Why would anyone not vote Republican. They are the party that took the Clinton surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. They started 2 unfunded wars and gave a huge tax cut to the rich. They are the party of birthers, anti evolution and anti-science. They are the home of O’Donnell,Palin, Paladino, Rube Paul of Kentucky, Angle and a few rich people who wish to buy governmental seats. They brought us Rove , Bush and Cheney. They are fighting to allow the wealthy to get the power they deserve. Who could not identify with that? They have oil running through their veins. They love deregulation because the rich just don’t have enough rights and power.
Why abandon the big tent approach, it’s been working for them so far.
I’d never heard anti-mass transit squawks prior to this thread. Lo and behold! This morning I came across: Why Leftists Want to Pull You All on Mass Transit. Jeez, what a douche. I just can’t get my head around this:
Right. Or –and follow me on this here– I might think NYC is the greatest city in the world, wouldn’t want to live anywhere else, and realize that I’d have to be an imbecile to think that a ~22 mile island could support any significant number of its 1.5M residents owning and using cars.
In this case: imbecile, “Fox News contributor”, same difference.
Dig, you goof, that’s conservative humor there! OK, its not Dennis Miller or Mallard Fillmore, but I’m sure the intent is satirical. Pretty sure. Kinda.
That dude is not only an idiot – “It’s no secret that the environmental movement is ultimately designed to create new inroads into increased government control.” – he’s a bad writer: “By the same token, big-city leftist elite’s disdain for middle America can also be explained by their lack of ability to corral them into metropolitan areas where they can be weaned onto a reliance of the government.” Think about what the word “wean” means in reference to what you’re trying to say here, Mr. Crowder.
Sadly for Fox’s “comedian” author, Mallard Fillmore is not only funnier, but smarter too.
I can’t believe I just praised Mallard Fillmore with no sarcasm intended.
Not to worry, its merely comparative. Measles is “better” than smallpox. A snapping turtle makes a better pet than a black mamba.
Dream on. Democratic administrations are consistently more fiscally responsible that Republican administration and have been for 40 years. (LBJ, Eisenhower: Not the case!)
George Bush delivered the worst recession since WWII. Responsible macroeconomists, including but not limited to Mark Zandi of Moody’s aknowledged the need for short run stimulus if we were to avoid a 2nd depression. This is not controversial.
Over the long run, the federal budget is unmanageable without health care reform. The Democrats delivered that. It’s a first step, but a very important one. It has taken 100 years. Raising top rates to 39.6% would be a significant step towards long-run fiscal responsibility, without blowing apart the economy. Reversing the irresponsible Bush tax cuts on the middle class will be more difficult, but you have to start somewhere. One possible plan might involve raising sin and emission taxes (or equivalently auctioning off rights to pollute). This would hit the middle class, but permit taxes on labor and savings to be kept where they are.
The Republican plan, in contrast, is to extend the Bush tax cuts forever – their stance on the deficit is a joke: they have no implicit or explicit plan – and the Tea Partiers are basically full of it. Let’s face it, there was not a peep from them during the Bush years.
I am proud to be a Democrat: this 111th congress is the most productive in 2 generations. Republicans will indeed be victorious this election cycle, though they deserve not one vote.
I hand the mike to Brad DeLong:
Is Michael Steele the Best Possible Chairman for the Republican National Committee?
Ironically, the above 3 Presidents are not entirely at fault. Nixon was a serious guy, and far more devoted to good government than George Bush. Goldwater was personally not a racist. And Reagan raised taxes multiple times. No: it was what modern conservatives drew from these Presidents that makes them craven. And yet it is during the darkest times that responsible traditional conservatives can shine their true character. Examples of such patriots are few and far between but some of them can be found at Capitals Gains and Games, The Volokh Conspiracy and on occasion the Straight Dope Message Board.
Are you aware that the CBO did the CBO did not score the revenue of Ryan’s plan? Are you aware that his plan leads to “a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over ten years compared to the alternative fiscal scenario?” Sure, it cuts spending. But it also loads in more budget busting tax cuts than you can shake a stick at. A plan that increases existing deficits cannot be characterized as “sustainable”.
Nice chart here: there’s a huge difference between what Ryan claims and what serious analysts say it will do, “So that’s the Ryan Ripoff in a nutshell—much lower taxes for the rich, higher taxes for ninety percent of Americans, and no balanced budget. All in the name of balancing the budget!” http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/paul-ryans-budget-doesnt-balance-the-budget/
You are aware, of course, that tax cuts are magic and that they fix everything, right?
-Joe
Please. Grover Norquist & his anti-tax fanatics have been saying for a generation that they want government to wither on the vine, they want to “starve the beast.” The deficits are there to keep the federal government weak & servile, so non-state institutions of power can wield real control.
And I either get treated like a conspiracy theorist when I believe they mean what they say; or I get mocked by people who want those non-state institutions to be stronger than the “evil oppressive” government, as if I’m the sucker &/or traitor.
I’m not kidding when I say the GOP should be outlawed on the same principle that outlawed the Fascisti in Italy. We just haven’t hit the point it’s clear to most people yet.
It’s a “conspiracy theory” only in that you’re attributing too much power to Norquist, etc. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity – or, in this case, to a combination of necessity and cowardice. The deficits exist because too many Congresscritters are afraid to raise taxes, and too many federal programs are too visibly important to be drastically cut.
Newt and others claim to want to cut the food stamp program. We are fortunate that the wise and compassionate men at Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland stand firm in their open-handed generosity.
Oh sure, Norquist wanted to Starve the Beast (STB). In fact, he was pretty explicit about it. And there’s no shortage of high-profile Republicans who have espoused that theory at one time or another. The problem, as I see it, is that nobody every made the spending cuts explicit, so that the Republicans in effect had a policy of Party Now and worry about complicated specifics later.
Bruce Bartlett, one of the architects of the original Kemp Roth tax cuts during the 1970s-1980s, is an honest conservative. He has renounced STB, though he believes it to have originally been a plausible hypothesis. Unlike most modern conservatives though, he respects facts and evidence: “…ironically, STB led to higher spending rather than lower spending as the theory posits.” In this link he presents a history of Starve the Beast. Longer history available here: http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1516/starving-beast (Look for the link to the paper.)
To this day, STB remains a matter of orthodoxy in Republican circles; overwhelming evidence to the contrary doesn’t seem to matter.