The Grand New Party

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

The energy debate was lost last summer to Obama in bipartisan fashion if I am not mistaken. Both Hillary and McCain tried and got booed off the stage. And it seems that the tax debate was lost to Obama too. Recent polls indicate that more Americans think their current tax burden is about right and Obama has no intention of changing the current scheme for those earning under 250k (minus dividend rate hike that's schedule to go into effect in 2014). Plus most Americans don't give a rats ass about people making over 250K so how do you convince them that they're better off under a new tax plan? Everyone has ideas, the key is selling it to as many people as possible so you can reach that 50% + 1 threshold.

Problem is he cannot pay for his agenda by only raising taxes on people making over 250k per year. Its only time until he blames Bush for causing him to increase taxes on people making under 250k. He has already broken a bunch of his campaign promises.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Problem is he cannot pay for his agenda by only raising taxes on people making over 250k per year. Its only time until he blames Bush for causing him to increase taxes on people making under 250k. He has already broken a bunch of his campaign promises.

when did he say this?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

The energy debate was lost last summer to Obama in bipartisan fashion if I am not mistaken. Both Hillary and McCain tried and got booed off the stage. And it seems that the tax debate was lost to Obama too. Recent polls indicate that more Americans think their current tax burden is about right and Obama has no intention of changing the current scheme for those earning under 250k (minus dividend rate hike that's schedule to go into effect in 2014). Plus most Americans don't give a rats ass about people making over 250K so how do you convince them that they're better off under a new tax plan? Everyone has ideas, the key is selling it to as many people as possible so you can reach that 50% + 1 threshold.

Since most Americans aren't paying the bulk of the taxes I have no doubt they would answer this way.

Americans will start caring about the over $250k per year crowd when the jobs start going away. After all, the high earners in this country are usually their employers.

You cannot help the wage earner by bringing down the wage payer.

I think you can sell the idea of reforming the tax code can work if you sell it right. For instance, everybody pays the same rate. Nothing wrong with that. Then you eliminate withholding. Once everybody has to write a check directly to the government every quarter, people will start paying much more attention to how much is taken out of their paychecks, spending will get under control real quick. Then there's the privacy issue. As I said earlier, I'll bet most Americans would agree that the federal government has no right to know how much money you make, what you contribute to savings, or what you put into retirement. Just like the privacy issue, which most Americans like, the same should go for their bank accounts.

Our financial situation is none of the government's business. Sell it that way, and I think you've got yourself an issue that can win.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Since most Americans aren't paying the bulk of the taxes I have no doubt they would answer this way.

Americans will start caring about the over $250k per year crowd when the jobs start going away. After all, the high earners in this country are usually their employers.

You cannot help the wage earner by bringing down the wage payer.

I think you can sell the idea of reforming the tax code can work if you sell it right. For instance, everybody pays the same rate. Nothing wrong with that. Then you eliminate withholding. Once everybody has to write a check directly to the government every quarter, people will start paying much more attention to how much is taken out of their paychecks, spending will get under control real quick. Then there's the privacy issue. As I said earlier, I'll bet most Americans would agree that the federal government has no right to know how much money you make, what you contribute to savings, or what you put into retirement. Just like the privacy issue, which most Americans like, the same should go for their bank accounts.

Our financial situation is none of the government's business. Sell it that way, and I think you've got yourself an issue that can win.

Everyone is motivated by money including those with money who "employ everyone." This is by far the biggest consumer market in the world as well as the best place for talent. No self-respecting business man would simply pack up and leave because a) it wouldn't be in their best interest for what I hope are obvious reason (employees -> consumers -> $$$ -> employers) and b) someone will step in and fill in the gap they left including foreign investors/corporations/entrepreneurs. There's simply too much competition out there to walk away from the biggest pie on the planet. Sure, our economic power might decline in the future but taxation would be the least of our worries in that regard. Anywho, I leave you with this quote from Ike (the letter is worth reading in its entirety):

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

p.s. Ayn Rand's utopian view of the world is no better than that of an anarchist shouting "abolish money!"

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

First....I think the point of the article and saden's echoing is that dumb moves like this show a complete lack of substance. The GOP, woozy and wobbling from knockout blows brought on by years of craptastic governance devoid of anything really conservative in a traditional sense, is showing actually not one iota of a clue. They worry about renaming things, using marketing here, to get people to vote for them. It shows a total lack of substance when they simply don't realize that people are done voting for them not because the Dems are so great but because at least the Dems represent their ideas relatively accurately. Not like the good ol' GOP who says they want small government and less taxes and so and so forth but never really delivers. The GOP should worry about actually making things happen that fit a conservative viewpoint and not about calling the Dems the "Democratic Socialist poopy head baby-eaters". It's dumb.

