Which Path for the Right? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Which Path for the Right?


muscogee
12-13-2012, 16:26
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/12/13/which_path_for_the_right_116402.html

For three decades, liberals were continually reacting to conservative criticisms. They regularly proclaim their love for markets, and Bill Clinton went so far as to declare that "the era of big government is over." Now, finally, conservatives are responding to liberal insights -- about rising inequality, about government's proper role in the economy, about the utility of public action to promote social mobility. This is a promising sign.
The potential of a renaissance in conservative thought is enormous, if the right can overcome a certain intellectual laziness and inflexibility that, in fairness, have at other times afflicted the progressive side of politics.

But the most disturbing aspect of the Michigan power grab is what it says about where the conservative argument may go. Those willing to expand the appeal of conservatism by refreshing it will face opposition from those who would try to make new thinking unnecessary. They'd simply rig the rules to chip away at the political capacity of groups that don't buy into conservative orthodoxy.

Syclone538
12-13-2012, 19:22
rising inequality,

What's the problem? If you reward success and punish failure there will be inequality, but anyone with a brain knows that is best for everyone.

government's proper role in the economy,

It has none, though I wouldn't really argue one way or the other on a law against false advertising.

muscogee
12-13-2012, 19:24
What's the problem?
The deck is stacked.

Syclone538
12-13-2012, 19:29
The deck is stacked.

Not that I disagree, but how so?

muscogee
12-14-2012, 06:10
Not that I disagree, but how so?

People with money and power make the rules to suit themselves. I could never get a government loan the way General Motors and Chrysler did. If it's good for the economy for Mitt Romney to only pay 13% in taxes, why isn't it better for everyone to just pay 13%. It seems that would stimulate the economy even more. Many people are barely getting by. If they had more money they would buy more stuff which would create jobs. If the rest of us could write vacations off as business trips, (e.g. Romney taking his family to the Olympics last summer) many more people could afford vacations and afford to spend more on them. It would help many people if they could write off all their health care and call it a business expense. The list goes on.

The article points out that there are the people ion the Right who think everyone but them are a RINO or worse. These people refuse to compromise on anything. Everything must be their way or no way. The article further points out that these people cannot ever persuade enough people to agree with them to win elections. Instead of changing their perspective they try to keep those who disagree with them from voting. If they can't win an election the use their power to circumvent the election and get laws favorable to them passed by fiat. This undermines out system and peoples' faith in the system. Why play fair if you can't win?

Syclone538
12-14-2012, 06:37
Problems caused by too much government can't be solved by more government.

I was going to post this as post #4, but thought I'd ask you to clarify on the unlikely possibility you could think of a related problem not caused by government.

I'd prefer a one paragraph tax code. Sales tax, not income tax. One rate for everyone, no deductions, no exemptions.

I guess some would consider me to be on the right, and I don't compromise. I vote against almost everything, and pretty much vote straight LP.

Cavalry Doc
12-14-2012, 06:46
The deck is stacked.

Yes it is. The likelihood of someone that works hard with a good plan of being successful is greater than those that don't plan, have a bad plan or don't try.


In most people that fail in life, if you look hard, you can find what led to thier failure.

Nothing will (should) be given to you. You have to go get it if you want to be successful.

series1811
12-14-2012, 06:51
I love the fact that people on the left are sure everything would be fine if conservatives would just stop being conservative and be liberal.

aspartz
12-14-2012, 06:55
It has none, though I wouldn't really argue one way or the other on a law against false advertising.
Actually the government has one very important role in the economy: To provide a stable currency.

ARS

BobbyT
12-14-2012, 06:55
If it's good for the economy for Mitt Romney to only pay 13% in taxes, why isn't it better for everyone to just pay 13%.

Putting aside that you're mixing earnings on already-taxed money with money earned for the first time, I'd say it IS better for everyone to just pay 13%. And then reduce bloated spending levels to match.

No exemptions, no exceptions...flat 13% for all, scaling with earnings, leaving everyone with skin in the game. Tax reform done.

