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

The historical pattern is that it's extremely rare for a party to lose the White House only 4 years after it takes it from the other party. Maybe the reason is that in the next election the incumbent can still effectively blame problems on the legacy of his predecessor; whatever the reason, history almost guarantees Clinton's reelection if she wins in 2008.

For anyone that wants to point to Carter 3 decades ago, as an example of throwing a party out of the WH after only 4 years, I ask you how many times in the last century that's happened. Even with a klutz like Carter, it was neck and neck up to the last weeks of the campaign, and it took Reagan's KO in the debate to pull ahead. Anybody here predicting we'll have another Reagan in 2012 to evict Clinton?

Also with a Democratic congress to help Hillary, you can be sure of "voting rights" legislation to ensure that evil Republicans don't unfairly disenfranchise dead people or undocumented Americans. The difficulty of unseating a party after only 4 years in the White House will be magnified by vote corruption.

and the answers that Hillary, or for that matter, any Democrat president will take to remedy the situation, we could easily bee looking back on the Carter years with nostalgia.

It won't take more than four years to bring back a stagflation like you have never seen before. And then, of course, there is the wonder of Islamofascism unchecked for four years.

With nostalgia if we had all gotten lobotomies.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

but President Hillary WILL bring on a thriving underground economy in the sale of Thorazyne.

looking at the gold and oil markets, along with the declines in equities, the writing is on the wall that tough times are ahead.

We may end up finding how quickly a Marxist can turn into a Stalinist if Hillary gets in there. Luckily Carter was a boob who didn't even have his own party unified behind him in Congress. I fear what Hillary could do with Pelosi, Reid, and the MoveOn kooks cheering them on from the peanut gallery. Our woes could quickly shift from economic pain to losing civil liberties, capital controls, massive income redistribution, state takeovers of industries, and protectionist trade policies in a big hurry.

We don't even want to find out how far off the cliff these socialist kooks will take us.

Islamofascism unchecked for 4 years? Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if we got hit not long after she got sworn in. Kind of like the welcoming party Gordon Brown got in the UK. They're going to be anxious to test whoever our next POTUS is to see what they're up against. They're probably also going to be ready to hit somewhere the minute George W. Bush takes that final ride on Marine One to the airport for the plane home.

Even with respect to judicial nominations, the Senate makes a huge difference.

The biggest mistakes Republican presidents have made on US Supreme Court nominations have been when the Democrats controlled the US Senate: Nixon (Blackmun), Ford (Stevens), Reagan (Kennedy), George H W Bush (Souter).

The biggest successes Republicans presidents have made on US Supreme Court nominations have been when the Republicans controlled the US Senate: Reagan (Scalia), George W Bush (Roberts, Alito).

To be fair, there are the cases of Nixon (Renquist), George H W Bush (Thomas) and on the other side of the ledger Reagan (O'Conner). But still, with a Democrat Senate, we aren't likely to get a conservative justice.

that may be the last line of defense for us in checking judges and cabinet appointments.

We also need to keep our eye on the ball for 2010. The only reason Clinton's presidency wasn't an even bigger disaster is because we had Newt and the Class of 94 in there to keep order.

"4 years of Hillary means that two, maybe three 80+ year-old liberal judges become 40-or-50-year-old liberal judges."

That would be a heck of a trick considering that Stevens is the only liberal judge who either is or will be 80+ in the next four years. But, why let facts get in the way of an argument?

But a solid attempt at clouding the issue

Scalia is 72
Breyer 70
Kennedy 72
Stevens 88

Add 5 to all those. You really want to take odds they are all going to be around in 5 years (Yes it is 5 not 4 years)/

So yes why let reason get in the way of harping on a minor point. Of course your response to these matters has been "HAHAHA" So I guess its really not about doing whats right.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You're not particularly good with math, are you? Scalia is 71, Breyer is 69, Kennedy is 71, and Stevens is 87. You don't actually get a year older until your birthday.

Also, Scalia is not one of the liberal judges. Most would consider him conservative. You also left out Ginsburg for some reason. She is liberal and she's 74.

In case it escaped you, adding four (or five) to any of the above results in one (namely Stevens), not two or three like you ignorantly posted, being 80+.

Your continued factual mistakes leaves your credibility in question.

I did not say they would be over 80. I just pointed out they would all be over their three score and ten. And whats more you could expect at least 1 probably more to be replaced by the next potus.

As to the birthday issue you would carry a little weight if you were right.

Inauguration is on january 2009 by that time they will all have had their birthday and the term of office is till january 2013

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It's not so bad to make a little mistake but you are beclowning yourself by attempting to explain it away.

Your post says "Scalia is 72" (emphasis added). Unless you want to make some sort of Clintonian argument about the meaning of "is," it means current age now and not age in January 2009. It is common practice in the English language to use "will be" when refering to some event in the future.

Why also did you say "add 5 to all those [ages]" if you meant their ages in January 2009? If you meant their ages in January 2009, then you would only add four years to calculate their ages at the end of the next president's term. Is this yet another example of you math perspicacity?