Excellent post

[The Goat]

Just curious if anyone else noticed the DOD budget proposal Gates unveiled a few weeks ago? Very, very interesting and IMHO a much bigger deal than any of the change Obama is initiating. Basically Gates asked for just a 4% overall budget increase instead of the whopping 8% or 10% Def Secs have often shot for. But more importantly Gates' proposal revealed a big change in strategy...getting away from the inanity of weapons systems like SDI that cost trillions and never produce anything, instead Gates proposed significant growth to the special forces, practical military/technology applications like transport and small engagement weaponry. All in all it was extremely encouraging. Each of the last three decades we've seen trillions of dollars "disappear" into the defense budget for things that never materialized, and almost always under the guise of "classified" status so we never know where the money goes and especially why it produced so little. The opportunity cost of those dollars wasted in the military-industrial complex is almost unfathomable as we now sit on the most decrepit infrastructure of all 1st world nations and a national debt that will soon equal GDP. I think it's really interesting Gates, a Bush man, moved DOD this direction as soon as Obama was elected. Historically Def Secs have unparalleled autonomy in how they run the show and spend the money...Gates likely pushed this change of his own accord which again i just find very interesting.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Just curious if anyone else noticed the DOD budget proposal Gates unveiled a few weeks ago? Very, very interesting and IMHO a much bigger deal than any of the change Obama is initiating. Basically Gates asked for just a 4% overall budget increase instead of the whopping 8% or 10% Def Secs have often shot for. But more importantly Gates' proposal revealed a big change in strategy...getting away from the inanity of weapons systems like SDI that cost trillions and never produce anything, instead Gates proposed significant growth to the special forces, practical military/technology applications like transport and small engagement weaponry. All in all it was extremely encouraging. Each of the last three decades we've seen trillions of dollars "disappear" into the defense budget for things that never materialized, and almost always under the guise of "classified" status so we never know where the money goes and especially why it produced so little. The opportunity cost of those dollars wasted in the military-industrial complex is almost unfathomable as we now sit on the most decrepit infrastructure of all 1st world nations and a national debt that will soon equal GDP. I think it's really interesting Gates, a Bush man, moved DOD this direction as soon as Obama was elected. Historically Def Secs have unparalleled autonomy in how they run the show and spend the money...Gates likely pushed this change of his own accord which again i just find very interesting.

I'd say sense the Iraq war we probably have focused more spending on that type of stuff becuase that what we need at the time. So I'm not so sure if that is such a big swing in another driection or just spending on our curent needs.

[CRedskinsRule]

Any reduction in govt is good, but the military, by far could use a huge slash in funding - IF (and here I go back into lala land) we would move to a Defense first posture. Granted, our troops are in these places overseas and you can't/shouldn't just pull the rug.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Any reduction in govt is good, but the military, by far could use a huge slash in funding - IF (and here I go back into lala land) we would move to a Defense first posture. Granted, our troops are in these places overseas and you can't/shouldn't just pull the rug.

I think we could cut all goverment programs by 15 to 25% and still get the same thing from each program. It would take cutting alot of waist and also getting rid of alot of goverment and private employees but I think it could be done. The problem is that no one has the balls to suggest anything like this.

[Trample the Elderly]

How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait? How much money would we save then? We should be protecting our own borders, not someone else's.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait? How much money would we save then? We should be protecting our own borders, not someone else's.

None, if we don't draw down at the same time. BUT if we drew down, actually reduced the forces. We could save a bunch. BUT what would really save, would be putting new Hi Tech purchases on a 4 year hiatus. you could maintain force levels, and locations, but limit research/development, new spending and save a ton. Reducing force commitments outside the US would be the next step, and also save a ton. But the politicians must have their toys.

I will say, I fully disagree though with the one statement that was made by someone about SDI. We should be able to protect our country from any reasonably conceivable threat, and missiles are a real threat, which needs a real defense.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

None, if we don't draw down at the same time. BUT if we drew down, actually reduced the forces. We could save a bunch. BUT what would really save, would be putting new Hi Tech purchases on a 4 year hiatus. you could maintain force levels, and locations, but limit research/development, new spending and save a ton. Reducing force commitments outside the US would be the next step, and also save a ton. But the politicians must have their toys.

I will say, I fully disagree though with the one statement that was made by someone about SDI. We should be able to protect our country from any reasonably conceivable threat, and missiles are a real threat, which needs a real defense.

Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can bitch and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the damn thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

None, if we don't draw down at the same time. BUT if we drew down, actually reduced the forces. We could save a bunch. BUT what would really save, would be putting new Hi Tech purchases on a 4 year hiatus. you could maintain force levels, and locations, but limit research/development, new spending and save a ton. Reducing force commitments outside the US would be the next step, and also save a ton. But the politicians must have their toys.

I will say, I fully disagree though with the one statement that was made by someone about SDI. We should be able to protect our country from any reasonably conceivable threat, and missiles are a real threat, which needs a real defense.

So if your serving in the millitary do you want your goverment to stop spending on HI Tech equipment. I'd say that the high tec equipment saves lives and is a good investment.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait? How much money would we save then? We should be protecting our own borders, not someone else's.

I think this is a good idea too -- one of the chief reasons Republicans got their asses kicked out last year was because the voters saw the GOP as the party that saw no end in sight in Iraq. McCain postulating that we could be there for another "hundred" years didn't help matters.

You can still be strong on national defense without acting like police chief of the planet Earth. Dropping the "tough foreign policy" act would send another signal to the voters that the truly conservative thing to do would be to withdraw the hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world -- especially when everyone knows we can't afford it anyway.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I think this is a good idea too -- one of the chief reasons Republicans got their asses kicked out last year was because the voters saw the GOP as the party that saw no end in sight in Iraq. McCain postulating that we could be there for another "hundred" years didn't help matters.

You can still be strong on national defense without acting like police chief of the planet Earth. Dropping the "tough foreign policy" act would send another signal to the voters that the truly conservative thing to do would be to withdraw the hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world -- especially when everyone knows we can't afford it anyway.

The problem with leaving Iraq in the way you state is this. WE NEED OIL. It's the only reason we've evr concerned ourselves with the Middle East. The same stuff goes on in Africa and we barely care but in the ME we are Johnny on the Spot. We can't just leave because we have an actual national interest there.