Positive Republican Thoughts

[Mischka]

The Republicans control both the Presidency and the Senate. This is quite an accomplishment, and demonstrates the continued conservative trend of the U.S. Now, what will the GOP do with this power? Instead of wasting your time bashing liberals ad naseum, I'd think this atmosphere would lend itself to really getting finding out what is so appealing about the GOP. It's obviously not simply anti-liberalism. So let's hear all the policies, laws, appointments etc. that the Republicans will put forth.

To me, the Supreme Court is of utmost importance. Rehnquist will retire in the next year, possibly followed by O'Connor. Who do you see as the next Chief Justice? What nominees would you love to see on the bench? Which do you expect?

How about Homeland Security?

What will we cut from the national budget in order to get a permanent tax cut?

Please add whatever topics you feel are important. And, please, this is a thread to celebrate your conservative ideology. Let's try to keep the tone positive.

Have fun.

 

[West Mass Man]

Sorry

I can allow your optimism to pass on most of these items and questions, but I can't let the tax cut one go -- why do you think we will cut anything from the budget for the tax cut? We are currently operating on a deficit, and we are increasing spending on defense, and probably homeland security, if we are going to set up a new agency. Isn't the question more, how much will the deficit grow to? I guess that is my problem with all the talk of tax cuts (and not just on the federal level) -- politicians talk about cutting taxes before they identify how they will pay for them.

Sorry for ruining the tone of your thread.

 

[bknight2602]

The real issue is not cutting taxes, but cutting spending, that creates the deficits in the first place! When have politicians talked of that?

 

[RawHumor]

The real issue is not cutting taxes, but cutting spending, that creates the deficits in the first place! When have politicians talked of that?

Politicians will begin to talk of that when people begin to talk of that. How often do you hear people say "You know, I really don't think that I'll want the government to assist me with my prescription drug coverage" or "That tax cut for college is nice, but I really don't need it".

As the government pig keeps growing teets from which we all feed, the more spending will continue to grow.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

The real issue is not cutting taxes, but cutting spending, that creates the deficits in the first place! When have politicians talked of that?

Where do you suggest cutting spending?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I'm looking for improvements in education. More school choice, more focus on improving failing schools, and I'm looking forward to seeing tangible actions to support the slogan "No child left behind".

 

[greybeard]

here's a start.................

Where do you suggest cutting spending?

how about Ashcroft's salary?......................the man is truly scary......

greybeard

 

[Spinaroonie]

I'm looking for improvements in education. More school choice, more focus on improving failing schools, and I'm looking forward to seeing tangible actions to support the slogan "No child left behind".

Read this:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=126191&highlight=child+behind

 

[Jean Val Jean]

Nice try Mishka.

The Republicans have been articulating and that is why the Democrats lost and continue to lose because they are shouting the same tired old slogans.

They want better control of the borders and better intelligence on our enemies. Speaking of which, they want to admit we have enemies and confront those enemies.

They have openly said, we want to take the government off the back of the working man by eliminating marriage, capital gains taxes, and death taxes. While these issues are easy to demagogue as appeasing the rich, the fact is, the rich escape most of those types of taxes, as we all know. The ony people who pay that kind of shit sre the middle-class.

They have been working on welfare reform and eliminating programs that do not help. This is in antithises to the Democratic argument which is simply and always, it failed because of under-funding. It needs more. Never that the idea may not have been that sound.

They have paid attention to the economy and we are doing better DESPITE the horrendous attack of 9-11 and the attempt to sink our economy (with aid by the Democrats) and warnings of more to come.

Republicans believe in the greatness of America and see it's potential for good in the world and do not magnify little problems to point out how bad we are.





As for judges. Those judges who have been legislating from the bench are a fickle lot. Remember the pledge flip-flop. They're encouraged bu the popularity of causes and the tone of their friends around them. You take that whole Florida bunch, put them in Washington in the hands of conservative politicians in an America that is voicing it it's conservatism, and viola, you'll get conservative decisions.

Now, hopefully, we'll get judges who will look to the constitution and not to the polls...

 

[brokenbrainwave]

As the government pig keeps growing teets from which we all feed, the more spending will continue to grow.

and you say your not a breast man...

Everyone says there needs to be more control over government spending. Almost the entire nation is for this...unless it effects them.

Things will not get better until more control is returned to the state level. It is impossible for a national government supposedly standing for freedom of choice to micromanage every minute detail. Dump the DOE, National programs of welfare, forget a prescription drug plan and the bottom line should improve. (Plus revise the all to sweet pension plan of Congress)

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Seems strange that HHS would give the military anything. Doesn't sound like there's a legitimate linkage there. I wonder where that came from...is there a source?