But there's a certain mentality that seeks to use government as a weapon to punish others, and confiscating others' earnings to fund their pet projects is one of their favorite ways to do that.

series1811
12-14-2012, 06:57
Putting aside that you're mixing earnings on already-taxed money with money earned for the first time, I'd say it IS better for everyone to just pay 13%. And then reduce bloated spending levels to match.

No exemptions, no exceptions...flat 13% for all, scaling with earnings, leaving everyone with skin in the game. Tax reform done.

But there's a certain mentality that seeks to use government as a weapon to punish others, and confiscating others' earnings to fund their pet projects is one of their favorite ways to do that.

I'm in. Or for a national sales tax to repace the federal income tax. Either one, and then cap spending at revenue.

muscogee
12-14-2012, 07:28
Problems caused by too much government can't be solved by more government.

I was going to post this as post #4, but thought I'd ask you to clarify on the unlikely possibility you could think of a related problem not caused by government.

I'd prefer a one paragraph tax code. Sales tax, not income tax. One rate for everyone, no deductions, no exemptions.

I guess some would consider me to be on the right, and I don't compromise. I vote against almost everything, and pretty much vote straight LP.

Good post.

muscogee
12-14-2012, 07:31
Putting aside that you're mixing earnings on already-taxed money with money earned for the first time, I'd say it IS better for everyone to just pay 13%. And then reduce bloated spending levels to match.

No exemptions, no exceptions...flat 13% for all, scaling with earnings, leaving everyone with skin in the game. Tax reform done.

But there's a certain mentality that seeks to use government as a weapon to punish others, and confiscating others' earnings to fund their pet projects is one of their favorite ways to do that.

I agree. Taxation isn't just about funding the government. It's about modifying behavior. Unfortunately, those modifications are frequently made by some group other than the majority of the voters.

muscogee
12-14-2012, 07:40
I love the fact that people on the left are sure everything would be fine if conservatives would just stop being conservative and be liberal.

The way Conservative has been more and more narrowly defined in the past decade, fewer and fewer people are identifying with that mindset. Many Conservatives don't want to accept the results of elections and choose instead to end run the system to get their way. This is going to drive even more people who are potentially Conservatives away.

What is a "true Conservative"? Who gets to decide? Why?

What's the difference between a "true Republican" and a RINO? Who gets to decide and why?

JimP
12-14-2012, 08:26
The minute libs start up with the "Romney only pays...XX% in taxes..", I shut off. It is simply not worth trying to educate the uneducable. Either the OP knows what he said is unsupportable, demonstrably false and misleading; or, he is uneducable. Either way I'm out.

aircarver
12-14-2012, 08:41
I'm in. Or for a national sales tax to repace the federal income tax. Either one, and then cap spending at revenue.

I'm in. :thumbsup:

.

Atlas
12-14-2012, 08:52
Taxation = control.

Government, once having acquired power will never willingly relinquish that power.

The Fist Of Goodness
12-14-2012, 08:58
With regard to the 13% rate, it is an argument based on an unfair standard. They are talking about his effective tax rate after all legal deductions. His taxable income is still taxed at the higher rate (somewhere in the low 30% range).

I would bet that most here have a very low effective rate. Mine, after mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and the tax credit on three kids, is about 7%. Unless they are idiots, the people attacking Romney for his 13% rate, are doing the same thing. It is hypocritical.



posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

pugman
12-14-2012, 10:00
I'd prefer a one paragraph tax code. Sales tax, not income tax. One rate for everyone, no deductions, no exemptions.

While I think in theory this is a great idea because it will cause everyone to be paying something into the fed...as someone who just received his property tax bill there is one certainity.

A government will always get its money

Whether they drop your rate but increase your assessment or vice versa it doesn't matter.

Many food staples here in Wisconsin are excluded from sales tax..things like milk, eggs, etc.

The fed will get its share and tax it..guarantee it.

Our local beach charges a nominal fee ($3) for non locals to use it - its a beautiful beach. Suddenly, you will see tax paid on this...and of course anything the fed charges tax on so will the state.

Medical bills will have federal sales tax added to them....

