Where the GOP goes from here

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not a member of the GOP, I can't speak for them. My view point is that if you want to drastically lower standards of living in this country, then by all means follow Obama right off the cliff. I never said that we need to cut the social safety net, if you're talking about things like medicare, disability and welfare although those things could use some drastic overhauls to make them more efficient and cost effective.

The conservative mantra on taxes isn't about protecting corporations or wealthy individuals. It's about creating revenue by creating more general income. If you get rid of the red tape that mummifies the common business, especially small businesses, then it allows them to free up capital. When they free up capital, they expand their business, jobs are created and demand for workers increases. More workers means more income tax, even though you tax them at a lower rate. It's an old strategy of economics, reduce the price per item but make up the difference in volume.

- Reduce gov't spending by reigning in the bureaucracy.
- Lower tax rates across the board. For everyone, not just the upper echelons.
- Scale back needless red tape. I.E. Remove pointless regulations like Obamacare, Temper out of control agencies like the EPA.
- Overhaul and streamline social programs to improve efficiency, lower costs and check for cheaters.
- Keep a necessary level of military spending, but don't overspend. (Bush the Younger was bad about this.)
- Cut foreign aid to countries who are no longer acting like allies. Egypt and Pakistan would be good examples.

This is not a difficult concept to implement, the problem at hand is that democrats do not want to implement it. They prefer a tax and spend approach which expands their own power. Without any regard for fiscal responsibility. This is why they marry social issues to fiscal issues. They go after certain demographics and convince them the country is against them, and that they need big gov't to provide for them because they can't have a career because they're black, latino, female, gay, etc. They also use corrupt labor unions to rob their employees of more money and to bully them into voting how the union wants them to. It's a huge mind f**k and most democrat voters couldn't bite the hook faster if you baited it with a bar of gold.

How do conservatives win this fight? By convincing everyone that fiscal responsibility, lower tax rates and smaller govt will bring more prosperity for everyone.

How do conservatives sell that message? I have no idea, and neither does anyone else. Since 50%+1 are convinced that making wealthy people pick up the tab for govt handouts is so cool.

It won't be so cool when the money runs out. Ask the Greeks about it.

Tim, better yet - abolish current political gridlock by promising to tax the top 2 percent more, thus creating an extra 60 billion in national revenue per year and slitting their own wrists as a party - as the democrats are doggedly demanding they do.

This is why I'm really starting to think we have the congress of 1860 all over again - I really don't believe our politicians will stop playing chicken or offering suicide to the other party as the only way to fix the problems until both cars playing chicken go off the WB Wiley Coyote Grand Canyon cliff or off the peer into the ocean. Its on us this time, not them, just like whether the US turns into Libya or not in two years time is on us - not them.

Basically what you're doing is spouting a bunch of claims without empirical support. You've bought into the supply-side nonsense hook line and sinker. When you talk about waste you don't seem to realize that money never simply drops off the face of the earth. Even the "inefficient bureaucrats" and "welfare leeches" end up passing their dollars back up the chain when they buy stuff. What's inefficient is the fact that our country doesn't produce enough to justify our consumption level, and it's not the poor or people on welfare who are the biggest consumers. It's the middle class and up.

You make the mistaken assumption that America is self-sufficient. We are not. The problem isn't that we're dependent on too many government handouts. It's that we're dependent on crap made cheaply by people in other countries. We aren't making things in our own country that the rest of the world wants. In the 1950s and 1960s we were still making things that others in the world would buy.

Tim, better yet - abolish current political gridlock by promising to tax the top 2 percent more, thus creating an extra 60 billion in national revenue per year and slitting their own wrists as a party - as the democrats are doggedly demanding they do.

This is why I'm really starting to think we have the congress of 1860 all over again - I really don't believe our politicians will stop playing chicken or offering suicide to the other party as the only way to fix the problems until both cars playing chicken go off the WB Wiley Coyote Grand Canyon cliff or off the peer into the ocean. Its on us this time, not them, just like whether the US turns into Libya or not in two years time is on us - not them.

Reagan-era fiscal policy which was effective through the 90s and utilized to one degree or another by Presidents of both parties seems to be evidence enough that supply-side works. Although you do have a point about our country not producing enough exports. That you can blame squarely on Labor Unions and the death of apprenticeship in the U.S. Which is partly due to technological advances, but mainly due to the collegiate education system running a media blitz to convince people that you must have a college degree to survive. Again, a function of the labor unions. Particularly teacher's unions which are known to be the most corrupt of all unions.

Economic red tape and the EPA also have played a vital role in killing industry in our country. Between, oppressive regulation that go well beyond the scope of original intent being mixed in the high cost of labor and other legal factors, it's no wonder that companies are setting up shop in places like China, India and New Zealand where labor is cheap and the governments are more business friendly.

Yes, that's all very good but that is not the truth of the job creators argument. To break it down, the argument asserts that more money will always necessarily lead to more jobs. Why? All of what you said may be why but I still assert that there is free will and that owners may do anything that they please with that money. Until you have data that proves that that is overcome, then I reserve the choice to think like this.

More money in the hands of business owners will result in job creation. Moreover, it's the only way to create jobs.

You are arguing that business owners with more money will no longer be business owners. By definition, a business owner is one who invests in capital goods to produce other goods. Sure, some may decide to take an incremental increase in money and spend it on consumer goods. But in general, business owners are people who spend money on capital goods. An economy is built on these people spending their disposable income on capital goods.

If the assertation is false, then wealth wouldn't exist in the first place. Everything produced would be consumed.

More money in the hands of business owners will result in job creation. Moreover, it's the only way to create jobs.

Creating jobs is not the purpose of a business. The purpose is to sell as many goods as possible for the maximum profit possible. Sales and earnings are what the shareholders are looking for when they buy stock. The CEO's job is to please the shareholders. Sometimes hiring will increase earnings and sales. Other times it will only incur cost...

If things are as dire as you think no amount of damn tax cuts or spending cuts is going to save us. We should simply count our losses and try to take care of each other as best we can to avoid too many riots. It seems neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are willing to admit that we are an economic empire in decline. The "we just need to balance the budget, deregulate everything, and go back to basics" message is intuitive to conservatives, but in reality it isn't any more realistic an option than the "permanent Keynesian" deficit spending you seem to think all liberals advocate. If you think we have to lower the standard of living in order to compete with the developing world then don't beat around the bush and make empty promises. Just come out and say it. It's completely hopeless. This country is screwed and there is no knight-in-shining-armor that's going to save us. I'd almost rather let the Republicans have 100% control just so they can stop whining and blaming Democrats for everything. As it is a lot of Republican voters seem so out-of-their-mind with fear that I wouldn't be surprised if Obama goes the way of JFK. Then the real excitement starts. Prepare for the blood to flow.

The whole "Unions are the Enemy" thing seems to be a ploy. The real solution is places like China and India need to unionize in order to raise wages and reduce their trade surplus. If labor was 100% mobile like it should be in an ideal capitalist model, Chinese and Indian workers would demand much higher wages. Either they go up or we go down. If the west goes down it will send a shock the puts the entire world into a depression. European austerity is already dragging the world down.

Where the GOP goes from here?

Into obscurity, with any luck.

Not necessarily. What if human workers can be dumped and replaced by robots?

A business exists to make a profit, not to hire people. Human labor is a means to an end, which is to produce profits for the firm.

ruveyn