The State of the Republican Party Post-2017

[Thermodolia]

Things have been cut too far. We ought to be raising taxes right now.

Are you the sort who advocates low spending with high taxes to pay off debt, or the type who combines high spending with high taxes?

I'm the sort who advocates for the first option and then once the debt is gone we can lower the taxes

[Telconi]

Are you the sort who advocates low spending with high taxes to pay off debt, or the type who combines high spending with high taxes?

I'm the sort who advocates for the first option and then once the debt is gone we can lower the taxes

I'm there too, although where the spending gets cut from I think Therm and I would disagree.

[Petrasylvania]

And why is it that even dirt poor libertarians on welfare talk like that?

Why is it that rich Democrats advocate higher taxes?

Because they can afford to pay the increased taxes and want to help the government and the people? A poor person voting to cut taxes for the wealthy is either clueless or is deluded into thinking he or she is a Temporarily Embarassed Millionaire. The only thing that trickles down from the wealthy is contempt and urine. It'd be like Jews in the 1930s voting to ghetto themselves.

[Northern Davincia]

Why is it that rich Democrats advocate higher taxes?

Because they can afford to pay the increased taxes and want to help the government and the people? A poor person voting to cut taxes for the wealthy is either clueless or is deluded into thinking he or she is a Temporarily Embarassed Millionaire. The only thing that trickles down from the wealthy is contempt and urine. It'd be like Jews in the 1930s voting to ghetto themselves.

Have you considered that high taxes eliminate competition for large corporations and that might be a reason why rich people flock to the Democrats?

[Telconi]

Why is it that rich Democrats advocate higher taxes?

Because they can afford to pay the increased taxes and want to help the government and the people? A poor person voting to cut taxes for the wealthy is either clueless or is deluded into thinking he or she is a Temporarily Embarassed Millionaire. The only thing that trickles down from the wealthy is contempt and urine. It'd be like Jews in the 1930s voting to ghetto themselves.

It couldn't possibly be because they also want to help the government and the people too right? Clearly delusions and masochism are the only explanation...

[Petrasylvania]

Things have been cut too far. We ought to be raising taxes right now.

That's the sound of voters flocking to the other party.

Tragedy of the Commons. Nobody wants to pay taxes and as long as the poor get hit with the brunt of the results they don't give a fuck.

[The Black Forrest]

Because they can afford to pay the increased taxes and want to help the government and the people? A poor person voting to cut taxes for the wealthy is either clueless or is deluded into thinking he or she is a Temporarily Embarassed Millionaire. The only thing that trickles down from the wealthy is contempt and urine. It'd be like Jews in the 1930s voting to ghetto themselves.

It couldn't possibly be because they also want to help the government and the people too right? Clearly delusions and masochism are the only explanation...

Republicans? They do like to talk about it.

[Petrasylvania]

Because they can afford to pay the increased taxes and want to help the government and the people? A poor person voting to cut taxes for the wealthy is either clueless or is deluded into thinking he or she is a Temporarily Embarassed Millionaire. The only thing that trickles down from the wealthy is contempt and urine. It'd be like Jews in the 1930s voting to ghetto themselves.

It couldn't possibly be because they also want to help the government and the people too right? Clearly delusions and masochism are the only explanation...

Helping the government by starving it of operating budget. Only people like you think it's rational.

[Telconi]

It couldn't possibly be because they also want to help the government and the people too right? Clearly delusions and masochism are the only explanation...

Helping the government by starving it of operating budget. Only people like you think it's rational.

I've got enough straw to last through next winter. Thanks anyhow.

[Northern Davincia]

It couldn't possibly be because they also want to help the government and the people too right? Clearly delusions and masochism are the only explanation...

Helping the government by starving it of operating budget. Only people like you think it's rational.

It's teaching the government the meaning of fiscal responsibility. Of course, it's teaching it the hard way, but oh well.
We didn't end up with $20 trillion in debt because the government was starved.

[Ism]

Because they belief it's the governments role to do x, and for that to happen more taxes are needed. Furthermore, they view themselves as being able to spare proportionally greater amounts of money than most without seriously degrading their quality, and perhaps even improving it by paying more taxes, which may help ease social ills. Alternatively/additionally, they may feel it is their duty to pay back into the system that has clearly benefited them greatly. In any case, it is not at all the same situation, and I'm curious as to why you thought they did.

It is the same situation, just as some wealthy people believe that it is the government's role to do 'X' some lower income people believe it's the government's goal to stop doing 'X'. Poor people are just as likely to vote against societal ills as wealthy people, and if they see the welfare system as an Ill of society, they'll vote against it.

You misunderstand, the difference is not in people voting against their interests or along ideological lines, but in voting in a hypocritical manner. The rich liberals, by advocating the rich pay more, are not being hypocritical, but the libertarian, in this case, is essentially denying others what they have benefited from or even needed. That is a hypocritical position to take.

[The Black Forrest]

Helping the government by starving it of operating budget. Only people like you think it's rational.

It's teaching the government the meaning of fiscal responsibility. Of course, it's teaching it the hard way, but oh well.
We didn't end up with $20 trillion in debt because the government was starved.

