Posted on 12/06/2002 8:39:39 AM PST by CanisMajor2002
Do us a favor...go back to the DU and make it another 9 or 10 months before we have to read your half-baked, copy and past propaganda again.
(They think they have ISS-EWWWS, LOL)
Hrm, you can read the date but you didn't read the rest of the profile. They say you ain't a FReeper until you've been flamed, but if you're going to do it, be informed first! :)
For the third time, and perhaps a different way, I'm going to phrase this: In an article that says there is a "pro-growth" wing of the Republican Party, the implication is made that there must be an "anti-growth" wing. Is there anyone (but not RINO) who would be part of such weirdness? Isn't the article redundant on this? :)
Sound on policy as the day is long; he wrote after the 1980 election that the government should sell gold in a big way. Price was high at the time, how do you argue with success? And the Kemp-Roth bill was a revolution in its time; we're all Laffer Curve proponents now but in the seventies Kemp was a pretty lonely voice for tax-rate sanity.He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on the "compassion" front, tho--by accepting Gore's personal flattery at the expense of the reputation of the Republican Party's base. As VP candidate his objective should have been to position the Republican voter favorably--instead he allowed Gore to do the opposite. It was a pathetic performance which wrote finis to his hopes for elective national office.
And he does not suffer fools gladly; were GWB to name Kemp it would amount to signing off on whatever Kemp wanted to do. It would not however be unlike W to name such a person, if indeed he was in full agreement with Kemp's policy prescriptions. Kemp has gravitas, like the rest of the administration.
For myself, I'd name Steve Forbes and go hard over for the flat tax. I'd sell the lack of a mortgage interest deduction with the point that the interest deduction simply balances out the tax premium the market gives the mortgage holder, above the tax-free bond interest rate. So you'd have to refinance (once) and be clear of the need for itemizing mortgage interest, unharmed.
And I'd sell the removal of the charitable deduction on the basis that it would free the charities from government restrictions (i.e., no politics in church) imposed on tax-deductible charities at present.
He should have stuck with it. We need more supply siders, especially in government.
Pat Toomey, Joe Pitts, and Rick Santorum might disagree with that conclusion.
Gotta admit, she got in a good zinger!
No Republican would admit to be "anti-growth."OTOH before the Kemp-Roth tax-cut proposal ultimately implemented as "Reaganomics" the Republican Party was the party of the balanced budget--Democrats would raise spending, Republicans would fight to raise revenues by raising tax rates. Great politics, right?!
Kemp comes along, derides Dole as "the tax collector for the welfare state", and demands a 30% rate cut as a means to increase revenue. Under Reagan that was implemented as a 25% cut, and derided by the Democratic Party as "Reaganomics." RWR noted that he knew his program was working when they stopped calling it "Reaganomics."
In essence "pro-growth" is code for "advocacy of tax rate cuts on the basis that they pay for themselves by increasing the tax base." A.k.a., "faith in the free market."
YOU DID IT! YOU DID IT! YOU EXPRESSED YOUR POINT WITHOUT NAME-CALLING! You have now graduated to the fourth grade. UNBELIEVABLE!
I didn't think you could do it.
Now we need to work on that penchant of yours not to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
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.