PHILLIPS: The last days of the Republ...

PHILLIPS: The last days of the Republican Party

There are 2202 comments on the Washington Times story from Oct 12, 2013, titled PHILLIPS: The last days of the Republican Party. In it, Washington Times reports that:

The Republican Party saved the Union and abolished slavery. The Republican Party stood against Franklin Roosevelt's internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and against Jim Crow laws in the 50's.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Times.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#482 Oct 19, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no way a shrinking economy could maintain the public employee spending that most European countries, thats true , However the political sustainability of a large scale austerity, that are installed in one big gulp is clear as well. In addition to social disorder the economies of Greece ect..haven't responded positively and the original IMF plans were restructured.
Sheeple's willingness to see 1\3 of the budget sliced off in a single stroke would in my opinion cause more problems than it solves, in addition it will slow the economy (in the short term) causing deeper cuts.
What sheeple's plan lacks is a somewhat longer window. It's second flaw is the lack of new revenue. In my opinion cuts alone are not politically sellable with no revenue. The additional revenue would also enable shallower cuts.
The need for new revenue is recognized by people with impeccable anti-tax pedigrees'. Going through Barron's I came upon an article by David Stockman Reagan's omb director his tax proposal is eye opening.
http://blogs.barrons.com/penta/2013/10/11/dav...
i am sure we can effectively reduce our gov't administration budget by one third. not all in one swipe, but through a careful analysis of our needs and inefficiencies. again, the facts clearly show that many businesses have done this, the gov't is no different in this regard.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#483 Oct 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither will ever happen, so I'll continue to dream about a REAL balanced budget.
In reality our debt will continue to climb past $20 trillion, then $30 trillion, etc, until everything eventually collapses.
Then we'll have no choice but to start over from scratch.
It's gonna suck bigtime, but that's where we're headed and nothing can stop it now.
you might enjoy this. It is David Stockman in Barrons. his point of view on taxes is an eye opener

http://blogs.barrons.com/penta/2013/10/11/dav...

if you combine his tax ideas and budget cuts ,not as large as your recommendations,...you could have a formula that puts us on a reasonably sustainable path

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#484 Oct 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i am sure we can effectively reduce our gov't administration budget by one third. not all in one swipe, but through a careful analysis of our needs and inefficiencies. again, the facts clearly show that many businesses have done this, the gov't is no different in this regard.
I never said it couldn't be done ...in one year was my objection.
I am sure we can reduce the 1\3 goal could be a difficult target. The addition of some new revenue will make selling cuts possible and shallower
The idea of there being only painless cuts, waste administrative costs is self deception the cuts will hit every area of government .
Cutting back on our military presence in Europe and Japan will be needed, but defeating the military -industrial complex won't be easy
Cutting the total cost of entitlements without injuring the poorest most vulnerable is a trick that we haven't even begun to figure out
It is a tough bit of math to come up with a balanced budget and a much tougher bit of politics
Chicopee

New Fairfield, CT

#485 Oct 19, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and in EVERY one, they SC stated that Americans have a freedom FROM religion. Every single ruling.
<quoted text>
The difference is that you weren't forced to participate.
The pilgrims fled religious tyranny. Europe had several state controlled religions that citizens were forced to support and participate in. They drafted our earliest laws to prevent such nonsense.
<quoted text>
That's a shame, I live in a world where people attack others because of their religious beliefs. Wishing we could all get along is fantasy. I have no tolerance for those who believe their religion is the only correct one.
The Pilgrims fled England and the Church of England under the rule of King James, first by going to Amsterdam and eventually, here.

What they were fleeing was persecution, fines and jail for practicing their own version of religion rather than the 'state' mandated one, which was 'purified' not to include idoltry, sacraments and popery...basically, all things that were man made and not included in scripture, like stained glass windows, statuary and symbols, communion, marriage, last rights, etc.

They didn't come to escape religion, but for the freedom to practice the faith of their choice without persecution, just as a group of English Catholics did when they flocked to the Chesapeake Bay area to escape persecution, where they were joined by a group of Quakers who wanted the same thing.

That is what is embodied in the 1st Amendment. No state religion. No government sanctioned/endorsed religion. No tithing in the form of taxes. The freedom to practice any faith of choice without persecution or prejudice.

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#486 Oct 20, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Entitlement reform of some type is comming. It's inevitability has to be presented as shared burden,to fail to do so would risk the stalemate that would be unproductive. To make any cuts to entitlements possible, politically...you will need to offer a shared sacrifice..
the other thing that will be required is a bi-partisan sober look at our security arraignments. How many bases in Europe does it take to prevent the Red Army from storming the 'Fulda gap'?
how many above that represents a welfare program for our allies and our defense contractors?
How much do we sacrifice in civil libratarian terms for the above?
The issue with cutting the defense budget is lost skilled labor that come with defense industry cuts. Once they let these people go, they maybe difficult to replace in a time of war.

Since: Mar 08

Allentown, PA

#487 Oct 20, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it couldn't be done ...in one year was my objection.
I am sure we can reduce the 1\3 goal could be a difficult target. The addition of some new revenue will make selling cuts possible and shallower
The idea of there being only painless cuts, waste administrative costs is self deception the cuts will hit every area of government .
Cutting back on our military presence in Europe and Japan will be needed, but defeating the military -industrial complex won't be easy
Cutting the total cost of entitlements without injuring the poorest most vulnerable is a trick that we haven't even begun to figure out
It is a tough bit of math to come up with a balanced budget and a much tougher bit of politics
Maybe if the government sent an itemized bill to every tax payer, they would see where the money goes.
.
A good example would be illegal "immigrants". If you see a line item with cost per taxpayer, people might take a greater interest.
.
If higher income individuals had seen on their bill: Your portion of the annual charge for benefits for illegal immigrants-$20,000.00, some may see how much their liberality actually costs them.
.
Depending on which economist you read and how they handle debt, I have heard estimates as high as $90 trillion dollars debt for the United States.
.
I would suggest a good first step to reducing the deficit is the elimination of the local and state tax deduction on the federal form. This will force taxpayers to deal with their state tax burden and end the federal government subsidizing local & state expenses.
2 posts removed

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#490 Oct 20, 2013
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue with cutting the defense budget is lost skilled labor that come with defense industry cuts. Once they let these people go, they maybe difficult to replace in a time of war.
One of the primary reasons that the Soviet Union fell was that Reagan suckered them into an arms race that they had no way of winning... As they diverted more and more resources to the military the rest of their society went to hell. They ran unsustainably high budgets and were suckered into over extending themselves politically as well..
At least the Soviet leadership had an enemy capable of defeating them that justified their efforts to keep up. Our budget has about 1\2 of the worlds expenditures on defense. 1\2 of the remaining half are our allies...If we spend our selves into a grave right next to the one the Soviet Union lies in it would be the stupidest demise of an empire in world history.
Our problem is not the lack of a military industrial base but of a civilian industrial base.
The civilian industrial base can be converted in time of emergency. If we had a war now, with China. We would run into a spare parts problem because of what we have contracted to China. With out a solid industrial base to convert we can't make that up quickly

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#491 Oct 20, 2013
LookingToEscape wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe if the government sent an itemized bill to every tax payer, they would see where the money goes.
.
A good example would be illegal "immigrants". If you see a line item with cost per taxpayer, people might take a greater interest.
.
If higher income individuals had seen on their bill: Your portion of the annual charge for benefits for illegal immigrants-$20,000.00, some may see how much their liberality actually costs them.
.
Depending on which economist you read and how they handle debt, I have heard estimates as high as $90 trillion dollars debt for the United States.
.
I would suggest a good first step to reducing the deficit is the elimination of the local and state tax deduction on the federal form. This will force taxpayers to deal with their state tax burden and end the federal government subsidizing local & state expenses.
I would be in favor of eliminating every deduction except for ..first home...charitable donations and the earned income credit. And use the money saved to reduce the marginal tax rates.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#492 Oct 20, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it couldn't be done ...in one year was my objection.
I am sure we can reduce the 1\3 goal could be a difficult target. The addition of some new revenue will make selling cuts possible and shallower
The idea of there being only painless cuts, waste administrative costs is self deception the cuts will hit every area of government .
Cutting back on our military presence in Europe and Japan will be needed, but defeating the military -industrial complex won't be easy
Cutting the total cost of entitlements without injuring the poorest most vulnerable is a trick that we haven't even begun to figure out
It is a tough bit of math to come up with a balanced budget and a much tougher bit of politics
yes, revenue increases would be a part of any sane budget reduction plan.

FYI, it is the military/ industrial/ congressional complex. this is what Ike wanted to say in his speech, but was 'advised' to take out the congressional part... the former two cannot function without the funding from the latter.

[email protected]

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#493 Oct 20, 2013
Very interesting exchange of ideals so far, I am really enjoying this discussion.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#494 Oct 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, revenue increases would be a part of any sane budget reduction plan.
FYI, it is the military/ industrial/ congressional complex. this is what Ike wanted to say in his speech, but was 'advised' to take out the congressional part... the former two cannot function without the funding from the latter.
I wasn't aware of that detail but..it is an excellent point on Ike and his speech. Being dead on correct is hard to be, Ike knew what he was talking about and like you, most people could read between those lines...
Stilll the speech would have been better if that line was spoken

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#495 Oct 20, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
Very interesting exchange of ideals so far, I am really enjoying this discussion.
Chip in your two cents anytime you feel like...

How quickly and deeply can budgets be cut?
taxes be increased?

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#496 Oct 20, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
Very interesting exchange of ideals so far, I am really enjoying this discussion.
Wait untill Le Dumbo rejoins the discussion and get back to us.

[email protected]

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#497 Oct 20, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Chip in your two cents anytime you feel like...
How quickly and deeply can budgets be cut?
taxes be increased?
I will when I have my source material at hand. I am in New York on business and left my debate computer at home. But in a nutshell.

Find inefficiency in programs, systems, and personnel in the federal budget before cuts are made. Cutting without knowing what the real budget should be will clear up any unfair cuts to a program or agency that will need it. Means testing entitlements, reform parts of the tax code, tariff system to protect our workers from being trade sunk by China. Cut the defense Budget.

But both Taxes and Cuts are going to have to be done over time, perhaps 5 years as a slow roll out.

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#498 Oct 20, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
I will when I have my source material at hand. I am in New York on business and left my debate computer at home. But in a nutshell.
Find inefficiency in programs, systems, and personnel in the federal budget before cuts are made. Cutting without knowing what the real budget should be will clear up any unfair cuts to a program or agency that will need it. Means testing entitlements, reform parts of the tax code, tariff system to protect our workers from being trade sunk by China. Cut the defense Budget.
But both Taxes and Cuts are going to have to be done over time, perhaps 5 years as a slow roll out.
In general I find that an agreeable statement .
I rather had you figured to be a moderate on budget issues.
I believe you are correct in the assumption that a broad ax budget cutting approach is apt to be too severe and destructive also I really do not believe that budget cuts are sellable with out new revenue..coming off of the top of the economy...earlier in the discussion (yesterday) I had referred to a Barrons article written by David Stockman..'Soak the rich'...Stockman's tax recommendation is an eye opener.
I look forward to the day when you can apply your full weight to the discussion

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#499 Oct 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Govt not functioning like private citizens is a BIG part of the problem.
Cut EVERY program besides social security, medicare & pension obligations by 1/3rd IMMEDIATELY.
Cut defense spending by an additional 50% immediately.
Close all overseas bases immediately or charge the host country for the security we provide.
Eliminate 100% of foreign aid immediately.
Eliminate 100% of tax breaks to corporations.
Eliminate 100% of tax breaks to individuals making over $1 million.
Eliminate 1/2 of those 800,000 non-essential employees.
Cut Congressional pay to the average wage in America-$35k/yr, and tie it permanently to that. Eliminate their lifetime pensions & lifetime healthcare. Make Congress the part-time job it was intended to be.
That's a good start.
1) It is impossible for a government to function like a business, let alone like a citizen. Impossible, that is why none do.

