"Why I Gave Up On Being a Republican"

[fsquid]

-'d be more interested in knowing what the author linked is for.  He seems a bit all over the place

[tufsu1]

Republicans say they want less government but they only propose slowing the growth of government.  The vast majority of them would even balk at freezing the federal budget at current levels and even that would mean deficit spending for many years.

which is why their refusal to raise taxes by even $1 with $0 in spending cuts is so ridiculous....smh

[carpnter]

Republicans say they want less government but they only propose slowing the growth of government.  The vast majority of them would even balk at freezing the federal budget at current levels and even that would mean deficit spending for many years.

which is why their refusal to raise taxes by even $1 with $0 in spending cuts is so ridiculous....smh

It is going to take tax increases to pay off this debt, what I don't want is what the democrats want, which is tax increases to maintain this ridiculous level of spending.  I want to see spending cuts before tax increases, the debt must be addressed but first we must stop adding to it, then we can start paying it down, which is going to take an increase in taxes.
Increasing taxes now just allows the politicians from both parties to ignore the debt and keep spending money without making tough decisions.  It is time to make the tough decisions and not worry about reelection prospects.

[urbanlibertarian]

-'d be more interested in knowing what the author linked is for.  He seems a bit all over the place

He's a former Republican member of Congress from Pensacola and is co-host of the Morning Joe program on MSNBC.  If he seems all over the place it's just that his party has moved away from principles he still believes are important.

[urbanlibertarian]

Republicans say they want less government but they only propose slowing the growth of government.  The vast majority of them would even balk at freezing the federal budget at current levels and even that would mean deficit spending for many years.

which is why their refusal to raise taxes by even $1 with $0 in spending cuts is so ridiculous....smh

The revenue they would get from the millionaires tax is chump change.  The federal government has a spending problem not a revenue problem.  The worldwide mission of our military needs to be scaled back dramatically and Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed (increased eligibility age and means testing).  That's where the real money is.

[finehoe]

The federal government has a spending problem not a revenue problem.  The worldwide mission of our military needs to be scaled back dramatically and Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed (increased eligibility age and means testing).  That's where the real money is.

External sovereign debt, as well as occasional default on such debt, is not unprecedented. What is rather unique in the case of the current global sovereign debt is that it is largely private debt billed as public debt; that is, debt that was accumulated by financial speculators and, then, offloaded onto governments to be paid by taxpayers as national debt. Having thus bailed out the insolvent banksters, many governments have now become insolvent or nearly insolvent themselves, and are asking the public to skimp on their bread and butter in order to service the debt that is not their responsibility.

After transferring trillions of dollars of bad debt or toxic assets from the books of financial speculators to those of governments, global financial moguls, their representatives in the State apparatus and corporate media are now blaming social spending (in effect, the people) as responsible for debt and deficit!

President Obama's recent motto of "fiscal responsibility" and his frequent grumbles about "out of control government spending" are reflections of this insidious strategy of blaming victims for the crimes of perpetrators. They also reflect the fact that the powerful financial interests that received trillions of taxpayers' dollars, which saved them from bankruptcy, are now dictating debt-collecting strategies through which governments can recoup those dollars from taxpayers. In effect, governments and multilateral institutions such as the IMF are acting as bailiffs or tax collectors on behalf of banksters and other financial wizards.

Not only is this unfair (it is, indeed, tantamount to robbery, and therefore criminal), it is also recessionary as it can increase unemployment and undermine economic growth. It is reminiscent of President Herbert Hoover's notorious economic policy of cutting spending during a recession, a contractionary fiscal policy that is bound to worsen the recession. It is, indeed, a recipe for a vicious circle of debt and depression: as spending is cut to pay debt, the economy and (therefore) tax revenues will shrink, which would then increase debt and deficit, and call for more spending cuts.

Spending on national infrastructure, both physical (such as roads and schools) and social infrastructure (such as health and education) is key to the long-term socioeconomic developments. Cutting public spending to pay for the sins of Wall Street gamblers is bound to undermine the long-term health of a society in terms of productivity enhancement and sustained growth.

But the powerful financial interests and their debt collectors seem to be more interested in collecting debt claims than investing in economic recovery, job creation or long-term socioeconomic development. Like most debt-collecting agencies, the IMF and the states serving as banksters' bailiffs through their austerity programs may shed a few crocodile tears in sympathy with the victims' of their belt-tightening policies; but, again like any other debt-collecting agents, they seem to be saying: "sorry for the loss of your job or your house, but debt must be collected--regardless."

A most outrageous aspect of the debt burden that is placed on the taxpayers' shoulders since 2008 is that most of the underlying debt claims are fictitious and illegitimate: they are largely due to manipulated asset price bubbles, dubious or illegal financial speculations, and scandalous conversion of financial gamblers' losses into public liability.

[NotNow]

Finehoe, I'm a little confused by your post.   Assuming you wrote this, I have a couple of questions. 

It seems that you are suggesting defaulting on the debt in the first few lines.  It also appears that you are calling for at least maintaining current federal spending, if not increasing it.  How would you propose maintaining current spending if we default on the debt service?  Currently, about one third of spending is borrowed money. 

The rest of the post seems to concentrate on the idea that government debt is largely just transferred from private business interests and that such activity is illegal and illegitimate.  Are you speaking of the "bailouts" so often discussed here?  And/or you speaking of "quasi" governmental activity such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  What remedies would you propose?

Thanks in advance for your explanations.

[tayana42]

The government does have a spending problem; but has an even greater revenue problem.  Both corporations and the rich in America have, through effective lobbying, gotten tax breaks and loopholes which have resulted in enormous benefits for them while depriving the nation from much-needed revenue.

We cannot cut our way out of the deficit; study the budget and you will see that eliminating all government services except medicare, medicaid, social security, and defense....and we still don't have enough revenue to balance the budget. 

It's going to be painful and our elected officials don't want to cause pain so we will all sit here like the proverbial frog in the pot as the heat is increased until it explodes.

[buckethead]

Republicans say they want less government but they only propose slowing the growth of government.  The vast majority of them would even balk at freezing the federal budget at current levels and even that would mean deficit spending for many years.

which is why their refusal to raise taxes by even $1 with $0 in spending cuts is so ridiculous....smh

The revenue they would get from the millionaires tax is chump change.  The federal government has a spending problem not a revenue problem.  The worldwide mission of our military needs to be scaled back dramatically and Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed (increased eligibility age and means testing).  That's where the real money is.

That there's some tough talk. I doubt we'll get such frankness from either big money contender, nor "viable" political party.

[tufsu1]

The federal government has a spending problem not a revenue problem. 

um, really.....let's just say we cut spending to match incoming revenues...that takes care of the deficit, but what about the past debt?

face it....we need to get spending back down to around 17-18% of GDP....and revenues need to be closer to 20%

[buckethead]

I'm listening... A reduction in spending?

Is government spending not included in the GDP figure?

The metrics are so convoluted that they don't mean anything.

"We're gonna need a bigger boat"

[John P]

I gave up on being a Republican last year in the beginning of 2011 when rationale thinking became a liberal thing and great purge of main stream conservatives was wrapping up. Ronald Reagan would be too liberal for 2012 Republicans who seem to inch closer towards anti science, pro religious, anti factual information, pro sound bytes, anti middle class, pro 'job creators' rule. Theres no room for Republicans of the 80s and 90s in 2012 party. It is a shame.

[mtraininjax]

John McCain is an old TURD who needs to be flushed and he only cares about himself, as evidenced during the campaign to go back to DC and try and save the banks, for his own campaign. He needs to be flushed and moved out, as grandpa is not part of the new Republican party.

Yes, the GOP has a lot to do to create a new image, but McCain will not be it. Obama resurrected the Democrats in 2008, just as someone will need to do so with the GOP in 2012.

The GOP constantly claims that its opponents are engaged in "class warfare," but this is an exercise in projection. In Republican proposals, the wealthy win, and the rest of us lose - one only has to look at Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget to see that.

The Opponents are Democrats who would like to see the country be run as an entitlement state, raising taxes on small businesses, which they are with the BS healthcare plan. To pay for healthcare, all owners of property will be charged 3.8% additional on revenue from rental properties, taxed again to help fix neighborhoods, even though we  all pay local taxes, we now have new national taxes. This is a sign of things to come. Tax the people who can pay for it, but its not enough to fix the debt. Both parties are FUBAR on the ideas to fix debt, easier to kick the can down the road.

But Taxaggedon is coming at the end of this year, and we will be in a world of GREECE if we kick the can down the road, so stop trying to spread the wealth and start working with the GOP to come up with solutions.  Greece has shown that austerity DOES NOT WORK, you cannot spread the wealth and have a productive society. Greeks cannot pay for their own debt and the time of reckoning is coming, and same with the USA, if we do not get control of spending. Forget growth, we need to control spending, but then we don't really have a plan for the Vets coming back from overseas, so why would we have a plan for the future with the Democrats period?

An area where we can see immediate growth is in natural resources, since Obama took office, private enterprises have been the major driver to make the USA energy independent, Obama's record on green, while taking risks, can we afford half a billion dollar mistakes? Open up federal lands for exploration and expansion, we can do it, its a question of leadership and wanting to open resources.

[finehoe]

To pay for healthcare, all owners of property will be charged 3.8% additional on revenue from rental properties

What?  Please provide a source for this claim.

[mtraininjax]

What?  Please provide a source for this claim.

Not hard to find, just google 3.8% tax from healthcare.

http://www.naturalnews.com/029849_health_care_reform_taxes.html

The news about Obama's health care reform just keeps getting worse -- and we only find these things long after the bill has passed, of course. The newest revelation concerns a 3.8% tax on income from home sales and home rentals which will go into effect in 2013.

Yet another tax on a fragile housing market that is probably the Number 1 economic engine in NE Florida. This with the Bush Tax Cuts should help push the economy into a tailspin, something we can all share in as the class warfare is now on center stage.