The American Spectator

Pete| 11.4.09 @ 3:07PM

In response to some of your statements. Most of us are fed up with the GOP, as well as the democrats. Both parties have pretty much melded into spendthrifts and freedom deniers. The Hoffman campaign was a protest against the business as usual attitude of the party hacks from both major parties. The GOP victories were the result of fed up people, but remember, Christie was elected as "the lesser of two evils" rather than a bona fide conservative. Real conservatism is rising and it's not taking any prisoners to speak of. If the GOP doesn't return to Reaganism, then it will fade into history. That much is clear.

Bob| 11.4.09 @ 4:33PM

Actually, Pete, it is not "conservatism" that is rising, but fiscal responsibility. Obama ran on that theme and "conservatives" are more interested in social issues that fiscal ones if you judge that by their actions and not their words. The tea party movement is tiny and they are not really fiscal conservatives. For example, most of them are seniors who would not give up government run health care (i.e., Medicare). They want less spending but are not willing to give anything up. That is NOT fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility is not spending more than you take in and not cutting taxes BEFORE you cut spending. Be careful on the use of that word "conservatism".

SoCon| 11.4.09 @ 5:19PM

As usual, you're wrong. 40% of Americans self-identify as Conservatives; RINOs comprise half that number. RINOs like you who voted for the Marxist, Obama, have no right to lecture us.

Conservatism is on the ascendancy, you're a dying breed.

Bob| 11.4.09 @ 6:56PM

Wrong again, SoCon. 40% of Americans say they are "conservative", not that they ARE "Conservatives". You can still be conservative and believe in liberal issues. Look closely at the polling.

SoCon| 11.4.09 @ 7:41PM

40% of Americans consider themselves conservative and make up the majority of the republican party. We are on the ascendancy; RINO liberal/moderates like you who voted for Obama are morally bankrupt and are a small minority within the republican party. Sorry, Bob--you're out.

Pete| 11.4.09 @ 6:01PM

Evidently you had your eyes and mind closed on 9-12. There's many young people in the tea party movement and it has to do with fiscal conservatism. Social conservatism goes hand in hand with that. And don't be knocking us seniors... we have paid for medicare and SS all our working lives, now we are going to get stiffed on that as bad as the upcoming generation. We didn't want those programs but those are supposedly being funded by working people ( employees and employers) and not through income tax. That aside, however, conservative means just that..fiscal and social responsibility. If we didn't have all those people having kids out of wedlock, with drug and alcohol problems, or just plain lazy, we could cut spending and taxes.

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 6:35PM

Don't waste your time with 3/5 Bob folks.

In case you didn't know, until recently (last June), 3/5 Bob thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.

He also doesn't know when biological HUMAN life begins because he is not sure when "ensoulment" takes place.

He is a pseudointellectual, ignore him.

JohnD| 11.4.09 @ 4:42PM

B0b, your statement about "not cutting taxes BEFORE you cut spending" is based on the false assumption that cutting tax rates cuts revenue. It doesn't. Cuts in tax rates are followed by increases in revenue. You can look it up. Lower tax rates spur further economic growth that results in more revenue. This happened in the early 80s with the Reagan 1981 tax cuts, and with the Bush 2001-2002 tax cuts. Its a fact. So tax cuts ARE fiscally responsible.

Only if you use the CBO's discredited "Static Budget Model" do higher tax rates result in more revenue. In the real world people who get to keep more of their earnings earn more, and money left in private hands leads to growth in GDP. This is not opinion, its fact.

Bob| 11.4.09 @ 6:59PM

JohnD, you obvious don't look at the data. Here, yet again, is the Heritage Foundation's graph of federal revenues:

http://www.heritage.org/resear.....-1965.aspx

Notice you don't see any increases in revenues other than normal growth when tax cuts are initiated. Where do you get your data????? Please show me an inflation adjusted graph that proves your point. I've been asking for someone to show me that for several months now -- and they cannot.

Pete| 11.4.09 @ 5:16PM

Pete,

As a Pete who has been posting here for some time, I was waiting to see a post of yours with which I didn't agree so I could distance myself...but I haven't seen one yet. Pay no mind to Bob. Perhaps henceforth I shall post as PeteC.

John, prepare for a microscopic scale graph from Bob....

Pete

Pete| 11.4.09 @ 6:03PM

I didn't realize there was another Pete posting under that name. No, keep your old name, I'll post as Pete2. My apologies.

Pete| 11.4.09 @ 6:34PM

No worries.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.4.09 @ 5:57PM

PeteC
I hear you.
I used to post as simply "Old Texican" and some screwball started using my moniker. Evidently the software can discriminate better if you use two names with your e-mail.
Mr. Klein
Darn it it is just so tempting to act like a mardi gra king throwing out cheap goodies to the masses.
ARGGGGGHHHHH!
Maybe this country needed to be brought to it's knees by the communists to learn a very hard lesson.
Learn it the hard way I fear we surely shall.

BD57| 11.4.09 @ 6:03PM

A darn good example of why social cons are so wary of the types who say "the program should emphasize fiscal sanity and national defense and soft-pedal social issues" - given their track record, there's little reason to believe they mean that either.

Social cons will support Republicans who actually behave consistent with the "fiscal responsibility / national defense" ethic. So will "moderates" who truly care about those issues - even if the Republican Party remains "pro life."

Bob| 11.4.09 @ 6:59PM

JohnD, you obvious don't look at the data. Here, yet again, is the Heritage Foundation's graph of federal revenues:

http://www.heritage.org/resear.....-1965.aspx

Notice you don't see any increases in revenues other than normal growth when tax cuts are initiated. Where do you get your data????? Please show me an inflation adjusted graph that proves your point. I've been asking for someone to show me that for several months now -- and they cannot.

Pete2| 11.4.09 @ 7:26PM

I looked at that graph and I saw the point being made. Tax revenues have increased even though rates have been cut. That's because the tax base expanded( jobs, businesses) but not the tax rates. As for inflation, if you look at the numbers for the late 70's,you will see a major increase in revenue, which was inflation generated. After the Reagan tax reform, the inflationary increase moderated while the revenue generated by an expanded tax base increased. That's my impression and I do have some expertise in that. Aside from that, I agree tax cuts without spending cuts will lead to fiscal disaster, as evidenced by Bush's fiscal policies and Obama's reckless spending.

SoCon| 11.4.09 @ 7:45PM

Pete2--lol! I'm a fan of both Petes!

Robert Bell| 11.5.09 @ 8:11AM

JohnD: It's true that dynamic scoring models predict that a $1 cut in taxes predict *less* than a $1 fall in revenues. The only question is whether tax cuts in the range of tax rates present in the U.S. will do that. If you have a reference, I'd like to see it.

In the meantime, I'll listen to Greg Mankiw, because he wrote the textbook I used in school

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/11000.html

Robert Bell| 11.5.09 @ 8:12AM

Sorry, mistyped - the question is whether a $1 cut in taxes leads to a greater than $1 pick up in revenues due to increased economic growth.

Thomas| 11.5.09 @ 10:01AM

I realize that discussing whether Republicans are smaller spendthrifts than Democrats and whether a $1 reduction in taxes will generate more or less than $1 in tax revenue increases is thrilling, but it misses the point. That is unnecessary government spending.

Everyone in Washington does it. Why? Because that is what politicians do, spend OPM. Is it sound fiscal policy? No.

Most Congressmen defend earmarks as being a means of "returning money to the people of their district". While this seems to make sense, wouldn't it be logical to ask why it was necessary to take the money from the people of a Congressional district simply to allow a Congressman to give it back?

Liberals are never happier than when a government is taking someone else's money away from them to give it to another person, especially if it benefits one of their causes. They only become annoyed when it is their money that is being used. Conservatives feel that taking someone's property without their consent is theft and that if you want to give money away, give your own.

Now, politicians, being a crafty lot, have never really changed the way they get elected and remain in office. They have found that the simplest way to retain power is to buy the support of their constituents. It works. At least until the bite gets to be too big. So, as long as you have a class of professional politicians, you will always have to deal with this problem. They will always try to take your money and pend it among their constituents to by their support. Unless the electorate forces them to stop, nothing is going to change significantly, no matter what any politician says.

Roy| 11.5.09 @ 12:06PM

I regard the whole anti-earmark crusade as a fairly symbolic distraction.

In fact, I'll come right out and say it: I LIKE earmarks. Why? Because then, instead of quietly leaning on the Special Assistant Executive Undersecretary for Boondoggles at the Department of Bureaucro-Blather, Hillary Clinton actually has her own name on an amendment to spend OPM on a Woodstock Museum. Now she can be held accountable for it.

Earmark "reform" need not mean elimination, but transparency and accountability.