Hmmm How much of that were those republican wars overseas?

[The East Marches II]

Helping the government by starving it of operating budget. Only people like you think it's rational.

It's teaching the government the meaning of fiscal responsibility. Of course, it's teaching it the hard way, but oh well.
We didn't end up with $20 trillion in debt because the government was starved.

Mr.Hoppe was right about one thing, politicians have no reason to be fiscally responsible.

[Petrasylvania]

Helping the government by starving it of operating budget. Only people like you think it's rational.

It's teaching the government the meaning of fiscal responsibility. Of course, it's teaching it the hard way, but oh well.
We didn't end up with $20 trillion in debt because the government was starved.

Pfft, fiscal responsibility is only something to worry about when a Democrat is President as the off the book spending for the Iraq invasion showed.

[The East Marches II]

It's teaching the government the meaning of fiscal responsibility. Of course, it's teaching it the hard way, but oh well.
We didn't end up with $20 trillion in debt because the government was starved.

Hmmm How much of that were those republican wars overseas?

Uncle Sugar says $1 trillion or so. I suspect the real cost is likely greater but that's not reflected in the government accounting books.

[Telconi]

It is the same situation, just as some wealthy people believe that it is the government's role to do 'X' some lower income people believe it's the government's goal to stop doing 'X'. Poor people are just as likely to vote against societal ills as wealthy people, and if they see the welfare system as an Ill of society, they'll vote against it.

You misunderstand, the difference is not in people voting against their interests or along ideological lines, but in voting in a hypocritical manner. The rich liberals, by advocating the rich pay more, are not being hypocritical, but the libertarian, in this case, is essentially denying others what they have benefited from or even needed. That is a hypocritical position to take.

Wealthy people benefit from low tax rates. A billionaire who advocates higher estate taxes and higher income taxes is likely denying beneficial policies to his posterity. It is the same...

[Northern Davincia]

It's teaching the government the meaning of fiscal responsibility. Of course, it's teaching it the hard way, but oh well.
We didn't end up with $20 trillion in debt because the government was starved.

Hmmm How much of that were those republican wars overseas?

Bipartisan wars, thanks to congress and Obama.

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmm How much of that were those republican wars overseas?

Uncle Sugar says $1 trillion or so. I suspect the real cost is likely greater but that's not reflected in the government accounting books.

Indeed. I remember one soldier saying that much was outsourced. They ate GREAT but lacked for things like body armor and she said there were many Humvee without proper armor.

[Telconi]

Hmmm How much of that were those republican wars overseas?

Bipartisan wars, thanks to congress and Obama.

There's some truth to this, you can't call a conflict that carried on for all eight years of a Democrat's administration a "Republican war".

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmm How much of that were those republican wars overseas?

Bipartisan wars, thanks to congress and Obama.

A republican based war inherited by a democrat. Nice try though.

[Petrasylvania]

Bipartisan wars, thanks to congress and Obama.

A republican based war inherited by a democrat. Nice try though.

Not to mention Republicans conveniently got to bitch at Obama for "spending on the war" because he took Dubya's hidden off the book expenditures and put them ON the books.

[Ism]

You misunderstand, the difference is not in people voting against their interests or along ideological lines, but in voting in a hypocritical manner. The rich liberals, by advocating the rich pay more, are not being hypocritical, but the libertarian, in this case, is essentially denying others what they have benefited from or even needed. That is a hypocritical position to take.

Wealthy people benefit from low tax rates. A billionaire who advocates higher estate taxes and higher income taxes is likely denying beneficial policies to his posterity. It is the same...

Seriously? If you don't see the difference between a billionaire having to pay another few million dollars and a minimum wage worker losing a program that ensures they can survive, if you don't see the difference between someone acknowledging they can easily afford to pay more and someone denying others access to programs they needed then there's no reasoning with you. At least not on this topic.

[Northern Davincia]

Bipartisan wars, thanks to congress and Obama.

A republican based war inherited by a democrat. Nice try though.

Inherited, yes. However, when 40% of House Democrats and a majority of Senate Democrats vote in favor of war, it might not be a completely Republican sin.

[Telconi]

Wealthy people benefit from low tax rates. A billionaire who advocates higher estate taxes and higher income taxes is likely denying beneficial policies to his posterity. It is the same...

Seriously? If you don't see the difference between a billionaire having to pay another few million dollars and a minimum wage worker losing a program that ensures they can survive, if you don't see the difference between someone acknowledging they can easily afford to pay more and someone denying others access to programs they needed then there's no reasoning with you. At least not on this topic.

I do see the difference. But that difference is circumstantial, not categorical. The wealthy man is the one who dives into the swimming hole in July. And the wealthless man is the one who does so in January.

Regardless, I'm simply pointing out that the people who vote in such a fashion do not have I'll will. As incorrect as I think the welfare slashers are, I'm not willing to go down the road on my high horse acting like they're malevolent in intent. Be it for the worse, they are trying to do what they think is right.

[Zjaum]

Hello. My nation is ~a year old. Staunch conservative libertarian, but I never personally registered for the Republican Party. Calvin Coolidge, McKinley a close second. Here for the discussion.