And this allows the fed to influence purchases widely...could you imagine a 25% federal sales tax on firearms? People will say this will never happen....want to bet.

A very interesting experiment would be to set the rate at say 5% - then if fed wants to increase it have a national vote just like the presidental election. This way every person who votes for it will know they are in effect taking money directly out of their own pocket.

A tax is a tax.

snerd
12-14-2012, 10:35
......... Many Conservatives don't want to accept the results of elections and choose instead to end run the system to get their way........
Do you have mental problems, or just live under a rock?!


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/247989/thumbs/r-WISCONSIN-UNION-PROTEST-large570.jpg


http://www.islandbreath.org/2011Year/02/110217unions.jpg


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120605032613-wisconsin-recall-gallery-2-horizontal-gallery.jpg


http://gillreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Steven-Crowder-Assaulted-at-MI-Union-Protest-445.jpg


http://www.texarkanagazette.com/content/uploads/pictures/2012/12/Right-To-Work-Michiga_Mill.jpg

Yeah, who is making end runs?! And who is the end-runner-in-chief?!

pugman
12-14-2012, 10:43
Do you have mental problems, or just live under a rock?!


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/247989/thumbs/r-WISCONSIN-UNION-PROTEST-large570.jpg


http://www.islandbreath.org/2011Year/02/110217unions.jpg


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120605032613-wisconsin-recall-gallery-2-horizontal-gallery.jpg


http://gillreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Steven-Crowder-Assaulted-at-MI-Union-Protest-445.jpg


http://www.texarkanagazette.com/content/uploads/pictures/2012/12/Right-To-Work-Michiga_Mill.jpg

Yeah, who is making end runs?! And who is the end-runner-in-chief?!

Thank you snerd for reminding me why I hate the Wisconsin Public Union...that b.s. happened 30 miles from my front door.

Its too bad Walker said he won't look into the right to work state laws (which I thought we already had) since it will distract from job growth..

Syclone538
12-14-2012, 11:17
Actually the government has one very important role in the economy: To provide a stable currency.

ARS

Why does government have to provide a currency?

muscogee
12-14-2012, 12:07
Do you have mental problems, or just live under a rock?!


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/247989/thumbs/r-WISCONSIN-UNION-PROTEST-large570.jpg


http://www.islandbreath.org/2011Year/02/110217unions.jpg


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120605032613-wisconsin-recall-gallery-2-horizontal-gallery.jpg


http://gillreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Steven-Crowder-Assaulted-at-MI-Union-Protest-445.jpg


http://www.texarkanagazette.com/content/uploads/pictures/2012/12/Right-To-Work-Michiga_Mill.jpg

Yeah, who is making end runs?! And who is the end-runner-in-chief?!

That's what the article said.

muscogee
12-14-2012, 12:09
Why does government have to provide a currency?

I don't think a barter system would work. How many eggs is a new Mercedes S model worth?

Paul7
12-14-2012, 12:12
People with money and power make the rules to suit themselves. I could never get a government loan the way General Motors and Chrysler did. If it's good for the economy for Mitt Romney to only pay 13% in taxes, why isn't it better for everyone to just pay 13%. It seems that would stimulate the economy even more. Many people are barely getting by.

Thanks to Obama style policies.

If they had more money they would buy more stuff which would create jobs. If the rest of us could write vacations off as business trips, (e.g. Romney taking his family to the Olympics last summer) many more people could afford vacations and afford to spend more on them. It would help many people if they could write off all their health care and call it a business expense. The list goes on.

The article points out that there are the people ion the Right who think everyone but them are a RINO or worse. These people refuse to compromise on anything. Everything must be their way or no way.

You are describing Obama perfectly. He compromised zero in Obamacare and the failed stimulous.

As far an inequality, it has been present in the US since the beginning, and indeed for all of human history. If you took all the money from everyone and gave all the same amount, in 15 years the same people would be rich and poor. We would be better off telling the poor to behave more like successful people do, i.e., stay in school, don't do drugs, don't have a baby out of wedlock, etc.

