Gop Offers These 11 Principles

[Samson]

Here's some help to get you started. To pay off a 17 trillion dollar debt in 25 years, which is considered the length of a generation,

you would have to generate a surplus of 680 billion per year. That's without counting the annual interest on the existing and remaining debt.

Go!

Let's call US Imports $2,000 Billion/year.

To make $680 billion/year, we need a 34% tariff on imports.

Next?

Is that sarcasm?

A tariff increase would be a tax increase. That takes that off the table in any promised Republican plan, because they are promising to cut taxes even more, not raise them.

No a tariff is not an individual tax.

The Republican plan says nothing about tariffs.

Well, first of all the 11 principles in the OP are not a plan, but I think it's fair to look at, for example, the GOP party platform, which at least is a bit closer to being a plan,

and I doubt you will find in that any asterisk where the Republicans point out that they don't consider tariffs taxes.

Nor do I think you will find anywhere a GOP plan to use a massive increase in tariffs as part of a scheme to pay off the debt in a generation.

And they do promise that:

We need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, make government more efficient, and leave the next generation with opportunity, not debt.

You asked, I believe, HOW the goal of paying off the national debt could be accomplished in a generation.

I gave an answer.

You cannot find any evidence that Republicans could not do it with a tariff increase.

 

[Samson]

Here's some help to get you started. To pay off a 17 trillion dollar debt in 25 years, which is considered the length of a generation,

you would have to generate a surplus of 680 billion per year. That's without counting the annual interest on the existing and remaining debt.

Go!

Let's call US Imports $2,000 Billion/year.

To make $680 billion/year, we need a 34% tariff on imports.

Next?

Is that sarcasm?

A tariff increase would be a tax increase. That takes that off the table in any promised Republican plan, because they are promising to cut taxes even more, not raise them.

A. There is nothing in the OP about How Republicans would balance the budget

B. YOU are saying it would be done with increased taxes. You did not say What Kind of Taxes

A tariff is not an individual tax.

The Republican plan says nothing about tariffs.

Tariffs are taxs. that's the bottom line. They increase the cost of consumer goods, so we all end up paying them.

Yes.

So What?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's some help to get you started. To pay off a 17 trillion dollar debt in 25 years, which is considered the length of a generation,

you would have to generate a surplus of 680 billion per year. That's without counting the annual interest on the existing and remaining debt.

Go!

Let's call US Imports $2,000 Billion/year.

To make $680 billion/year, we need a 34% tariff on imports.

Next?

Is that sarcasm?

A tariff increase would be a tax increase. That takes that off the table in any promised Republican plan, because they are promising to cut taxes even more, not raise them.

No a tariff is not an individual tax.

The Republican plan says nothing about tariffs.

Well, first of all the 11 principles in the OP are not a plan, but I think it's fair to look at, for example, the GOP party platform, which at least is a bit closer to being a plan,

and I doubt you will find in that any asterisk where the Republicans point out that they don't consider tariffs taxes.

Nor do I think you will find anywhere a GOP plan to use a massive increase in tariffs as part of a scheme to pay off the debt in a generation.

And they do promise that:

We need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, make government more efficient, and leave the next generation with opportunity, not debt.

You asked, I believe, HOW the goal of paying off the national debt could be accomplished in a generation.

I gave an answer.

You cannot find any evidence that Republicans could not do it with a tariff increase.

I would think that it would have been obvious that I was talking about how the GOP could do it within the framework of their other promises.

 

[Samson]

Let's call US Imports $2,000 Billion/year.

To make $680 billion/year, we need a 34% tariff on imports.

Next?

Is that sarcasm?

A tariff increase would be a tax increase. That takes that off the table in any promised Republican plan, because they are promising to cut taxes even more, not raise them.

No a tariff is not an individual tax.

The Republican plan says nothing about tariffs.

Well, first of all the 11 principles in the OP are not a plan, but I think it's fair to look at, for example, the GOP party platform, which at least is a bit closer to being a plan,

and I doubt you will find in that any asterisk where the Republicans point out that they don't consider tariffs taxes.

Nor do I think you will find anywhere a GOP plan to use a massive increase in tariffs as part of a scheme to pay off the debt in a generation.

And they do promise that:

We need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, make government more efficient, and leave the next generation with opportunity, not debt.

You asked, I believe, HOW the goal of paying off the national debt could be accomplished in a generation.

I gave an answer.

You cannot find any evidence that Republicans could not do it with a tariff increase.

I would think that it would have been obvious that I was talking about how the GOP could do it within the framework of their other promises.

Last I checked, when Bush (the Elder), a REPUBLICAN, said "Read My Lips, No New Taxes," he RAISED TAXES!

Thus, even circumstantial evidence does not exist to support your opinion that the GOP has claimed that their "framework" or "other promises" include not raising tariffs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's some help to get you started. To pay off a 17 trillion dollar debt in 25 years, which is considered the length of a generation,

you would have to generate a surplus of 680 billion per year. That's without counting the annual interest on the existing and remaining debt.

Go!

How did we get to a $17 trillion debt again?

Oh....right...by voting for a Democrat.

Gee.....are all Democrats debt-inducing?

'But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” 'http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html

The lowest annual deficits average for any president in the last 33 years would be Clinton.

You didn't address the issue.

How will the GOP

1. increase defense spending
2. lower taxes
3. balance the budget, and,
4. pay off the debt in 25 years (that's a generation)

as they are claiming they will do in your original post?

If you can't post a feasible path to those promises, you have to admit that your GOP 'principles' are little more than empty unachievable fantasies.

So, try again.

No you'd better "try again."

"as they are claiming they will do in your original post?"

Where does:

1. increase defense spending
2. lower taxes
​

Appear in the OP?

Now you're supporting my other point, i.e., that these 11 'principles' have no substance.

 

[bripat9643]

Is that sarcasm?

A tariff increase would be a tax increase. That takes that off the table in any promised Republican plan, because they are promising to cut taxes even more, not raise them.

No a tariff is not an individual tax.

The Republican plan says nothing about tariffs.

Well, first of all the 11 principles in the OP are not a plan, but I think it's fair to look at, for example, the GOP party platform, which at least is a bit closer to being a plan,

and I doubt you will find in that any asterisk where the Republicans point out that they don't consider tariffs taxes.

Nor do I think you will find anywhere a GOP plan to use a massive increase in tariffs as part of a scheme to pay off the debt in a generation.

And they do promise that:

We need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, make government more efficient, and leave the next generation with opportunity, not debt.

You asked, I believe, HOW the goal of paying off the national debt could be accomplished in a generation.

I gave an answer.

You cannot find any evidence that Republicans could not do it with a tariff increase.

I would think that it would have been obvious that I was talking about how the GOP could do it within the framework of their other promises.

Last I checked, when Bush (the Elder), a REPUBLICAN, said "Read My Lips, No New Taxes," he RAISED TAXES!

Thus, even circumstantial evidence does not exist to support your opinion that the GOP has claimed that their "framework" or "other promises" include not raising tariffs.

Yes it does. Tariffs are taxes.

 

[Samson]

Here's some help to get you started. To pay off a 17 trillion dollar debt in 25 years, which is considered the length of a generation,

you would have to generate a surplus of 680 billion per year. That's without counting the annual interest on the existing and remaining debt.

Go!

How did we get to a $17 trillion debt again?

Oh....right...by voting for a Democrat.

Gee.....are all Democrats debt-inducing?

'But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” 'http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html

The lowest annual deficits average for any president in the last 33 years would be Clinton.

You didn't address the issue.

How will the GOP

1. increase defense spending
2. lower taxes
3. balance the budget, and,
4. pay off the debt in 25 years (that's a generation)

as they are claiming they will do in your original post?

If you can't post a feasible path to those promises, you have to admit that your GOP 'principles' are little more than empty unachievable fantasies.

So, try again.

No you'd better "try again."

"as they are claiming they will do in your original post?"

Where does:

1. increase defense spending
2. lower taxes
​

Appear in the OP?

Now you're supporting my other point, i.e., that these 11 'principles' have no substance.

I'm not defending the GOP.

I'm also not trying to place words into the OP that did not appear:

1. increase defense spending
2. lower taxes​

 

[Samson]

No a tariff is not an individual tax.

The Republican plan says nothing about tariffs.

Well, first of all the 11 principles in the OP are not a plan, but I think it's fair to look at, for example, the GOP party platform, which at least is a bit closer to being a plan,

and I doubt you will find in that any asterisk where the Republicans point out that they don't consider tariffs taxes.

Nor do I think you will find anywhere a GOP plan to use a massive increase in tariffs as part of a scheme to pay off the debt in a generation.