Rod Paige has talked about some good programs. Heck, he even got Teddy Kennedy to support his goals, not that that's a good recommendation, but it shows that they're working in the spirit of bi-partisanship.

I like some of the results that we're getting in some of the pilot programs in school choice, both where private or parochial schools are included and where they're excluded.

It's encouraging that the parents in these districts are very supportive of the programs. Many of these pilot programs are in places where education has been problematic in the past.

 

[bknight2602]

Politicians will begin to talk of that when people begin to talk of that. How often do you hear people say "You know, I really don't think that I'll want the government to assist me with my prescription drug coverage" or "That tax cut for college is nice, but I really don't need it".

As the government pig keeps growing teets from which we all feed, the more spending will continue to grow.

LMAO That is what the real problem is to many teets.

LovetoGiveRoses, good question and anywhere you look, you'll find the needy. The reason the programs were put in place to begin with, however, can we expect the federal govenment to provide something for everyone? Especially when they are the most bloated of the organizations to begin with.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

LMAO That is what the real problem is to many teets.

LovetoGiveRoses, good question and anywhere you look, you'll find the needy. The reason the programs were put in place to begin with, however, can we expect the federal govenment to provide something for everyone? Especially when they are the most bloated of the organizations to begin with.

I can only speak in generalities now because I've been working too much and haven't had much time for research or reading, but...

I hope that the Government can set up a framework so that people can make choices and succeed if they show initiative. I don't want lots of handouts, rather, a framework. Aid should go to those who are truly in need, but it should be a rigorous test.

I've mentioned this several times, but it bares repeating. A few years ago NYC decided to go to a biological based computerized ID system for welfare recipients. Many people expressed outrages about this program, about the erosion of civil liberties.

They quickly found offenders. One woman, who didn't understand the ramifications of providing her fingerprints, was collecting welfare under 8 different names and had stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars. More telling is that the welfare roles went down by HALF almost overnight. People clearly got the message that fraud was unacceptable.

What is even better is that people who really needed the money were getting it and taxpayers weren't getting fleeced through fraud.

 

[RawHumor]

can we expect the federal govenment to provide something for everyone? Especially when they are the most bloated of the organizations to begin with.

Remember this the next time the issue of "free" health care comes up.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Remember this the next time the issue of "free" health care comes up.

Al Gore was quoted today in the Post saying that he's in favor of the single payer health system (where the Government becomes the overall provider of health care). Several Democratic Presidential hopefuls rushed to say that the single payer system is untennable and that Mr. Gore's position is inimical to the Democtratic party position.

 

[RawHumor]

The "single payer" system? That's a nice new way of saying it, huh?

 

[Texan]

Mischka, you can be such a "rabble-rouser".


Seriously, there are only two areas where spending is large enough that changes will have a major impact on the balance sheet. Those two areas are "defence" and "social security." There is a third thing that government can do that has a greater impact on a balanced budget, but I'll mention that in a minute.

Republicans are known for wanting "more rather than less" when it comes to defence, so most people think that will be an area of weakness for a Republican controlled government. I don't think so. The Bush administration is pushing the Pentagon to come up with a completely new definition of "military." Instead of thinking of Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard; think of a single military organization. There is so much redundancy in each of the "branches" of the military, with tremendous loss of effeciency and added costs. In a modern conflict, the functional lines of separation of each of the current military branches is blurred. Look for a MAJOR effort to realign the military and to achieve significant cost reductions in the process.

Social Security is the largest part of the U.S. budget. Look for a Republican controlled government to SLOWLY try to take SS "off budget" and to put all SS revenue into that proverbial "lock box."

You can expect this to take some time, because the Dems will use any Republican efforts to change SS as a scare tactict in every election.

Finally, the best and most effective way for government to positively impact the budget and the economy is to provide stable fiscal policy that "promotes" commerce, savings and investment. Those are the three key ingredients to a growing economy. Economic growth provides increased revenue to the government. The only reason the deficit went down during the past +_6 years, is that the economy was growing. It had nothing to do with tax rates other than to the extent those rates stimulated or "held back" economic growth.

It's time for Greenspan to go. He has done a good job, but his thinking is based on the Carter/early Reagan years of fighting inflation, rather than the need to encourage growth. During the late 90's Greenspan probably did as much to hurt the economy as to help it. He kept interest rates high in an effort to stop inflation, but he prevented the economy from really growing at the rate it was trying to grow.

Mischka, did you really want anyone to post what they expect (hope) for, or were you trying to start trouble????

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Mischka, did you really want anyone to post what they expect (hope) for, or were you trying to start trouble????

She's a lawyer. She can't help asking questions, it's as natural as breathing. She likes to poke fun at people with conservative viewpoints too, so the quetions will be pointed...like probing with a sword tip (keep your arms in).

