Posted on 03/02/2005 11:27:09 AM PST by jmc813
My apologies for not pinging Bob Barr. I was unaware that an ACLU flack was a FReeper. That being said, I stand by my assessment of his decision to go on the ACLU payroll. It destroyed his credibility.
Obviously there is none. Republican consensus appears to be an oxymoron these days. Interestingly, what once would have been considered a mainstream Republican view is now considered extremist, ever since we started allowing liberals into the party, and, even more to the point, started allowing them to majorly influence our platforms. All this was done, I am told, to broaden our base, but instead, it has led to a horrible balkanization of the party, almost as if, the Left has perhaps sent people to come and join us, to infiltrate and make exactly that happen,
I'm sorry but apparently we are just not on the same page. You do know that you can give the surplus back to the taxpayers? Is that so bad? It can be used as a downpayment against the national debt, too. All this time what did you think I was talking about reducing the national debt with??
Surely a fiscal conservative would agree that lowering the debt even some would help boost economic confidence and that way we would reap GDP benefits like we would never realize under a system always in the red. Deep down I suspect that red creates and underlayer of semi-nervousness from the floor of the stock market to the office of a small business. It's my theory.
There are simply too many moderates - um, make that liberals - in the GOP. We seriously need a purge. I would gladly trade all of them for new recruits, who are younger (e.g. Generation Reagan) and have fire in the belly about conservative principles. It might be tough for a couple or three years but, as history has consistently proven, a solid, non-fair weather far right base is more effective over the long haul than centrism.
Both true...
But it does not make my point false because your statements are true.
You are being too rational. I am for giving back the surplus to the taxpayers, but if you want to do so YOU MUST STAY ONE STEP AHEAD of the 'spenders'.
And to do that you must stay 'poor'.
Econ growth with erode your debt % away. Remember:
growth = new wealth = new buyer of treasuries = lower debt rates
If congress were to ever report a 'surplus' it would straight to amtrack or dingleberry research of the muskratt.
Then write in a clause saying that the surplus can go only to either debt relief or it must be given back. Or even better: half to debt relief and half back to the taxpayer. Of course I see what you mean about the "spenders." But I think I just answered that.
And while economic growth will lower the debt percentage, why not boost economic confidence (and thereby increase GDP growth even more) by taking a chunk from the debt while were at it?? Can't everyone see that the stock market (and therefore the economy) has been going through a kind of malaise since the elections. 10200-10850 back and forth and back and forth. S&P sitting squatly at 1200 and NASDAQ back and forth around 2000. Nothing going anywhere. Can't everyone see that this time coincides with the new budgetary proposals? I don't care how much Cavuto says BULLS BULLS BULLS - I think that this malaise, this semi-nervousness that I sense, would be cleared up by a move towards a -gasp- balanced budget.
Yes I know about the War and all. And W has the 150 cuts this year so that's a START. But it must continue until some year - NOT NOW because of the War - until say in 2 or 3 years it can finally be in the green.
Actually most of all the mandatory spending needs to be reduced in rate and actual dollar value.
Your points are valid, and I am glad to hear you did not vote for Kerry.
However, defense issues should come first and foremost in my opinion, given the events of the last 4 years.
I am glad you voted with your heart in the last election.
You can keep your hands and integrity clean and pure voting for your heart, while the rest of us will live with our "dirty" hands for voting for Bush.
For your part, you will get to reap the benefits of having a Republican in office (and not a weak, military and America-hating Democrat) and still be able to say you are are more informed voter, whose hands were not soiled by having to pull the lever for a fiscal liberal like President Bush.
I apologize if this sounds harsh, but I am glad there were not more of you voting as you did in the last election. This is not meant as a personal attack on you, because you sound pretty earnest about your viewpoint, and I respect that. However, I think you should have given more thought to the consequences of your vote.
I voted for Ross Perot, and I regret to this day doing so. Perot paved the way for Clinton to enter the White House, and in voting for him I helped Clinton do the damage to our country that he did.
It could very nearly have happened in this election, if there had been a more compelling 3rd party candidate. The thought makes me shudder.
He's right .... the Contract with America may have turned out to be conservatism's last gasp.
Yeah, (sniff, sob) he's lost his veto stamp and he jus can't find it!
The market crashed from the clinton bubble. It has increased in a controlled way and recovered after the initial win in the iraq war.
Remeber, the market hit 7300 or so. I had people on the street tell me that it would never see 10k.
The dow is down mostly because of spitzer going after the insurance and drug companies (pfizer and AIG)
"It could very nearly have happened in this election,"
Not here in GA.
"The thought makes me shudder."
As the thoughts of perpetual war, perpetual occupation, spiralling deficits, illegal immigration, and a collapsing dollar make me shudder. But hey- at least those gays still can't get married! Whew!!
http://www.behaviouralfinance.net/
(see prospect theory and compartmentalization)
You have to stay ahead of the game. Any whiff of 'surplus' and the money is $pent.
Here are some examples:
Billy and his wife are plum broke. Billy's wife wants a new dinett set, but Billy shows her their bank balance which is zero. Billy forgoes the purchase of the dinett set. Suddenly, Billy gets back a refund check for 3K he didnt anticipate from his taxes. Billy will:
1) Invest the money in the Vanguard S&P 500 fund-it has low expenses.
2) Buy a new boat, three cases of beer and go fishing with his buddies.
Oh, well I personally really love the thought of perpetual war, perpetual occupation, etc. That stuff doesn't bother me at all.
I'm glad it wouldn't happen to you folks down in GA. However, if there had been a conservative third party candidate who wasn't completely pathetic, and had managed to gather near 10% of the vote nationally (as I believe Perot did) you can bet those votes wouldn't have come from liberals, and Kerry would have been our Commander in Chief. And, because so many of us just LOVE war, killing, occupation and deficits, that would have been a major disappointment.
Well, as the Aussies are fond of saying, "Good on ya".
To each their own. (Insert on and off sarcasm tags anywhere you see fit.)
"When you're being robbed at gunpoint, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference if the man who is robbing you has an R or a D by his name.
It's STILL strong armed robbery."
Stop making so much sense, nobody wants to hear it.
HUH? Barr ended up in a redistricting snafu and tried to challenge John Linder, one of the finest CONSERVATIVES in Congress. Linder was unopposed in 2004, won 79% to 21% in 2002 and was also unopposed in 2000. The Democrats won't even put a candidate up against Linder because he's such a STRONG opponent.
I'm afraid you did the right thing and I did the wrong.
I got sucked in on the judicial appointment thing, and slowly but surely I'm getting that too familiar sinking feeling that all Republicans know so well.
I have found what you have said interesting and I appreciate the conversation but clearly I am not going to persuade you.
Concerning the surpluses, I already said put in a legal clause so that Congress can only allocate it between refunding taxpayers and paying off some of the debt.
You are taking this convesation to be too adversarial. By all means if you could:
A) Get your ammendment passed
B) Have it work
I would be all for it(though we only have to grow out of the debt)
I would actually be for a complete rewrite of the constitution to abolish the income tax, limit the supremes ternms, end judicial review, clean up the commerce etc etc.
But I will also put a capital budgeting process in where spending would limited and subject to cuts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.