2)Which programs do you cut?

3) Which departments do you eliminate?

4) Which branch of the military did you serve with? As you are advocating cost reductions, this is relevant.

5) How do you eliminate foreign aid to places that require it for us to have military bases there?

6) If corporations see their tax breaks removed, they will likely take their productions/facilities abroad. We already see that in Ireland and several Caribbean nations.

7) I and my wife are in the highest tax bracket, thanks largely to her career. We do not make over $1 million but are very close to it. Why should I have my tax breaks removed when we pay nearly 40% now? How many employees do you have?

8) Eliminating those 'non-essential' employees merely adds to the welfare and Medicaid ranks. You are trading one expense for another and creating dependents upon an over taxed system.

I await your reply.

“THE LEFT IS ATTEMPTING A COUP”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#500 Oct 20, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
<quoted text>
18B??? That's it?, damn and here I thought you was going to be impressive when you revealed your MOS.
All my dreams have been dashed aside, I thought I was debating a real life Rambo.
You don't know what an 18B is do you?

“THE LEFT IS ATTEMPTING A COUP”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#501 Oct 20, 2013
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, anti-law and anti-logic.
Worry about yourself not a woman's uterus.
When women learn to reproduce on their own, then men will shut up!

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#502 Oct 20, 2013
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
The Pilgrims fled England and the Church of England under the rule of King James, first by going to Amsterdam and eventually, here.
Some of the first pilgrims were Dutch. Regardless, you agreed with my statement.
What they were fleeing was persecution, fines and jail for practicing their own version of religion rather than the 'state' mandated one, which was 'purified' not to include idoltry, sacraments and popery...basically, all things that were man made and not included in scripture, like stained glass windows, statuary and symbols, communion, marriage, last rights, etc.
They also fled the mandated taxation for that church. They were not allowed to freely practice their faith and could not marry in it. They were forced to baptize children into the state mandated religious program. That is why they sought freedom FROM such in the new world.
They didn't come to escape religion, but for the freedom to practice the faith of their choice without persecution, just as a group of English Catholics did when they flocked to the Chesapeake Bay area to escape persecution, where they were joined by a group of Quakers who wanted the same thing.
It almost hurts to read your sentence structure. Please limit sentences to one subject.

You are mistaken about their flight. The pilgrims sought a place where the government did not force upon them a faith practice.
That is what is embodied in the 1st Amendment. No state religion. No government sanctioned/endorsed religion. No tithing in the form of taxes. The freedom to practice any faith of choice without persecution or prejudice.
Agreed. That is why the Supreme Court stated numerous times that the First Amendment involved Freedom FROM religion.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#503 Oct 20, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
you might enjoy this. It is David Stockman in Barrons. his point of view on taxes is an eye opener
http://blogs.barrons.com/penta/2013/10/11/dav...
if you combine his tax ideas and budget cuts ,not as large as your recommendations,...you could have a formula that puts us on a reasonably sustainable path
And even he admits it'll never happen.

We just gave away another $1.6 billion to Pakistan.

Drip, drip, drip.....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Could Democrats take the Senate? The odds are a... 2 min CZars_R_US 6
News Kate McKinnon sidesteps politics in the Emmys p... 2 min fingers mcgurke 4
News Hillary Clinton Won't Rule Out Questioning The ... 3 min fingers mcgurke 8
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 3 min Bobby Bobson 30,607
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Reader 289,075
News Monument madness a leftist cover to crumble Ame... 6 min californio 1,167
News Trump Confidante Rejects Any Collusion In Russi... 6 min Mick 3
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Cheech the Conser... 1,599,763
News DACA recipients question future 25 min sesostrus 170
More from around the web