Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
The Opposing party response has been in place for many many years. not seeing the issue.

Yeah, that has been going on for quite some time so I don't see the issue there either. I do think it is a problem, and actually is unusual, is when you have a Republican response and a Republican Tea Party response; usually just one party spokesman would speak.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Opposing party response has been in place for many many years. not seeing the issue.

Yeah, that has been going on for quite some time so I don't see the issue there either. I do think it is a problem, and actually is unusual, is when you have a Republican response and a Republican Tea Party response; usually just one party spokesman would speak.

Agreed.

I want a log cabin republican response next year...

I want an 18 second video response from Chris Christie. He sits down, pulls out a donut, eats it, and leaves.

"This donut is Obama's plan. A big sugar coating around a hole of nothing. Tomorrow it will be crap."

Like that?

Edit: can I be a speech writer in a Frazzled administration?

Christie should say nothing. Just sit there quietly and eat the donut with a disgusted look on his face, occasionally pausing to shake his head and sigh loudly. When he finishes the donut he just gets up and leaves.

 Ahtman wrote:
Christie should say nothing. Just sit there quietly and eat the donut with a disgusted look on his face, occasionally pausing to shake his head and sigh loudly. When he finishes the donut he just gets up and leaves.

This. However, I'd make d-USA a speechwriter based on that post alone.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Opposing party response has been in place for many many years. not seeing the issue.

Yeah, that has been going on for quite some time so I don't see the issue there either. I do think it is a problem, and actually is unusual, is when you have a Republican response and a Republican Tea Party response; usually just one party spokesman would speak.

That is an issue for the Republican Party to sort out amongst themselves.

Anyone can make a response, it is free speech in operation.

 whembly wrote:

But President Obama, he believes it’s the cause of our problems, that the economic downturn happened because our government didn’t tax enough, spend enough, or control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more, and spend more.

Yeah, see, this is what I mean when I was talking about incestuous amplification above. To the very narrow group controlling the GOP this kind of attack sounds like a winner, but everywhere else it just reads like the stupid, half-brained nonsense it really is. The group is too self-limiting, they have no idea how things work outside the narrow constraints of their inner circle.

I'd have to admit... Rand Paul doesn't seem as kooky as his dad.

He's more willing to bend his basic philosophy to suit the political realities than his Dad was, but other than that he's a total nutbar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Christie should say nothing. Just sit there quietly and eat the donut with a disgusted look on his face, occasionally pausing to shake his head and sigh loudly. When he finishes the donut he just gets up and leaves.

Sits there silently eating his donut, then gets up and says 'Goodnight America, I love you Bruce Springsteen' and walks off into the night.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

That is an issue for the Republican Party to sort out amongst themselves.

Anyone can make a response, it is free speech in operation.

I don't recall anyone saying otherwise on either point. It was only pointed out that it hasn't been pro forma for there to be multiple Republican responses, and that has changed, obliviously.

Both parties are broken, the country is broken.

The Fix,

Its that 50 year mark/ time for a revolution. Question is, "will it be a relitively bloodless social revolution like in the 1960's and 1910's or is it going to be bloody one like the 1860's?

 focusedfire wrote:
Both parties are broken, the country is broken.

The Fix,

Its that 50 year mark/ time for a revolution. Question is, "will it be a relitively bloodless social revolution like in the 1960's and 1910's or is it going to be bloody one like the 1860's?

Remember boys, its not too early to join Pope Frazzled and the WienerDog party. We've received multiple endorsements, including the Dark Lord Cthulu.

"I can't think of anyone more likely to bring about the end of the world then Pope Frazzled. He's got my vote!"

 focusedfire wrote:
Both parties are broken, the country is broken.

The Fix,

Its that 50 year mark/ time for a revolution. Question is, "will it be a relitively bloodless social revolution like in the 1960's and 1910's or is it going to be bloody one like the 1860's?

So which option do you want?

Here's an idea to think about...

Stay with me as this is sort of me shoot'n from my hips...