I'll ask again

Do you think that in 5 years one or more of those judges won't be gone ? Are you willing to let Hillary replace them ?

You can worry all you like whether or not I was correct in subtracting their birth year from the current year.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Is your assertion the next presidnet isn't going to be appointing judges or that they will be.

Your entire screed is pointless unless you want to believe that there is going to be zero opportunity for a president hillary to extend the current bias of the court or shift it further to the right.

What you have done is little more than blow smoke.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Don't vote for spite. If you can't support a pro-choicer, don't vote for either pro-choicer on either side. Vote for the pro-life Republicans running for offices downticket.

You have the liberal salivating at using them to manipulate you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Gulliani's upside is (I'd guess) his fiscal/war stances. They are NOT his social stances. Right? And in a world where you apparently can't have all three it seems that the SoCons normally get the short end of the stick.

That's because many conservatives and conservative-leaning libertarians believe in small government--not just small government on fiscal issues, but social issues as well. We want the government as far away from our personal lives as possible. The SoCons who want to use the government and taxpayer dollars to fund social programs and laws that dictate personal behavior actually go against the conservative prime directive of small government, small government, small government. For example, though most of us agree on using the power of the government to stop abortion, far fewer of us would support a federal smoking ban. A lot of us are socially conservative on a personal level and bring up our children to hold socially conservative values, but we don't want the government to use its power to impose specific social values on the entire nation beyond the basics that 95% of the nation accepts.

Plus, for presidential races in particular, many of us conservatives understand that the president does not and should not have much real power to affect social issues. Beyond reassuring ourselves that the candidate promises to appoint strict constructionist judges, we realize that the president's powers do not and should not include telling people how to live their lives. We reject "nanny statism" categorically. Though the president can influence social issues through the power of the bully pulpit when he's popular, he can't really change much socially on his own. He's limited to introducing legislation and wielding the veto pen. He CAN, however, have a tremendous and meaningful impact on national security since those powers are granted by the Constitution. He can also have a strong say in economic issues through budgeting, fiscal policies, foreign policy and trade agreements, executive branch appointments and hires, etc. Fiscal and security concerns are what I think most core conservatives think we're hiring the president to do, not change the moral fabric of America. Clearly, there is a large group of Republicans who DO want the president to crusade for social issues. But I think core conservatives tend to prioritize fiscal and security issues when choosing a president, even when they would identify themselves as strong social conservatives as well.

Finally, all that being said, I think we as a party have bent over backwards trying to give SoCons as long a stick as possible. Some Huckabee supporters are using it now to beat us over the head, if you haven't noticed.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

In some states have judicial activists ORDERED legislatures to raise taxes to pay for programs the judges think are necessary.

Other than that, fiscons have not taken it on the chin. Show me the social-conservative politician who will say to fis-cons: Hey, win all the referenda, elections you want, but I still am gonna put in judges that liberal Democrats like to overturn any success you have in the political arena. Such is Giuliani (or such was him until his recent flip-flopping).

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Tax cutters have done better than anyone under Bush.

Spending hawks and small-government types have gotten the Abner Louima treatment.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

lots of cons now, and in cycles past, have taken turns bending over for the good of the party.

Of the field, and their collective goods and bads, contrasted against the American agenda these particular next 4 years...

well, do the math-abortion is off the table-a Dem held Congress can be thanked for that-wanna fix it? replace them in the mid-terms with the GOP still living on PA Ave.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

We've ended up with Republican social conservative candidates who when actually in office sign more spending into law. At least Bush got half the FisCon philosophy... tax cuts. Still waiting on significant spending cuts.

You might think you're taking it on the chin... but we've been taking it in the wallet as half-FisCons continue to spend all our money and China's too getting us into more debt... which will just make it harder to cut taxes further later.

...because he's, I don't know, a Corporate-Something (not Conservative certainly and not Liberal) who seems mostly interested in forwarding business interests without real thought to how it effects things, like say, the budget deficit. Hence, tax cuts without limit to spending. And I have no idea how he's viewed from the social perspective. Certainly on the left we see him as bending to the social conservative agenda, but this would not be the first time where both side see a politicians stances as abandoning them.

Calling Bush a corporate whip is just a liberal talking point. Please explain or we'll realize that you are just "A Liberal" and not "A Rational Liberal."

*********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

...without any real attempt to cut spending as well SEEMS to have his interests in spurring business cycles without much care to the other half of the ledger. If you've got a better term for what he's done, let me know and I'll employ it. Or are you suggesting TAX cuts without spending limits IS fiscal conservatism. in which case... I'll call it that.

If the tax cuts were corporate tax cuts, then you might at least have a reasonable *argument* (though I'd still disagree with that view). His tax cuts were for personal income taxes for *people*, not corporations.

Cutting taxes is half of fiscal conservatism. Spending cuts is the other half. But that's exactly my point, which contradicts what you wrote before--Bush and the SoCons have been socking it to the FisCons the last 7 years through their run-away spending.

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

It's been shrinking steadily since 2004-- less than half what it was, once the 2003 tax cut kicked in.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

...that we still have a budget deficit. We cut taxes which did eventually lead to higher yearly revenues, but spending has continued to grow with each year as well that we are still spending more than we're bringing in.

If we would have controlled spending we could have had more tax cuts by now.

A shrinking deficit is great... no deficit and more tax cuts would be even better. We could have done that.

Wait wait wait....

The Laffer curve is indisputable -- in the long run. I am very skeptical that a tax cut can boost revenues year over year just *one* year out. Many other factors have led to higher tax revenues, not the least of which is the massive annual tax increase for middle to upper income Americans thanks to antiquated and poorly-written legislation -- the Alternative Minimum Tax. I don't have the time to do the research myself -- and I haven't seen if someone else has -- but I would love to see how much of the increased tax revenue is from new families having to pay the AMT (and yes, the overwhelming majority of taxpayers affected by AMT are families and home-owners).

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

The only way for the AMT to apply to more people is if they were making more money. I'd argue that the economic growth has more to do with this than anything which is helped by, but not solely dependent on, lower taxes.

There are too many variables in economic growth to irrefutably prove they help with economic growth, but that's part of my philosophy. Mainly because I think I know how to spend my own money better than some Washington bureaucrat too.

The only way for the AMT to apply to more people is if they were making more money.

Not true. Well, it depends on whether you're talking about real wages or nominal wages. One (of the many) issues with the AMT is that its not indexed for inflation. The AMT was designed to apply to only 155 high-income families. Furthermore, the AMT is triggered when households have a high number of deductions. Well, since the AMT was designed for the tax structure of 1969, and not 2008 (which has become far more complex), the households that are hit are those with the most deductions -- namely, families with lots of kids, mortgages, IRA deductions, etc etc. It is estimated that by 2010, one in five taxpayers will pay the AMT, and every married household with combined income in excess of $100K will pay the AMT. Quite a big difference from 155 families!

There are too many variables in economic growth to irrefutably prove they help with economic growth, but that's part of my philosophy. Mainly because I think I know how to spend my own money better than some Washington bureaucrat too.

Tax cuts increase tax revenue -- in the long run. Tax cuts spur economic growth and this economic growth leads to more tax revenue. However, in one year the economy does not grow so quickly as to make up all the lost revenue, though it will over a few years. I read in a Time Magazine article that 90% of economists do not believe tax cuts provide an immediate increase in tax revenue, and that makes sense to me.

I agree with your philosophical argument, but it has nothing to do with whether tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

Oh, but for what it's worth, I think you are right-on with this:

If we would have controlled spending we could have had more tax cuts by now.

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

Cutting taxes increases growth and therefore long-term tax revenue. But that's not what the Laffer curve is about. The curve is a short term thing where people decide whether they get more marginal utility from working or from watching Greenbay shamble around the field like zombies and lose in overtime.

Laffer is just a guy. Also, I doubt you will find him saying there is a bad time to cut taxes and government waste.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

from The Countervailing Force.

If it's true that a balanced budget is within sight then I still find it curious that this story hasn't been told, up to and including the present, as we learn the federal government will front the people something like $150-200 billion.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

The FisCons have taken it on the chin for the last 8 years. Karl Rove's whole strategy was to appeal to the social cons, unite the evangelical vote, and propel Bush to victory. It worked. Honestly, ARL, this whole division is *very* upsetting to me. My staunch fiscal conservative views derive philosophically. As a self-labeled "evangelical Christian," my underlying philosophy is shared by many of the SocialCons in America, but we apply that philosophy in different ways. In other words, my fiscal conservatism *comes from* my social conservatism--the two in my mind are inseparably joined. I believe in a limited government *because* of my philosophy of mankind.

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

...has not been put into practice, because then we could all test if it works instead of being placed (as we have been for the last few years) to judge a manipulated version of your view of conservatism. I may disagree on what the outcome of such a test might be, but I'd prefer to see it played out as intended instead of the bastardized policies under the current administration.

The Conservative Coalition of the 80's / Reagan Coalition is about as close of my view of conservatism that you'll find in the public arena. I didn't shape it after Reagan--like I said, it's philosophically, not anecdotally, driven--but I'd say that it passed the test.

**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

To pull a Kowalski, I'll add that a central tenet of the 94 revolution was to balance the budget. Tellingly, the House leadership of the last 8 years were Newt's intraparty rivals that were the loudest in calling for his ousting. Not surprisingly, they did not follow in their former party leader's desire to balance the budget and continue implementing the Contract with America.

*********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_

Some of us just lived through 6 years where a President would veto stem cell research but not pork barrel spending, a world where the biggest entitlement since the Carter administration passed under the R banner but the Congress had time to deal with a single woman in FL who was on life support, and a place where spending rises like Amish bread.

If that was FisCons in control and hitting the SoCons on the chin, I have absolutely no idea what a SoCon in control hitting the FisCons on the chin would look like. And I don't want to find out.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Amish bread is great with fresh butter.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

2 Conservative Supreme Court Justices,
The Ban on Partial Birth Abortions,
and the faith-based initiative, the SO-Cons didn't get a thing.

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men