GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
2861U2 said:
And the only people who should be presidents and senators and congresspeople are those who want to keep growing the federal government endlessly? How does change get enacted that way? How do we still have a country 50 years from now?

"I don't like the way this company is being run, so I should never aspire to lead it."
"I don't like the status of our education system, so I should never be a teacher."
"I think there's an inadequate amount of research in a certain area of science or medicine, so I won't grow up and be a doctor or scientist."

See how illogical that sounds? It's the same idea as you're putting forth. You can be cynical and give up, or you can put yourself out there and try to right the ship.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, to be honest. Republicans are "deadset against the federal government?" What does that mean? Implementing conservative ideas would mean massive interference in peoples' lives? I'm not following. :scratch:

It's more like companies are bad so I want to lead this company or schools are bad so I want to be a teacher. It's an article of faith among many conservatives that government is inherently bad so it is a bit strange that they'd want any part of it.
 
And the only people who should be presidents and senators and congresspeople are those who want to keep growing the federal government endlessly? How does change get enacted that way? How do we still have a country 50 years from now?

"I don't like the way this company is being run, so I should never aspire to lead it."
"I don't like the status of our education system, so I should never be a teacher."
"I think there's an inadequate amount of research in a certain area of science or medicine, so I won't grow up and be a doctor or scientist."

See how illogical that sounds? It's the same idea as you're putting forth. You can be cynical and give up, or you can put yourself out there and try to right the ship.

But here's the thing, that's not how they're thinking. It's not that Republicans are simply saying, "This is an area where I think the federal government could use some changes, and here's what I'd do to fix this." That's fine. I'd listen to that.

No, what some of them, especially the more far-right, seem to be saying sometimes is that they don't like the federal government existing, period. What they're saying is:

"I don't like science, so I won't support anything that encourages more study in it."
"I don't like this company, so I want it to shut down."
"I don't like the education system, so I won't fund it adequately and let it fail."

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, to be honest. Republicans are "deadset against the federal government?" What does that mean? Implementing conservative ideas would mean massive interference in peoples' lives? I'm not following. :scratch:

They don't like the federal government because it's too intrusive, they feel. Fine. There are certainly arguments that can be made to support that claim.

But then they turn around and support things like constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage, or tougher restrictions on things relating to sex ed and health clinics. They support wiretapping of citizens. They want tough federal immigration laws. Those are moments where they want the federal government, whom they claim to dislike because it's so big, to do more. It's a contradiction that doesn't make any sort of sense and which they've never properly addressed.
 
But here's the thing, that's not how they're thinking. It's not that Republicans are simply saying, "This is an area where I think the federal government could use some changes, and here's what I'd do to fix this." That's fine. I'd listen to that.

Well there is plenty of that from the GOP, so I hope you are listening.

No, what some of them, especially the more far-right, seem to be saying sometimes is that they don't like the federal government existing, period. What they're saying is:

"I don't like science, so I won't support anything that encourages more study in it."
"I don't like this company, so I want it to shut down."
"I don't like the education system, so I won't fund it adequately and let it fail."

I think that's a grossly unfair overgeneralization. I don't know anyone, outside of maybe Ron Paul, who halfway fits that description.


But then they turn around and support things like constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage, or tougher restrictions on things relating to sex ed and health clinics. They support wiretapping of citizens. They want tough federal immigration laws. Those are moments where they want the federal government, whom they claim to dislike because it's so big, to do more. It's a contradiction that doesn't make any sort of sense and which they've never properly addressed.

With all due respect, I don't think you can just say "Republicans want zero government." I know that's a popular talking point, but it's not that black-and-white. This gets into a discussion about what states should do and what the feds should do, as in your "funding education" example. You mention a couple national security issues, which is the responsibility of the federal government. Other things aren't. I don't see it as a contradiction, just a different and more effective way to distribute power and decision-making. Unlike the Democrats, Republicans don't think an ever-growing federal government has all the answers to everything.
 
And the only people who should be presidents and senators and congresspeople are those who want to keep growing the federal government endlessly? How does change get enacted that way? How do we still have a country 50 years from now?

"I don't like the way this company is being run, so I should never aspire to lead it."
"I don't like the status of our education system, so I should never be a teacher."
"I think there's an inadequate amount of research in a certain area of science or medicine, so I won't grow up and be a doctor or scientist."