Since I totally believe that the single-payer model is inevitable (ala, Canada), here's what I'd advocate the Republicans to propose:

1) Fully expand Medicare to everyone (the mechanic/coverage would obviously need to change and of course ACA would be repealed)
2) Raise Federal taxes (if possible) to be neutral-ish after the State's drops Medicaid
3) Link #1 & #2 to comprehensive Tax Reform
4) Link #1, #2 & #3 to either the Balanced Budget Amendment (which still needs work) OR Repeal the 17th amendment.

On #3... I'd advocate a simplified Tax Reform...maybe not full-blown Flat Tax... but a progress scaled Flat Tax... ie,
5%, 10%, 15%, 20% effective tax rates with NO deduction/loopholes/whatever... and that the definition of income is better defined (that is, things like investment returns, salary, bonuses and any *new* money is considered income and taxed accordingly).

On #4... the states governance need more protection from the Federal Government...
I firmly believe that had we NOT had the 17th amendment, and that the US Senate answers to their State's legislatures (w/o 17th, State's legislatures vote for the Senate)... then, the ACA bill would've never passed due to the Medicare expansion (which the STATE would've have to come up with the additional money).

The point is... some sort of Universal Healthcare could be made popular... and if the Republican spearhead that proposal, then they could negotiate to get Tax Reform on the table (or some other traditional Republican platform) in return for Universal healthcare.

Just thinking out loud here...

Interesting.

Are we talking about the "Rich Angry White Male Christian Party?"

They are done....

 sebster wrote:
Conservatives love the daily outrage, that's their drug, that's what they're in it for.

This is what liberals were known for especially in the 1990s. With Feinstein shrieking on about gun control again and our President in his second=final term, I think liberals might soon be/already are doing this again.

 Easy E wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
Both parties are broken, the country is broken.

The Fix,

Its that 50 year mark/ time for a revolution. Question is, "will it be a relitively bloodless social revolution like in the 1960's and 1910's or is it going to be bloody one like the 1860's?

So which option do you want?

D)All of the above

 whembly wrote:
Here's an idea to think about...

Stay with me as this is sort of me shoot'n from my hips...

Since I totally believe that the single-payer model is inevitable (ala, Canada), here's what I'd advocate the Republicans to propose:

The more I look at US healthcare, the more convinced I am that you need massive reform to the system before single payer could be considered. There is simply nowhere near enough cost controls in place, too much needless medical intervention (in many cases actually increasing the health risks to the patient). I think both a cost control and cultural change is needed, and that hopefully the ACA and some follow up reform will put in place the system needed to make public healthcare viable.

On #3... I'd advocate a simplified Tax Reform...maybe not full-blown Flat Tax... but a progress scaled Flat Tax... ie,
5%, 10%, 15%, 20% effective tax rates with NO deduction/loopholes/whatever... and that the definition of income is better defined (that is, things like investment returns, salary, bonuses and any *new* money is considered income and taxed accordingly).

The rates you give are kind of meaningless without any indication about when they kick in, and a 20% top rate is just not viable at all. But I do agree with the idea of better defining income, in order to roll all income up into a single assessable income category, taxed as a single whole (so no more nonsense of double taxation on dividends, or capital gains income getting its own special tax rate). Deductions as well should really be limited to things that were actual expenses incurred in earning the above assessable income.

On #4... the states governance need more protection from the Federal Government...
I firmly believe that had we NOT had the 17th amendment, and that the US Senate answers to their State's legislatures (w/o 17th, State's legislatures vote for the Senate)... then, the ACA bill would've never passed due to the Medicare expansion (which the STATE would've have to come up with the additional money).

Did you read the link I provided earlier in the thread? It was a pretty good summary of where the Republican fixation on state's rights came from, and where its taken the party.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Here's an idea to think about...

Stay with me as this is sort of me shoot'n from my hips...

Since I totally believe that the single-payer model is inevitable (ala, Canada), here's what I'd advocate the Republicans to propose:

The more I look at US healthcare, the more convinced I am that you need massive reform to the system before single payer could be considered. There is simply nowhere near enough cost controls in place, too much needless medical intervention (in many cases actually increasing the health risks to the patient). I think both a cost control and cultural change is needed, and that hopefully the ACA and some follow up reform will put in place the system needed to make public healthcare viable.