Syclone538
12-14-2012, 13:14
That whole way of thinking is very different then mine.

Many major banks would have their own currency, and people would use the ones that they trust and are accepted the most places.

Instead of thinking what can government do, you need to think, what can the free market do. The answer is just about everything.

aspartz
12-14-2012, 13:20
I agree. Taxation isn't just about funding the government. It's about modifying behavior. Unfortunately, those modifications are frequently made by some group other than the majority of the voters.
This is huge part of the problem.
Taxation should only be about revenue.

ARS

muscogee
12-14-2012, 13:39
As far an inequality, it has been present in the US since the beginning, and indeed for all of human history. If you took all the money from everyone and gave all the same amount, in 15 years the same people would be rich and poor. I'm aware of the myth. Anything to back that up?

We would be better off telling the poor to behave more like successful people do, i.e., stay in school, don't do drugs, don't have a baby out of wedlock, etc. Why don't we just tell them to make more money?

muscogee
12-14-2012, 13:39
This is huge part of the problem.
Taxation should only be about revenue.

ARS

I agree.

muscogee
12-14-2012, 13:54
Many of you insist on missing the point of the article. You insist on singing the same old songs. The point of the article is that fewer and fewer people are listening. The obvious choice is to reexamine your positions. Unfortunately the extreme Right refuses to do that. They would rather preach to the ever diminishing choir and try to end run the democratic process by keeping people they see as a threat from voting. In the end, that's a loosing proposition.

OK choir, in unison, "You're wrong. You're a leftists, a socialist, and you're stupid". And of course the favorite, "it's all the Democrats fault".

Skyhook
12-14-2012, 14:04
Whenever I am asked something like 'What should the 'right' do now?' I pretend to give it a lot of thought and then say 'VIOLENCE'.

That's what works for the left, why not jump into the game, eh?

Violence has it's appeal. Violence gets media attention. Violence is about the only damned thing that works in this country any more.

And I mean that in a 'good way', not a 'bad way'. OK?:whistling:

muscogee
12-14-2012, 14:11
Whenever I am asked something like 'What should the 'right' do now?' I pretend to give it a lot of thought and then say 'VIOLENCE'.

That's what works for the left, why not jump into the game, eh?

Violence has it's appeal. Violence gets media attention. Violence is about the only damned thing that works in this country any more.

And I mean that in a 'good way', not a 'bad way'. OK?:whistling:

How did violence work for the Black Panthers? IIRC, they were much better at getting killed than they were at killing.

Skyhook
12-14-2012, 14:18
How did violence work for the Black Panthers? IIRC, they were much better at getting killed than they were at killing.

Pick up a couple of volumes from the local Library and read. There's more to history than what happened to the BP idiots.


For instance, have you heard of the 'Night of the Long Knives'?

And, once more, I mean this in a nice way.

muscogee
12-14-2012, 15:41
Pick up a couple of volumes from the local Library and read. There's more to history than what happened to the BP idiots.


For instance, have you heard of the 'Night of the Long Knives'?

And, once more, I mean this in a nice way.

Yes, I've heard of it. That's when Adolph betrayed the buffoons who helped put him in office so he could be the unquestioned leader of the NDSAP. Is that the direction you seen the Right taking? Use the Tea Party to get control of the country then eliminating them?

snerd
12-14-2012, 16:47
Yes, I've heard of it. That's when Adolph betrayed the buffoons who helped put him in office so he could be the unquestioned leader of the NDSAP. Is that the direction you seen the Right taking? Use the Tea Party to get control of the country then eliminating them?
LOL!!

The Tea Party is dead, remember? :whistling:

Paul7
12-14-2012, 17:44
I'm aware of the myth. Anything to back that up?


Much of having or not having money is due to behavior. Something like 80% of millionaire's are self-made. So are many poor people.

muscogee
12-14-2012, 18:55
Much of having or not having money is due to behavior. Something like 80% of millionaire's are self-made. So are many poor people.

So no evidence. Just unsubstantiated personal opinion.

QNman
12-14-2012, 19:49
Why don't we just tell them to make more money?