See how illogical that sounds? It's the same idea as you're putting forth. You can be cynical and give up, or you can put yourself out there and try to right the ship.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, to be honest. Republicans are "deadset against the federal government?" What does that mean? Implementing conservative ideas would mean massive interference in peoples' lives? I'm not following. :scratch:
I'll just leave this here for your benefit, then:
Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't it funny that only during Obama's term the national GOP has become fixated with the debt? Where was this lockstep opposition to increasing the national debt to power two wars during the last administration?

You can't be naive enough to pass over the fact that the longer the economic downturn is prolonged by austerity measures disproportionately affecting the middle class, the worse it is for Obama's reelection chances.
 
Well there is plenty of that from the GOP, so I hope you are listening.

In some quarters, perhaps, but that's not exactly what I've been hearing from the people who are the face of the party and popping up on TV on a regular basis.

I think that's a grossly unfair overgeneralization. I don't know anyone, outside of maybe Ron Paul, who halfway fits that description.

Rick Perry? He was listing (or trying to, anyway) three departments he'd get rid of right away were he elected president. Hell, I just saw a discussion tonight about the recent debate in New Hampshire where the candidates were discussing whether or not states had a right to ban contraception, and how that could be in direct opposition to our Constitution and the right to privacy.

Again, my statement is focusing on the politicians and some of the major conservative groups that support these politicians. Not your average voter. I'm not saying ALL Republicans feel this way, of course not. And again, certainly no argument from me that the government, be it local, state, or federal, can use some sort of editing down and changing around.

But there's quite a few who do feel the way I'm describing. Some of whom are running for president.

With all due respect, I don't think you can just say "Republicans want zero government." I know that's a popular talking point, but it's not that black-and-white. This gets into a discussion about what states should do and what the feds should do, as in your "funding education" example. You mention a couple national security issues, which is the responsibility of the federal government. Other things aren't. I don't see it as a contradiction, just a different and more effective way to distribute power and decision-making. Unlike the Democrats, Republicans don't think an ever-growing federal government has all the answers to everything.

I don't think the federal government always has all the answers, either-the entire Bush era pretty much convinced me of that. But again, the Republicans constantly sit there and quote the whole "the government who governs least is best" thing that Reagan believed. So clearly it's not just a simple "talking point", it's got some basis in reality. And yet, they then turn around and suggest their own things that they want the federal government to do. You can't have a government that governs least and yet still expect them to do the big things you want them to do, is all I'm trying to say, and if I'm not making that all that clear, I apologize.

(I appreciate the respectful tone, by the way. I sure know I'm not in the mood for endless bickering)
 
Isn't it funny that only during Obama's term the national GOP has become fixated with the debt? Where was this lockstep opposition to increasing the national debt to power two wars during the last administration?

Legitimate question: because some idiots decided to overlook the massive amount of spending George W did because of partisan politics, we're no longer allowed to care about reducing debt?
 
Legitimate question: because some idiots decided to overlook the massive amount of spending George W did because of partisan politics, we're no longer allowed to care about reducing debt?

"Some idiots"? It wasn't just "some idiots" not one conservative in here was speaking up about it in here, I don't recall any speaking up on right wing media, why do you think that is? Don't you find it ironic that the Tea Party waited till Bush left office to form? I mean let's fact their first protest was for TARP, which happened under Bush, yet you wouldn't know it from looking or listening to the first protest. It was all about Obama even though he hadn't enacted anything they were complaining about.

So what does that tell you?

You're all opportunistic? You're all partisan and pretend not to be? You're all hypocrites? Was it really about race?

^Because this is how the rest of the world sees the right wing of this country. Can you blame them?
 
"Some idiots"? It wasn't just "some idiots" not one conservative in here was speaking up about it in here, I don't recall any speaking up on right wing media, why do you think that is? Don't you find it ironic that the Tea Party waited till Bush left office to form? I mean let's fact their first protest was for TARP, which happened under Bush, yet you wouldn't know it from looking or listening to the first protest. It was all about Obama even though he hadn't enacted anything they were complaining about.

I can only speak for me, but I've said repeatedly that I was wrong. I wasn't paying enough attention in my teenage years, and, in hindsight now, would never have supported Iraq and other ventures. I now know better. However, the reverse is applicable to most Democrats. Let's not kid ourselves- they are much more silent on deficits and debt now than they were when Bush was in office. Why is that? I can at least chalk my mistake up to being young and unaware. What's your excuse?


You're all opportunistic? You're all partisan and pretend not to be? You're all hypocrites? Was it really about race?

^Because this is how the rest of the world sees the right wing of this country. Can you blame them?