And they do promise that:

We need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, make government more efficient, and leave the next generation with opportunity, not debt.

You asked, I believe, HOW the goal of paying off the national debt could be accomplished in a generation.

I gave an answer.

You cannot find any evidence that Republicans could not do it with a tariff increase.

I would think that it would have been obvious that I was talking about how the GOP could do it within the framework of their other promises.

Last I checked, when Bush (the Elder), a REPUBLICAN, said "Read My Lips, No New Taxes," he RAISED TAXES!

Thus, even circumstantial evidence does not exist to support your opinion that the GOP has claimed that their "framework" or "other promises" include not raising tariffs.

Yes it does. Tariffs are taxes.

Yes I know Tariffs are Taxes.

The GOP does not claim that they will not raise tariffs (or Taxes)

In fact, they have raised taxes (please see e.g. Bush)

I have merely used tariffs as one example that the deficit could be paid in a generation according to figures of $2,000 Billion/yr imports and the need to raise $680 Billion over the term of a Generation defined as 25 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, first of all the 11 principles in the OP are not a plan, but I think it's fair to look at, for example, the GOP party platform, which at least is a bit closer to being a plan,

and I doubt you will find in that any asterisk where the Republicans point out that they don't consider tariffs taxes.

Nor do I think you will find anywhere a GOP plan to use a massive increase in tariffs as part of a scheme to pay off the debt in a generation.

And they do promise that:

We need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, make government more efficient, and leave the next generation with opportunity, not debt.

You asked, I believe, HOW the goal of paying off the national debt could be accomplished in a generation.

I gave an answer.

You cannot find any evidence that Republicans could not do it with a tariff increase.

I would think that it would have been obvious that I was talking about how the GOP could do it within the framework of their other promises.

Last I checked, when Bush (the Elder), a REPUBLICAN, said "Read My Lips, No New Taxes," he RAISED TAXES!

Thus, even circumstantial evidence does not exist to support your opinion that the GOP has claimed that their "framework" or "other promises" include not raising tariffs.

Yes it does. Tariffs are taxes.

Yes I know Tariffs are Taxes.

The GOP does not claim that they will not raise tariffs (or Taxes)

In fact, they have raised taxes (please see e.g. Bush)

I have merely used tariffs as one example that the deficit could be paid in a generation according to figures of $2,000 Billion/yr imports and the need to raise $680 Billion over the term of a Generation defined as 25 years.

Since we are dissecting posts word by word, I asked for a 'feasible' plan. A massive tariff increase supported by the Republican Party in sufficient numbers to pass is not 'feasible' by any reasonable measure.

Oh, and this is right from the GOP's 2012 party platform:

"We call for a Constitutional amendment requiring a

super-majority for any tax increase, with exceptions

for only war and national emergencies..."

 

[Samson]

You asked, I believe, HOW the goal of paying off the national debt could be accomplished in a generation.

I gave an answer.

You cannot find any evidence that Republicans could not do it with a tariff increase.

I would think that it would have been obvious that I was talking about how the GOP could do it within the framework of their other promises.

Last I checked, when Bush (the Elder), a REPUBLICAN, said "Read My Lips, No New Taxes," he RAISED TAXES!

Thus, even circumstantial evidence does not exist to support your opinion that the GOP has claimed that their "framework" or "other promises" include not raising tariffs.

Yes it does. Tariffs are taxes.

Yes I know Tariffs are Taxes.

The GOP does not claim that they will not raise tariffs (or Taxes)

In fact, they have raised taxes (please see e.g. Bush)

I have merely used tariffs as one example that the deficit could be paid in a generation according to figures of $2,000 Billion/yr imports and the need to raise $680 Billion over the term of a Generation defined as 25 years.

Since we are dissecting posts word by word, I asked for a 'feasible' plan. A massive tariff increase supported by the Republican Party in sufficient numbers to pass is not 'feasible' by any reasonable measure.

Oh, and this is right from the GOP's 2012 party platform:

"We call for a Constitutional amendment requiring a

super-majority for any tax increase, with exceptions

for only war and national emergencies..."

Too easy:

The deficit a "National Emergency"

Next.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would think that it would have been obvious that I was talking about how the GOP could do it within the framework of their other promises.

Last I checked, when Bush (the Elder), a REPUBLICAN, said "Read My Lips, No New Taxes," he RAISED TAXES!