Well... it's going to take a multi-faceted approach to really address this... but I see two major culprit.
1) The idea that even more money will fix it
and...
2) The practice of defensive medicine

On #3... I'd advocate a simplified Tax Reform...maybe not full-blown Flat Tax... but a progress scaled Flat Tax... ie,
5%, 10%, 15%, 20% effective tax rates with NO deduction/loopholes/whatever... and that the definition of income is better defined (that is, things like investment returns, salary, bonuses and any *new* money is considered income and taxed accordingly).

The rates you give are kind of meaningless without any indication about when they kick in, and a 20% top rate is just not viable at all. But I do agree with the idea of better defining income, in order to roll all income up into a single assessable income category, taxed as a single whole (so no more nonsense of double taxation on dividends, or capital gains income getting its own special tax rate). Deductions as well should really be limited to things that were actual expenses incurred in earning the above assessable income.

True... that's why I prefaced this post by saying I was shooting at the hips... but I'd advocate that the largest "tax base" would be lower mid class (10%) and upper mid class (15%). Then, work from there...

Wholly agree with ya on the assessable income category. I'd even go as far as having no deductions.

On #4... the states governance need more protection from the Federal Government...
I firmly believe that had we NOT had the 17th amendment, and that the US Senate answers to their State's legislatures (w/o 17th, State's legislatures vote for the Senate)... then, the ACA bill would've never passed due to the Medicare expansion (which the STATE would've have to come up with the additional money).

Did you read the link I provided earlier in the thread? It was a pretty good summary of where the Republican fixation on state's rights came from, and where its taken the party.

first of all

get as far away from the crazies as possible


IE

religious nutjobs
brain challenged folk, ala GWB
people who talk about legitimate RAPE


etc


at one time The Republicans fought to free the slaves, keep government small, and were down right the party to vote for

now they are seriously a laughing stock

 focusedfire wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
Both parties are broken, the country is broken.

The Fix,

Its that 50 year mark/ time for a revolution. Question is, "will it be a relitively bloodless social revolution like in the 1960's and 1910's or is it going to be bloody one like the 1860's?

So which option do you want?

D)All of the above

Are you guys serious when you say thinsg like this? Would you really want to see another civil war? That is very scary thinking indeed. I know you are probably just doing some mild trolling, but there are people near me who actually think like this and their idiocy is astounding.

I am a white male protestant from Alabama. I am an extreme social liberal and fiscal conservative.

The whole "the south will rise again" rallying cry has become the incoherent babel of what is left of the inbred hill folk. Southerners are perhaps some of the most misunderstood, misrepresented and mistreated people on the planet. Every demographic has that 10% that they are ashamed of and stereotypes are true of everyone and no one. I'm sure I could go to Vermont and find some shameful stereotypes.

As a whole, southerners are quite poor. It has always been that way in the south. The 21st century Protestant Man in the south is nearly a mirror image of his 17th century cousins. His values are religiously intrinsic, thus his tolerance of a hard work ethic with little payoff. He cares more for his God than family, and more for his family than himself.

Southerners are not a bunch of intolerant, racist, and inbred rednecks (despite what the media would like to show you), they are a moral based society with deep intrinsic values and complex social values.

I said all that because I think people paint the picture of "Liberal America" and "The Confederate States." While it is true that more white southerners are republican than not, this is typically due to the deep moral and intrinsic values on issues like abortion and freedom of religion (and freedom to practice that religion when/wherever).

If there were a separatist movement in America, I think most southerners would be on the side of preserving the Union. I know I would.

 DaNewBoy wrote:
Southerners are perhaps some of the most misunderstood, misrepresented and mistreated people on the planet.

While I think there is some truth to your larger point about misconceptions about the South, I have to disagree that Southerners are some of the most mistreated people on the planet. There are some real gak holes in the world, and for all it's faults, I wouldn't quite put the South up there as one of them. It is still generally a first world country down there. Except maybe Mississippi.

 Ahtman wrote:

 DaNewBoy wrote:
Southerners are perhaps some of the most misunderstood, misrepresented and mistreated people on the planet.