:lol: Hypocrites? Remind me who it was that said, upon obtaining power, "Pay as you go. No new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."

But no, I'm sure the rest of the world isn't laughing at idiocy like that at all.
 
I can only speak for me, but I've said repeatedly that I was wrong. I wasn't paying enough attention in my teenage years, and, in hindsight now, would never have supported Iraq and other ventures. I now know better. However, the reverse is applicable to most Democrats. Let's not kid ourselves- they are much more silent on deficits and debt now than they were when Bush was in office. Why is that? I can at least chalk my mistake up to being young and unaware. What's your excuse?

The way I look at deficits and debt is this way:

Sometimes they are a necessary evil. Are you spending on something of choice or something you think might save the situation?

If you're a family provider and you're in debt; do you allow your kids to eat and have shelter? Do you buy a new car?

Iraq was completly by choice. Stimulus, although handled wrong in many areas, was something that was thought could save the situation. It just didn't save enough of the situation.

But what makes me laugh is that all your heroes, the ones that have shaped your political thinking, they all supported Iraq and Bush's spending(minus one or two things that they were silent on) but NOW say it's out of principal that they don't support all they things they did just four years ago. Where were their prinicipals then? Their principals were lost because the man was white(Beck said it, not me) and had an R next to his name.
 
I was too young during the Bush presidency to really form a lot of opinions, but looking back at everything he did, I consider him one of the worst presidents, economically speaking.

To democrats: do you all think as anything at all should be done about the skyrocketing debt?
 
Caleb8844 said:
I was too young during the Bush presidency to really form a lot of opinions, but looking back at everything he did, I consider him one of the worst presidents, economically speaking.

To democrats: do you all think as anything at all should be done about the skyrocketing debt?

When I use the term "you" I don't mean anyone specifically.

Of course debt should be of concern, but at what cost? The republicans in DC are using it as a pawn for political games, they have no real interest in doing anything effective with it during this term.
 
BVS said:
When I use the term "you" I don't mean anyone specifically.

Of course debt should be of concern, but at what cost? The republicans in DC are using it as a pawn for political games, they have no real interest in doing anything effective with it during this term.

I was only using myself as an example because I consider myself a republican.

At what point, if ever, is debt the top concern, at almost all costs? Because personally for me, I think we're swiftly approaching that point.
 
do you think raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans is a good way to start to tackle the debt?

how many programs can you cut before you start to see a real increase in human suffering? there are things that government does that *only* government can do, and when we take that away from people -- usually the old, the sick, the poor -- how much suffering do we inflict on people in the name of debt reduction when the real situation might be that what we need is not less spending but more revenue?
 
Caleb8844 said:
I was only using myself as an example because I consider myself a republican.

At what point, if ever, is debt the top concern, at almost all costs? Because personally for me, I think we're swiftly approaching that point.

If you were a father at what point do you just stop feeding your kids? When is debt more important than the people?
 
Irvine511 said:
do you think raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans is a good way to start to tackle the debt?

how many programs can you cut before you start to see a real increase in human suffering? there are things that government does that *only* government can do, and when we take that away from people -- usually the old, the sick, the poor -- how much suffering do we inflict on people in the name of debt reduction when the real situation might be that what we need is not less spending but more revenue?

I'd be completely okay with raising taxes, maybe even significantly for a period of time, IF it was accompanied by little to no NEW spending. Not even asking the government to cut anything immediately (eventually cuts are necessary, but I understand that cuts can't always be immediate), just asking them not to add to the current spending with new programs.
 
BVS said:
If you were a father at what point do you just stop feeding your kids? When is debt more important than the people?

You don't stop feeding your kids, but you stop going out to eat, you stop buying large amounts of gifts, you stop buying expensive clothes, etc. You cut out the luxuries, in order to keep the necessities.
 
I was only using myself as an example because I consider myself a republican.

At what point, if ever, is debt the top concern, at almost all costs? Because personally for me, I think we're swiftly approaching that point.
We obsess over incremental changes in jobs numbers, over consumer confidence numbers, over the middle class' spending habits. The economic prosperity of this country rides on the backs of the middle class. If they aren't buying your Chinese widgets imported by Wal-Mart, it really doesn't matter how well the higher tax brackets are doing.

This is not the time to be obsessing over austerity measures to take the legs out from under the slow, steady economic recovery we are in the middle of. But due to the fact that it is an election year, there is no incentive for the Republicans to do anything to help the economy recover.

