CNN: 5 reasons GOP will rebound

[Solauren]

What makes you think Canadians do not also have multiple levels of tax?

Let's see

Provincal Sales Taxes (depends on province)
Federal Sales Taxe
Income Tax

And the taxes I'm aware of in Ontario...

Commerical Concentration Tax
Corporations Tax Act
Electricity Act
Employer Health Tax Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 11
Fuel Tax Act
Gasoline Tax Act
International Fuel Tax Act
Land Transfer Tax Act
Municpal Act
Provincal Land Tax
Retail Sales Tax Act
Self-Employment Health Tax Act
Succession Duty
Tobacco Tax Act


Nah, we don't have lots of taxes up here.

[apocolypse]

What makes you think Canadians do not also have multiple levels of tax?

I never said that Canadians, or others in general, don't. I'm saying that Shep is only posting part of the overall taxation in his comparison between CA and MD, so people looking at that piece and then declaring taxes as low are missing a large component.

[Darth Wong]

What makes you think Canadians do not also have multiple levels of tax?

I never said that Canadians, or others in general, don't. I'm saying that Shep is only posting part of the overall taxation in his comparison between CA and MD, so people looking at that piece and then declaring taxes as low are missing a large component.

Are you trying to be stupid? This conversation looks like this:

"Here's our state tax rates. See how high they are?"
"They actually look pretty low to me. Look at my provincial tax rates."
"Oh yeah? Well WE also have OTHER kinds of tax!"
"So do we."
"Uhh yeah, well, I knew that."

[apocolypse]

I read the last part of Kendall's statement wrt the 29% as overall taxation, not just provincial taxation. If that was not the intention, then sorry for the confusion on my behalf.

[Pablo Sanchez]

There are some good Republicans (Gus Bilirakis, my Congressman, voted "No" on TARP twice because he saw the disaster it was),

There are a number of congressmen who did this, but I doubt anybody outside your state has even heard of Bilirakis. Right now the most prominent House Republicans are Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and maybe Steve King. Can you even believe how fucked that is?

but there seem to be more go along to get along RINOs than principled men and women. SNIPPED a sentence to below Plus, they lack any Congressional power, thanks to Bush's (and their) fuckups, lack of regulation enforcement, and growth in government's size and scope from 2000-2008. At this point, their only real choices are to 1) clearly articulate their principles, and stand by them, or 2) wait for the Democrats to get so drunk with power that they fuck up and really hurt peoples' incomes and opportunities. So far, it looks like they've settled for option 2.

I think you have it backwards, I think that right now the "principled" Republicans are the problem, because the mass of the electorate is hostile to many core Republican principles and is likely to become more so over time. The most egregious example is conservative xenophobia about Latinos, which is a critical issue to the base, but which all but shuts out the fastest growing demographic group in America. People are also rightly cold to Republican economic policies because (A) their policies were the approximate cause of the economic crisis, (B) they supported TARP before they opposed it, so they're not even credible when they complain about it, and (C) their proposal for fixing the economy "more tax cuts!", is something they've called for so often and in so many different situations that it simply can't be taken seriously.

Moreover, the policy of punishing "RINOs" with primary challenges is stupid, because to win the ultra-conservative rump primaries the challengers tack so far right that they can't win the general elections. Like, the remaining PA Republicans were mad at Specter because he was a RINO and only voted with the Republicans 70% of the time or whatever, so they were going to beat him in a primary challenge with Pat Toomey, who would then have gone down to ignominious defeat against Joe Sestak--so they would have ditched a RINO who voted with them 70% of the time for a Democrat who won't vote with them at all. In many ways Specter's defection to the Democratic Party was the best case outcome for PA Republicans, because the only realistic choices were Specter or a genuine Democrat (probably Sestak) and Specter is the more conservative of the two.

There are some Republican ideas that are unworkable or useless going forward, like antipathy towards Latinos, who are already more important as voters than as targets for hostility, and Gay Rights, support for which becomes greater with every year that goes by. This category also includes, I would argue, opposition to social programs like Universal Health Care, because I think it will become untouchable just like Social Security. The solution is for Republicans to assume a moderate social conservativism, and a pro-individualism pro-business fiscal centrism that recognizes the importance of welfare programs--kind of like an American CDU. This will entail cutting a lot of current GOP voters adrift, by which I mean fundamentalist ultras, racists, and libertarians, but theoretically it will be more than made up by biting a chunk out of the centrist independents who now trend Democratic, so the losses are single but any gains are doubled for electoral purposes (because the Ds lose them even as the Rs gain).

from above
Worse, their up-and-comers like Steele and Jindal don't have the firmly held positions, presence or charisma to pose a serious challenge to Obama, who is a very smooth and persuasive talker.