While I think there is some truth to your larger point about misconceptions about the South, I have to disagree that Southerners are some of the most mistreated people on the planet. There are some real gak holes in the world, and for all it's faults, I wouldn't quite put the South up there as one of them. It is still generally a first world country down there. Except maybe Mississippi.

At face value, yes, of course. I suppose I was going for dramatic effect on this point and not being literal.

 whembly wrote:
Well... it's going to take a multi-faceted approach to really address this... but I see two major culprit.
1) The idea that even more money will fix it

The point being that the ACA has many cost saving measures. There is still scope for more cost saving measures (once time has shown which parts of ACA actually saved money).

and...
2) The practice of defensive medicine

Sure. But the bigger saving is to be made just in bringing some rational decision making to what healthcare people actually need. The amount of over-treatment of healthcare in the US is remarkable, and in many cases

True... that's why I prefaced this post by saying I was shooting at the hips... but I'd advocate that the largest "tax base" would be lower mid class (10%) and upper mid class (15%). Then, work from there...

Sure, and I agree with the overall approach to expand the fax base. But I think your rates are much lower than they'd have to be for government to be sustainable.

Wholly agree with ya on the assessable income category. I'd even go as far as having no deductions.

Well you just have to have deductions. I mean if you've got two guys, one earning $80 as an office drone with no expenses, and another guy earning $80k as an electrician, who's got advertising expenses, tools, materials and all the rest, it's just basically unfair to charge them both the same amount of tax. The second guy's actual disposable income, after he's paid for the all the expenses of his business, is just straight up lower than the first guy's.

I knew you'd bite on this...

Yes, I read that link and I'm not so sure I'd agree with everything... still absorbing it. To me... whomever is the minority party uses that "nullification" tactic.

Which is a fair point, on a day to day, purely tactical level. But on a greater strategic level, it's hard to see the Republican overall aims as much more than nullification (perhaps with tax cuts as part of a starve the beast strategy).

Having said that, I'd still stand by my "#4". In fact, I think it'll be much easier to repeal the 17th amendment than it is to create a new amendment (Balanced Budget). What this would do is essentially restore the state governance's "voice" in Federal politics. Right now, they're like the 3rd wheel in a relationship.

But there is a state voice at federal politics. Each state elects their own senators. But it's a direct election, the voice of the people in deciding their own state senators. As opposed to including a middle man, in which the state government is elected by the people, and it in turn elects the representative.

And more than that, I'd get really wary about confusing state and national level politics. I could see people voting at the state level not for purely state issues, but in order to influence which party nominates their federal senator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DIDM wrote:
at one time The Republicans fought to free the slaves, keep government small, and were down right the party to vote for

now they are seriously a laughing stock

The 'keep government small' rhetoric tracks really closely with the 'laughing stock' stuff.

 sebster wrote:

Wholly agree with ya on the assessable income category. I'd even go as far as having no deductions.

Well you just have to have deductions. I mean if you've got two guys, one earning $80 as an office drone with no expenses, and another guy earning $80k as an electrician, who's got advertising expenses, tools, materials and all the rest, it's just basically unfair to charge them both the same amount of tax. The second guy's actual disposable income, after he's paid for the all the expenses of his business, is just straight up lower than the first guy's.

Yeah... I see your point on that. If there's going to be deduction, then it needs to be a tool to facilitate better economic condition rather than being used as political playoffs.

I knew you'd bite on this...

Yes, I read that link and I'm not so sure I'd agree with everything... still absorbing it. To me... whomever is the minority party uses that "nullification" tactic.

Which is a fair point, on a day to day, purely tactical level. But on a greater strategic level, it's hard to see the Republican overall aims as much more than nullification (perhaps with tax cuts as part of a starve the beast strategy).

Nothing.

Just wait.

Bush got eight years, Obama got eight years.

If loosing another presidential election is what it will take for Republicans to get serious about their demographic and ideological problems then it will more likely than not be a case of too little, too late.

 Manchu wrote:
If loosing another presidential election is what it will take for Republicans to get serious about their demographic and ideological problems then it will more likely than not be a case of too little, too late.

What massive shifts in policy did Democrats undertake to recapture the White House after losing it for two whole terms to Bush? The sky was clearly falling then as well.