Basically the number one issue I have with the GOP is that their overall gameplan is to keep the middle class occupied by convincing it that it is at war with the impoverished lower class, and illegal immigrants. At the same time they continue to push for tax breaks for the upper tax classes who (smartly) take that money and squirrel it away in investments when the stock market has taken a beating.

You can't create jobs when there is no demand. If the middle class isn't doing well and isn't spending, there is no need for more goods and more jobs to be created to produce those goods.
 
Caleb8844 said:
You don't stop feeding your kids, but you stop going out to eat, you stop buying large amounts of gifts, you stop buying expensive clothes, etc. You cut out the luxuries, in order to keep the necessities.

So what luxuries are we spending too much on?
 
BVS said:
So what luxuries are we spending too much on?

There's excess in nearly all government programs. Every program can afford and be benefited by streamlining. Defense is one great example.
 
Caleb8844 said:
There's excess in nearly all government programs. Every program can afford and be benefited by streamlining. Defense is one great example.

I agree. The problem is partisanship is getting in the way of streamlining.
 
The lasting legacies of the Bush years were cutting the riches' taxes and greatly increasing defense spending. So, I think the first two things to recovery are greatly decreasing defense spending and reinstating those taxes on the top bracket.
 
The real solution would be to streamline the tax code, and remove the loopholes. Personally I'd favor going even further than that and implementing a flat tax, but I realize that's probably impossible at the moment.
 
Caleb8844 said:
The real solution would be to streamline the tax code, and remove the loopholes. Personally I'd favor going even further than that and implementing a flat tax, but I realize that's probably impossible at the moment.

Flat taxes don't work, never will.

Be careful about removing loopholes, the tea party is very much against that therefore most of the GOP. Reagan was against them, a part of history conservatives often forget when revisioning him.
 
I'd be completely okay with raising taxes, maybe even significantly for a period of time, IF it was accompanied by little to no NEW spending. Not even asking the government to cut anything immediately (eventually cuts are necessary, but I understand that cuts can't always be immediate), just asking them not to add to the current spending with new programs.



what programs would you cut?

foreign aid comprises a very, very small portion of the budget.

most (i believe, like, 3/4ths) of our spending is on the following: Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; Defense.

which goes first?
 
BVS said:
Flat taxes don't work, never will.

Be careful about removing loopholes, the tea party is very much against that therefore most of the GOP. Reagan was against them, a part of history conservatives often forget when revisioning him.

Why don't you think flat taxes would work?

No one should be able to get around paying taxes. No one should be able to bribe the government to put new loopholes in that allow their multimillion dollar businesses to not pay taxes. Removing all loopholes gets rid of both of these problems.

Personally, in my perfect world, we'd have a 16-20 percent flat tax on EVERYONE, with no loopholes. But I realize that's probably not attainable.
 
Irvine511 said:
what programs would you cut?

foreign aid comprises a very, very small portion of the budget.

most (i believe, like, 3/4ths) of our spending is on the following: Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; Defense.

which goes first?

I wouldn't force immediate program cuts. As I said, I'd only end all NEW spending immediately. All old programs could remain as they were at first.

Eventually cuts would be necessary, though.

Defense is bloated as hell, that could use quite a bit of cuts and streamlining.

Social security is a sinking ship that needs to be streamlined and restructured.

The other two could probably be streamlined as well, but it's probably necessary to keep them mostly the same.
 
Caleb8844 said:
Why don't you think flat taxes would work?

They will exasperate the differences of income equality.

Think about it in simple terms of buying power, one person has a 100 and the other a thousand dollars, taking out 20 from the hundred is felt much more than taking the 200 from a thousand.
 
do you think raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans is a good way to start to tackle the debt?

Yes. If I had ANY faith that increasing taxes would go directly to paying down the debt, rather than more spending, I'd be for it. But I'm not stupid enough to think that would actually happen, at least not from the people running the show in both parties over the last decade.


When is debt more important than the people?

But you can also make that argument with Iraq, can't you?- Yes, it cost a couple trillion, but Saddam has been replaced with elections and oppression replaced by freedom. You can't say "debt is fine as long as it's going to things that I deem appropriate." That's how we got in this mess.
 
2861U2 said:
But you can also make that argument with Iraq, can't you?- Yes, it cost a couple trillion, but Saddam has been replaced with elections and oppression replaced by freedom. You can't say "debt is fine as long as it's going to things that I deem appropriate." That's how we got in this mess.
What kind of threat did Iraq have on my well being again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom