Posted on 03/15/2005 5:33:57 AM PST by shortstop
I'm confused.
About politics in Washington. I'm forgetting who the good guys are.
Mostly because they seem to have forgotten as well.
Here's what I mean. As Republicans stumble over themselves to reform Social Security they seem intent on throwing out whatever principles they or their party are supposed to stand for.
Not so much President Bush. His idea of personally managed accounts -- while pretty meager and meaningless in its specifics -- at least gives lip service to a conservative idea or two. The problem is with the rest of the Republicans, particularly in the Senate. They are legislating like Democrats.
Liberal Democrats.
We Republicans have given our party the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Pretty much, it's a dead lock on power. And yet the party and its politicians seem like they can't quite get around to doing anything they promised they'd do. For a decade we've controlled Congress and for a term we've controlled the White House and yet Democratic ideas are advancing and Republican ideas are retreating.
Why is that?
Why is it that the party of fiscal conservatism can't, with total control of the federal government, get a handle on the budget deficit? Why is it that the Republican president and the Republican Congress are advocating every larger and more costly government programs? If we are the party of small government and individual liberty, why in the heck are the officeholders we elected going in exactly the opposite direction?
But back to Social Security.
It is the suggestions of two "conservative" Republican senators which has me hopping mad.
Whereas the president has suggested placing some tiny amount of our Social Security taxes under our own severly limited control, these knuckle heads have a completely different idea for Social Security.
Enter Bob Bennett, a Republican senator from Utah. He wants to dramatically reduce the Social Security payout for two-thirds of Americans. Specifically, Bennett suggests dividing the public into three categories -- low earners, medium earners and high earners. He would leave Social Security payouts alone for the bottom third of earners, but would cut them for the top two-thirds of earners. In fact, he would essentially cut them in half.
Which is an interesting proposition. Inasmuch as Social Security tax is nothing more than a second income tax, the more you make the more you pay. So the bottom third of wage earners pays a very small Social Security tax, in terms of real dollars. While the middle and upper income earners pay a substantially higher Social Security tax.
So that means that "conservative" Republican Bob Bennett wants to pay the most to those who contributed the least and pay the least to those who contributed the most. That's redistribution of wealth. That, patently, is socialism. And that is what the Republican Party is offering up.
Wouldn't Karl Marx be proud?
Indeed, he would be.
But "conservative" Republican Lindsey Graham from South Carolina wants to make him even prouder. Graham wants to increase the Social Security taxes paid by upper-income workers. As if 15 percent wasn't enough.
So the disproportionate ripoff of successful people didn't satisfy Senate Republicans. They want to make it even bigger. Cut the benefit to middle and upper income people by half, and then jack up the taxes they pay -- taxes that are already dramatically higher than lower-income workers.
And this is the plan of the Republican Party.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s came up with the largest socialist scheme ever foisted on the American people and 70 years later the Republicans are defending it and creating new excesses.
Here's the simple rule: Your money is your money. You earned it, you ought to be able to keep it. For the government to take it away from you and give it to somebody else is not good policy, it is governmental theft.
It is legitimate for the government to tax us to fund its essential and constitutionally mandated activities. But for the government to use taxation as not a funding mechanism for itself, but as a wealth-redistribution scheme among citizens is immoral and unconstitutional. It was not the Founding Fathers of this system who would favor such a system, it is the Founding Fathers of communism.
Republicans are supposed to stand up for property rights, for the interest of those who are employed. They are supposed to speak against socialism and confiscatory taxes. They are supposed to fight the social engineering of "progressive" tax. The Republican Party is where we're supposed to go when we feel like our government is ripping us off, like we have turned into nothing more than tax slaves.
But we will find no relief in the Republican Party.
It is Republicans in the Senate who are binding us down, who are breaking campaign promises, who are forgetting what it means to be either a Republican or a free American. These "solutions" to the Social Security problem are nothing more than a con to take more of our "earned" money and transform it into "entitled" money, to take money from those who earn it and give it to those who don't.
It used to be that it was Democrats who pulled crap like that.
Now it's the Republicans.
And that leaves a bunch of us with nowhere to go.
..."Probably have the same effect on the republicans". Good! If they don't represent us, I could care less if a democrat or republican is in office. I vote third party anyway...
"Right. Those who call Bush a wild spending government grower have never been able to tell me how government grows LONG TERM, defying the laws of physics,"
Perhaps thats because you think government spending has something to do with the laws of physics. I mean, if thats what you think, whats the point in trying to explain it to you.
I disagree with a third party. We need to push the RINOs out and not let them take over our party.
I'm worried that a RINO could possibly get the nod in 08 though, and in that situation I will most certainly stay home.
"We need to push the RINOs out and not let them take over our party."
They already have. Or at least they are 90% of the way there.
"I'm worried that a RINO could possibly get the nod in 08 though"
Frankly, I would be absolutely shocked if the Repubs DIDN'T nominate a RINO.
"and in that situation I will most certainly stay home."
Why do that? If everyone took that attitude then a viable, TRUE conservative party like the Constitution Party would definitely stay a fringe 3rd party. It's a self fulfilling prophesy.
I upper cased the word’s “long term”. If I can “borrow and spend” long term, please tell me how or reconsider that it’s an impossibility.
If you don’t recognize that they both are subservient to the facts and mathematics, then don’t try.
"Why do that?"
My state will always be blue anyway...doesn't matter.
I mean RED....I get confused because I actually refer to the states as how they should be colored (the liberals purposefully avoided the color association).
Liberal states=RED
Repub states=BLUE
That's exactly my point. I'm from NY, unfortunately, and thus am practically guaranteed of the fact that whatever candidate the commurats put out will carry the state. So, if the republicans don't put out a candidate that I can get behind then voting for another candidate, say from the Constitution Party, could actually accomplish two things. First, I could actually vote my conscience without fearing that the republicans losing my one vote would be the difference in this state. And second, my voting for another candidate could help raise awareness of his particular party and it's platform, provided of course that don't feel that it's not worth it to vote at all if they don't like the repub candidate.
That's exactly my point. I'm from NY, unfortunately, and thus am practically guaranteed of the fact that whatever candidate the commurats put out will carry the state. So, if the republicans don't put out a candidate that I can get behind then voting for another candidate, say from the Constitution Party, could actually accomplish two things. First, I could actually vote my conscience without fearing that the republicans losing my one vote would be the difference in this state. And second, my voting for another candidate could help raise awareness of his particular party and it's platform, provided of course that others don't feel that it's not worth it to vote at all if they don't like the repub candidate.
You will have to ask Bush/Congress, they seem to have borrow and spend down to a science. I am amazed that the US is still able to borrow and spend concidering our rather large outstanding debt. But the red ink flows like a river in DC and hardly anyone seems to care, least of all Bush or Congress.
Identifying apparent contradictions in understanding is the fundamental activity of reasoning. There are no contradictions in nature.
Either it is possible to borrow for ever (and we’re in the wrong profession) or the premise that Bush is doing that is flawed.
*** IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ***
This morning on Rush's program, he started talking about a Boston Globe story which said that Mitch McConnel was not on board with the "nuclear option" - and supposedly Mitch's reason was because he wasn't sure the public was on board with it. Because of that, I went to http://www.congressvote.org and registered my complaint with the McConnell office.
A few minutes later in the program, Rush said that he had received a FAX from McConnel's staff which said that Mitch was on board with the "nuclear option" - and it was the Globe who got the story wrong.
However, the FAX also mentioned that McConnel office had been overwhelmed with phone calls, emails and faxes.
Soooooo .. while the Boston Globe was trying to sew seeds of doubt about the "nuclear option" to the public - their ineptness caused the "public" to react and I guess McConnel's office found out that THE PUBLIC KNOWS A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND WANTS THE REPUBS TO JUST DO IT!!
I'm hoping the word will get around that the public is very aware of what is going on and very much in favor of the "nuclear option".
Thank you Boston Globe - once again your Bush-republican hatred has backfired in your face!!!
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.