Steele and Jindal aren't up-and-comers, they're down-and-goers. Steele is a fuckup making the worst of a bad situation and his own party dislikes him, and Jindal was basically finished by that rebuttal to Obama he did that made him look like a weirdo. Sad to say that his career was scuttled by something so subjective as his looking like a member of the Addams Family on camera one time, but it might be for the best anyway. As a Democrat, I think it would have been fun to see Jindal run for national office, because who knows how the GOP base would have reacted to him in that context, and the independent voters probably would have balked at his religious beliefs, which are pretty outre even among conservatives.

[Wyrm]

Sure, if you have a baseline tax rate of 0%, they're high, but for those of us who live in the real world, they just illustrate that Americans are by and large fucking whiny bitches who have no idea what high taxation means.

We revolted over taxes. What do you expect?

Funny, I thought we revolted over taxation without representation. At least, that's what grade school history class taught me.

[Aaron]

I read the last part of Kendall's statement wrt the 29% as overall taxation, not just provincial taxation. If that was not the intention, then sorry for the confusion on my behalf.

I think that's partially my fault, if you follow the link I posted you'll see that our Federal tax has multiple levels.

CRA

* 15% on the first $38,832 of taxable income, +
* 22% on the next $38,832 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $38,832 and $77,664), +
* 26% on the next $48,600 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $77,664 and $126,264), +
* 29% of taxable income over $126,264.

So if I read the above correctly, they pay 29% on what they make over 126,264$ plus the percentages listed for each bracket. So I must apologize for being unclear, I was in a hurry this morning and didn't have time to type a full explanation.

So after this you can add on the Provincial rate and any of the other little things Solauren listed.

[Darth Yoshi]

Funny, I thought we revolted over taxation without representation. At least, that's what grade school history class taught me.

Taxes implemented after Britain had just won a costly war with France for control of the continent. A war which was exacerbated by the colonial insistence on expanding into native territory. Frankly, the British were perfectly justified in raising taxes.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Taxes implemented after Britain had just won a costly war with France for control of the continent. A war which was exacerbated by the colonial insistence on expanding into native territory. Frankly, the British were perfectly justified in raising taxes.

This can go on and on because an event as complex as the American Revolution will have equally complex precursors, but if people want to go there they can do it in another thread rather than hijacking this one.

[apocolypse]

I read the last part of Kendall's statement wrt the 29% as overall taxation, not just provincial taxation. If that was not the intention, then sorry for the confusion on my behalf.

I think that's partially my fault, if you follow the link I posted you'll see that our Federal tax has multiple levels.

CRA

* 15% on the first $38,832 of taxable income, +
* 22% on the next $38,832 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $38,832 and $77,664), +
* 26% on the next $48,600 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $77,664 and $126,264), +
* 29% of taxable income over $126,264.

So if I read the above correctly, they pay 29% on what they make over 126,264$ plus the percentages listed for each bracket. So I must apologize for being unclear, I was in a hurry this morning and didn't have time to type a full explanation.

So after this you can add on the Provincial rate and any of the other little things Solauren listed.

Ah, I think I got you now. Thanks for the additional clarification.

[Count Chocula]

I think you have it backwards, I think that right now the "principled" Republicans are the problem, because the mass of the electorate is hostile to many core Republican principles and is likely to become more so over time.

In my opinion, and I'm by no means knowledgeable about the Republican party as a whole, there are too few Republicans who hew to core principles, thus doing little to differentiate themselves from the Democrats. Even the Republican governors who initially refused bailout money for their states, Jindal and Sanford especially, now seem to be willing to accept the federal grease funds. The one I remember was Jindal, who took what I deem a principled stand by citing that accepting the bailout funds for his state would result in unbudgeted, recurring costs to the state when the federal money disappears. That's a good, valid reason for refusing a handout, and one which I could easily justify. If Jindal's caving, along with Sanford, fuck 'em. My governor, Charlie Crist (a Republican), just about came in his pants he was so excited about the federal bailouts destined for Florida. Our Republican Senator, Mel Martinez, voted FOR the bailout, while our Democrat Senator, Bill Nelson, voted against it! McCain and Obama both voted "aye." Where's the difference?

Hell, the Republican controlled House and Senate approved the Patriot Act, and guess what? The "liberal" fears that it would be used to imprison Americans is now starting to happen. Conservatives, particularly columnists and talk show hosts like Limbaugh, spoke out against the Patriot Act. The Republicans in Congress did not...they voted for it! Where's Holder? Meanwhile, in Jewel vs. USA, the Obama administration not only reaffirms the Patriot Act, if I recall correctly it further asserts that any and all warrantless wiretapping done by the federal government, regardless of cause, is legal and not subject to criminal statutes! Again, I'm failing to see the differences between the two parties.

When you include the Republicans' selection of McCain over Paul, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani and Hunter (who was my Representative in California, who I talked to, and who seemed to have principles behind his actions), the disastrous campaign tactics employed in 2008, the unanswered (by the party) slander and demeaning of Sarah Palin, the vote switching of both of Vermont's Republican senators, and the defection of Arlen Specter to the Democratic party for the acknowledged motivation of winning his next re-election primary, this registered Independent has to wonder: what's the fucking difference between the two parties, save for the preferred rate of change to a higher Federal consumption of GDP and all the programs that implies? If there ARE any elected Republicans who both articulate and stand by their core principles, I have yet to read who they are (excepting my own Representative, and I admit I don't know his complete voting record).

At this point, I don't know if the majority of elected Republicans, or their national committee, even HAVE any core principles that I could either agree with or oppose. And they've seemingly done a very good job of muzzling their members who DO have principles that could be judged on their merits or lack thereof.

Frankly, in my mind, the Democrat and Republican parties should represent opposing positions, at least on core matters like the duties, responsibilities and size of the federal government. From my observations, they don't disagree on matters that increase government control (Patriot Act for example) or lay financial burdens on our children and grandchildren with little to no accounting for how those incurred debts are spent. If the Republicans are to revive themselves as a viable party, they will have to, in my opinion, state very clearly AND BACK UP WITH CONSEQUENTIAL ACTIONS where they stand on government's role. So far, those elected Republicans who are willing and able to stand up for their principles are being marginalized by their own party.

[Edi]

Hell, the Republican controlled House and Senate approved the Patriot Act, and guess what? The "liberal" fears that it would be used to imprison Americans is now starting to happen. Conservatives, particularly columnists and talk show hosts like Limbaugh, spoke out against the Patriot Act.

Since when did conservatives speak up against the Patriot Act? All I remember from that time was a deafening chorus of praise for the Patriot act over liberal objection and a tarring and feathering of all opponents of it as traitors, including from talk show hosts and columnists. If there were a few who opposed it on the conservative side, they were a very small minority. Of course, you're free to back up that claim of their opposition to Patriot Act, in which case I will be happy to concede. But all I've seen is conservatives start whining about it after control of the government switched to Democrat hands.

[Resinence]

Frankly, in my mind, the Democrat and Republican parties should represent opposing positions, at least on core matters like the duties, responsibilities and size of the federal government.

Cause', you know, the purpose of government isn't to serve and represent the people voting for it but to be the polar opposite of the opposition in the name of principles, you basically want a far-left democrats (no chance of anything left of right-center ever being elected in the US any time soon) and a far-right GOP because... well? because they should be...for....some...reason...because you don't want to stop thinking in black and white?

Christ just using this utterly fucking retarded "left right" terminology is making me angry, how can you POSSIBLY think that 2 fundamentalist parties - one on each 'side' is a good idea? What ever happened to voting for the policies that benefit yourself and society the most instead of loyalty to "liberals" or "conservatives"?

And frankly, hewing to "core principles" isn't going to get the GOP re-elected, the results are in and the majority of people don't fucking support those principles, when something doesn't work you don't do it AGAIN and hope it works, you look at WHY it doesn't work and CHANGE IT. If people don't vote for ultra-conservatism, maybe...and I know it sounds crazy... the GOP should move closer to the "center".

edit: just saw this:

Conservatives, particularly columnists and talk show hosts like Limbaugh, spoke out against the Patriot Act.

You really are god damn delusional aren't you? Shouldn't have even dignified your shit with a reply.