 

[Texan]

She's a lawyer. She can't help asking questions, it's as natural as breathing. She likes to poke fun at people with conservative viewpoints too, so the quetions will be pointed...like probing with a sword tip (keep your arms in).

My experience has been that Mischka will bore holes in a "closed mind" whether conservative or liberal. I think Mischka shows more respect for conservative views when they're reasonably well thought out, than most liberals show. Also, when I agree or disagree with Mischka, I have to listen, becasue there's usually pretty good thought behind the opinions.

Now, this thread, I think is just a fishing expedition.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

My experience has been that Mischka will bore holes in a "closed mind" whether conservative or liberal. I think Mischka shows more respect for conservative views when they're reasonably well thought out, than most liberals show. Also, when I agree or disagree with Mischka, I have to listen, becasue there's usually pretty good thought behind the opinions.

Now, this thread, I think is just a fishing expedition.

I'll give you that. She does read and listen and that is more easily done when the point is well made.

 

[JazzManJim]

Here's my wish list.

1 - Lower personal taxes. We have empiric evidence from the 1960s and 1980s that when we lower taxes the money taken in my the Federal Treasury increases. Revenues are not a zero sum game and we know for a fact that, paradoxically, lowering personal taxes increases revenue. There's an explanation for this, but I won't get into it unless someone really wants to know why. Ideally, I'd like to see a flat tax system. It's by far the fairest system I've seen, and it's work rather nicely. But that's pie in the sky.

2 - Lower the Capital Gains Tax Rate. The single largest impediment to large-scale investment is the CGT. Lowering that revitalizes the real-estate industry. The Bush Sr CGT tax increase in the early 1990s singlehandedly killed that industry and stuck us deeper into a recession. Lowering it frees up an awful money into the economy.

3 - Restructure the Social Security system. Right now, you could make big gains by allowing people to take a portion of their tax and place it into funds of their own choosing. Right now, the average return on your SS tax is approximately 1 percent. These investments need not be risky (and this is something that Repubs need to stress). A CD earns on the low end 5 percent. Even that's a better investment than SS and it wouldn't be affected by a fluctuating stock market (which is the current scare the Dems use). Along with that, you will have to ensure that those who have contributed a certain number of years do get what they've paid in. I'm not quite sure how you go about doing that though.

4 - Trim the Federal Government fat (general). The first place you can do this is by reducing the number of employees you have. Right now the Fed Gov't is hugely bloated with employees in middle management positions. You can also revamp the contracting process the Fed purchases, which is rife with corruption and cost overruns. Streamlining that will save millions of dollars right off the bat.

5 - Greatly reduce the Department of Education. I can't see a good reason for most of what the DoE actually does, nationally. IMO, education is a local concern and the money needs to be spent locally, not federally.

That's it for starters. Later I'll get into the Department of Defense and the myriad entitlement programs. They, by dint of what they are and who they serve, will take a long-term approach. I don't think that it can be fixed in four or eight years.

 

[Jean Val Jean]

Going back to the Contract with America the conservatives doing well when they articulate who they are, just as they did in this election. The key for the Democrats has been then to attack any articulated position and then issue a call for some blanket freebie for votes punctuate with a good dose of fear.

So the real question becomes what are going to be the positive Democratic Thoughts and will the Democratic Party Put forth it's plans and goals, in fullness and truth, and let America similarly judge?

 

[Guest]

Not having time to respond to all of this right now, I ask you: If we divert SS funds, what do we do about our current use of the SS money? Unless I am mistaken, there is no SS money laying around earning a low interest rate, it is either being paid to seniors, or it is "invested" in the government (and being used, essentially, as tax revenue, which is another sad story). So if we divert money from its current use, we are just taking another big revenue hit that we will have to replace.

Secondly, let's not talk about "empirical" evidence that lowering taxes improves the economy. In the short term, yes, its true, but the deficits you create by doing this can have a huge impact on long-term interest rates, which can have a huge impact on growth.

 

[JazzManJim]

Secondly, let's not talk about "empirical" evidence that lowering taxes improves the economy. In the short term, yes, its true, but the deficits you create by doing this can have a huge impact on long-term interest rates, which can have a huge impact on growth.

Yes, the evidence is empirical that lowering taxes increases revenue. Short term or long-term, the proof is there and indisputable.

What reduces deficits is simple: spending less than you make.

Most people keep the two things (revenues and spending) together, because it is in their political interests to do so. They are separate issues, though, handled separately, both economically and legislatively.

 

[miles]

It will be a cold day in hell when the government begins downsizing. It has never happened and never will. Politicians love government. Dept. of Homeland Security? Give me a break. The government sucks the life out of the economy and returns very little.

Can't remember who said it: The Dept. of Energy has never produced a lump of coal or a gallon of oil.

Classic.