That's what he said...

I agree.

I hate to point this out, but it doesn't sound like you do...

Just an offhand point - do you know the government actually taxes "the rich" more than the poor? A LOT more? I had a good year a few years ago... I mean a REALLY good year... good enough to touch into the top tax bracket. I made less that year than the year before (when I didn't quite hit that bracket).

Weird, huh?

The Fist Of Goodness
12-14-2012, 23:51
That's what he said...



I hate to point this out, but it doesn't sound like you do...

Just an offhand point - do you know the government actually taxes "the rich" more than the poor? A LOT more? I had a good year a few years ago... I mean a REALLY good year... good enough to touch into the top tax bracket. I made less that year than the year before (when I didn't quite hit that bracket).

Weird, huh?

This is a critical point that many advocates of "the rich not paying their fair share" do not understand. In the situation you lay out in your post, how many years in a row would you do that? Unless you were going to push far into that top bracket, what is your incentive to work harder (only to bring home less)?

BobbyT
12-15-2012, 01:32
I'm aware of the myth. Anything to back that up?

Why don't we just tell them to make more money?

So no evidence. Just unsubstantiated personal opinion.

No matter how aggressively you mow down achievers and subsidize the idle, as soon as you let people start making choices again they will take wildly divergent paths. The only way to escape "inequality" is total slavery.

muscogee
12-15-2012, 05:09
That's what he said...

What he said was simplistic.

muscogee
12-15-2012, 05:11
This is a critical point that many advocates of "the rich not paying their fair share" do not understand. In the situation you lay out in your post, how many years in a row would you do that? Unless you were going to push far into that top bracket, what is your incentive to work harder (only to bring home less)?

Unless things change, everyone but the super rich are going to die indigent anyway. Why save money for retirement?

QNman
12-15-2012, 07:26
This is a critical point that many advocates of "the rich not paying their fair share" do not understand. In the situation you lay out in your post, how many years in a row would you do that? Unless you were going to push far into that top bracket, what is your incentive to work harder (only to bring home less)?

It is a problem I am trying very hard to duplicate. The hope is that I can get deeper into the bracket (assuming I ever get to the threshold again).

QNman
12-15-2012, 07:27
What he said was simplistic.

So was your rebuttal. No offense.

muscogee
12-15-2012, 07:46
So was your rebuttal. No offense.

That was my point. Apparently it went right over you head.

barbedwiresmile
12-15-2012, 07:53
The irony is that the "fiscal cliff" debate has nothing to do with "taxing the rich". It has to do with taxing high income W-2 wage earners. Not that anybody cares. Just pointing it out.

muscogee
12-15-2012, 07:57
The irony is that the "fiscal cliff" debate has nothing to do with "taxing the rich". It has to do with taxing high income W-2 wage earners. Not that anybody cares. Just pointing it out.

We will have to tax everyone. One more time, Clinton raised taxes on everyone making over $24,000 per year.

QNman
12-15-2012, 08:32
That was my point. Apparently it went right over you head.

Apparently so. Subtlety is not your usual M.O. My apologies.

Skyhook
12-15-2012, 12:53
Yes, I've heard of it. That's when Adolph betrayed the buffoons who helped put him in office so he could be the unquestioned leader of the NDSAP. Is that the direction you seen the Right taking? Use the Tea Party to get control of the country then eliminating them?

There were more casualties than those you label, 'Buffoons'.

As to if this is what is happening to Tea Party folks in congress... better address that to one Mr. Boehner, I say.

muscogee
12-15-2012, 13:22
Apparently so. Subtlety is not your usual M.O. My apologies.

I'm the most misunderstood person in this forum.

QNman
12-15-2012, 17:25
I'm the most misunderstood person in this forum.

I can see where you'd feel that way, but I assure you... you are not.

barbedwiresmile
12-15-2012, 18:48
I'm the most misunderstood person in this forum.

Maybe you should assess the way you articulate your positions. And read more broadly. I for one understand your frustration. But you are as caught up in the left/right paradigm as the 'conservatives' around here.