[Prannon]

I think Chocula's big beef (as well as the big complaint that many Americans have of both political parties) is that they basically do the same thing. He adheres to the idea that smaller government is better government and he wants the Republicans to do that, only they make it much bigger than by increasing spending and racking up the debt. They also increase the power of the government to increase security and promulgate a culturally heavy handed policy. So ok, that's bad. Problem is that the Democrats also increase spending, rack up the debt, and increase the government's power (just in other ways). Add in the American meme of both parties merely seeking to ensure their power by raising money and pandering to special interests and there you have it! Both parties might as well be the same.

What Chocula wants is for the Republican Party to become more of a Libertarian Party. Cut government expenses and cut government interventions in society. These are the core principles that he wants the Party to stand on, not the religious, moralistic, small government lip service, pro-business "principles" that form the core of Republican doctrine today. At least that's how I see it. Of course, there's a reason why the Libertarian Party is small in the US. Only a few Americans actually want a small government, much as many delude themselves into thinking they do. They just want their big government to do different things, whether its enforcing some kind of cultural homogeneity or forming a more generous, fairer society. It would seem that right now the "fairness" instinct has a little more momentum.

[Count Chocula]

Of course, you're free to back up that claim of their opposition to Patriot Act, in which case I will be happy to concede.

Well it looks like Limbaugh supports the Patriot Act, so I was way off base there, serves me right for working from memory. Ron Paul opposed it, but he's been put off to the side by the Repubs. Oddly enough, there was opposition to the Act from such diverse groups as the NRA, home schoolers (!) and the ACLU, but only a small minority of Republican and Democratic reps.

[The Yosemite Bear]

note the problems with both parties is that they are more or less the same, just using certain wedge issues and lots of thunder to get away with doing nothing for a lot of money.

It's very sad, but we really do need our government and our represenitives, and most importantly our voters to grow the fuck up.

[Count Chocula]

I think Chocula's big beef (as well as the big complaint that many Americans have of both political parties) is that they basically do the same thing. He adheres to the idea that smaller government is better government and he wants the Republicans to do that, only they make it much bigger than by increasing spending and racking up the debt. They also increase the power of the government to increase security and promulgate a culturally heavy handed policy. So ok, that's bad. Problem is that the Democrats also increase spending, rack up the debt, and increase the government's power (just in other ways). Add in the American meme of both parties merely seeking to ensure their power by raising money and pandering to special interests and there you have it! Both parties might as well be the same.

What Chocula wants is for the Republican Party to become more of a Libertarian Party.

You're close, pretty good analysis for someone you haven't met. My current beef with both parties is that they're spending the US into bankruptcy, condoning white collar crime, FUNDING the bailout of white collar criminals, and really not bringing forth any solutions. The 2009 budget had a near $500billion deficit before TARP and the stimulus package (Obama's stimulus is not unique, fuck GWB did the same thing), and the 2010 budget of $3.4 trillion IIRC is 50% funded by the accumulation of even more debt! The scale of borrowing, and the unaccountability of the spending, is simply insane and unsustainable IMO. I'm no longer a Libertarian, but goddamn, the Constitution and amendments are the fucking basis of our social contract....which has been violated repeatedly, deliberately, and IMO with malice aforethought, by both parties. If we need social programs or any other measures that aren't covered by the Constitution and amendments, let's have more amendments proposed and passed to cover what we Americans feel the federal government should do. To the OP, until the Republicans or Democrats, for that matter, stop sponsoring legislation that's not in their purview, and stop spending money we don't have and are now having trouble acquiring, there's little to differentiate the two parties.

[Darth Wong]

Your problem is that you refuse to see the obvious: that the debt can only be paid down by increasing taxes. In your imaginary dream world, you can magically eliminate half of government spending with little or no consequence on society, and then these enormous cost savings will pay down the debt while also giving the government breathing room to cut taxes even more than they already have.

That's a wonderful fantasy. It's right up there with flying cars, penis enlargement creams, and that guy from Nigeria who wants to give you millions of dollars in exchange for letting him have your bank account numbers. Everyone wants to believe they can have something for nothing. Nobody wants to pay the piper.

[Patrick Degan]

but goddamn, the Constitution and amendments are the fucking basis of our social contract....which has been violated repeatedly, deliberately, and IMO with malice aforethought, by both parties. If we need social programs or any other measures that aren't covered by the Constitution and amendments, let's have more amendments proposed and passed to cover what we Americans feel the federal government should do. To the OP, until the Republicans or Democrats, for that matter, stop sponsoring legislation that's not in their purview, and stop spending money we don't have and are now having trouble acquiring, there's little to differentiate the two parties.

The social contract is a general principle of societal relationships and the underlying purpose of a government which is not pinned on the text of the U.S. constitution. And unless you can point out which passage in the constitution explicitly forbids the Congress from acting as a national legislature, you have no argument here.

[Pablo Sanchez]

In my opinion, and I'm by no means knowledgeable about the Republican party as a whole, there are too few Republicans who hew to core principles, thus doing little to differentiate themselves from the Democrats.

If the parties are undifferentiated why is the one popular and winning elections hand over fist, while the other is reviled and marginalized? You're not making any sense because you seem to just be regurgitating conservative talking points about getting back to core principles. I'm going to stop you here and ask you to explain the principles you're talking about. What are they, specifically, and why do you believe that a Republican party that affirms these principles will be electorally successful?

[Surlethe]

The social contract is a general principle of societal relationships and the underlying purpose of a government which is not pinned on the text of the U.S. constitution. And unless you can point out which passage in the constitution explicitly forbids the Congress from acting as a national legislature, you have no argument here.

Chocula has enough people to answer in this thread, so I'm not going to pile on him. However, he's certainly alluding to the idea that the federal government is simply supposed to be a loose administrative overhead for the states. The problem with this is not just that it's not explicitly mandated in the Constitution; it's that the allegiance of the citizens of the United States has shifted from individual states to the nation. Moreover, the American free trade experiment has worked so well that there is very little economic distinction between any two states; in fact, in practical terms, the location of the nearest big city is more important than the state you're in. The Constitution should reflect this national shift, instead of the national attitude being shifted back to the way it was when the Constitution shifted.

[Darth Wong]

You know, Chocula is pretty much a generic party line libertarian, but the way he clings to his talking points makes me think: is it possible that libertarianism is nothing more than an idea deficit?

It seems to me that we have many issues we want to improve in society, but self-styled "libertarians" have absolutely no practical solutions to offer, in part because they intensely dislike the only solutions that might be remotely realistic (ie- using taxation to balance the budget).

How convenient, then, that their default solution to everything is to pretend that socio-economic nirvana occurred in the 18th century. Reversion to 18th century government is such an outlandishly absurd solution that no one will seriously propose it, never mind implementing it. So they have the luxury of attacking every feasible idea while putting forth an idea of their own that will never be subjected to any kind of test.

It reminds me of solipsists, whose ideas are crafted not to be useful or even interesting, but solely to be constructed in such a manner that they will always have a retort to whatever you say. They do it not because they sincerely think these are useful ideas, but because they think it makes them sound smart. Their ideas are tailor-made for evasive debate practices, and pretty much no other application.

They are the useless Marxist pseudo-intellectuals of our day: their ideas are hopelessly impractical for actual application (indeed, they probably know deep down that if anyone actually did implement their policies to the letter it would be a disaster), but they sound good when they sit around and talk to each other.

[Androsphinx]

They are the useless Marxist pseudo-intellectuals of our day: their ideas are hopelessly impractical for actual application (indeed, they probably know deep down that if anyone actually did implement their policies to the letter it would be a disaster), but they sound good when they sit around and talk to each other.

And more importantly, they are the type of beliefs which the ultra-rich support through PACs, think-tanks etc. out of all proportion to their popular appeal. We don't tend to hear much from the anti-property libertarians for some reason...

[Pablo Sanchez]

Private message

Message subject: Re: CNN: 5 reasons GOP will rebound
From: Count Chocula
Sent: Sat May 09, 2009 9:17 pm
To: Pablo Sanchez

If the parties are undifferentiated why is the one popular and winning elections hand over fist, while the other is reviled and marginalized? You're not making any sense because you seem to just be regurgitating conservative talking points about getting back to core principles. I'm going to stop you here and ask you to explain the principles you're talking about. What are they, specifically, and why do you believe that a Republican party that affirms these principles will be electorally successful?

I will do that, Pablo, but not tonight...hopefully by tomorrow night.

I guess I'm still waiting on that.

[Darth Wong]

Chocula's behaviour reminds me of Christians who react to a particularly difficult argument by saying "That's an interesting one. I'll go talk to my pastor and get back to you." *cue infinite wait*