Thus, even circumstantial evidence does not exist to support your opinion that the GOP has claimed that their "framework" or "other promises" include not raising tariffs.

Yes it does. Tariffs are taxes.

Yes I know Tariffs are Taxes.

The GOP does not claim that they will not raise tariffs (or Taxes)

In fact, they have raised taxes (please see e.g. Bush)

I have merely used tariffs as one example that the deficit could be paid in a generation according to figures of $2,000 Billion/yr imports and the need to raise $680 Billion over the term of a Generation defined as 25 years.

Since we are dissecting posts word by word, I asked for a 'feasible' plan. A massive tariff increase supported by the Republican Party in sufficient numbers to pass is not 'feasible' by any reasonable measure.

Oh, and this is right from the GOP's 2012 party platform:

"We call for a Constitutional amendment requiring a

super-majority for any tax increase, with exceptions

for only war and national emergencies..."

Too easy:

The deficit a "National Emergency"

Next.

So the OP's post is meaningless drivel. The GOP's principles are meaningless drivel. The GOP's platform is meaningless drivel.

So there is no legitimate reason to vote for a Republican based on the party's stated principles, policies, philosophy, beliefs, or promises because none of it means anything.

So the OP is an imbecile for believing otherwise.

Eh?

 

[Samson]

Since we are dissecting posts word by word, I asked for a 'feasible' plan. A massive tariff increase supported by the Republican Party in sufficient numbers to pass is not 'feasible' by any reasonable measure.

I cannot find where you asked for anything "feasible," but I don't mind assuming you did.

Your OPINION is that a tariff proposal would not be "feasible." You may be correct, or you may not: I'm just making a 36% Tariff a possibility to satisfy the "balanced budget within a generation" point in the OP.

 

[Samson]

So the OP is an imbecile for believing otherwise. Eh?

You seriously want me to argue that the OP is not an imbecile?

 

[Joe Steel]

• Poverty: The best anti-poverty program is a strong family and a good job, so our focus should be on getting people out of poverty by lifting up all people and helping them find work.

Platitudes that dodges the problems. The issue is how will you bring jobs to those who need it? How does government enforce strong families?

This issue is that anyone believes the fairy tale that government creates any job outside of the government without creating inflation or raising taxes, both of which erode the benefit of having a job, and creating a "strong family." ...

Taxing the rich to provide jobs for the poor and middle-class is a good thing.

 

[Joe Steel]

...
The government creates millions of jobs outside the government. The entire US Defense Industry is government funded. So is all infrastructure improvements. Can the government stimulate employment through its policies? Of course it can

I guess you missed the part where this "stimulation" comes at a cost.

It does not magically happen. Incidentally, there is also no Santa Claus.

The cost is higher inflation and taxes.
...

Inflation only occurs when an economy is at or near full capacity. In a depression, that isn't the case.

 

[Stephanie]

I like those 11 principles. now if they are SERIOUS and they can sell it.

only time will tell. But I do think the people are READY to get something new in their lives then this UGLY progressive party in there now

 

[NYcarbineer]

All men are created equal......at the time, there was no more liberal thought in the world

Conservatives supported the king....that's where the money was

Why hide behind a stolen appellation?

By now you know very well that the communist/socialist John Dewey glommed on to "Liberal" because of how the electorate caught on to 'socialism.'



In "The World Turned Upside Down," makes clear the difference between the Founders, the classical liberal, today's conservatives, .....

....and you, the Modern Liberal, the socialist, the Marxist....

Study it:

"Classical liberalism, the optimistic doctrine that gave us liberty, democracy, progress, was a moral project. It held that human society could always better itself by encouraging the good and diminishing the bad. It rested, therefore, on a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter.

But the belief that autonomous individuals had the right to make subjective judgment about what was right for them in pursuit of their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness destroyed that understanding. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue."
Melanie Phillips

Classical liberalism is a term invented by conservatives to acknowledge that they are finally accepting liberal principles from 200 years ago

A liberal is a liberal is a liberal

They look at the challenges of their day and develop ways to address them. The fact that conservatives eventually accept it as their faith does not make them liberals

I like you better before I reduced you to a lying low-life.

Why do you guys hide from your real title....'socialist'?

I liked you better before you were reduced to a cut and paste princess

The 'cut and paste' retreat is when you realize that you cannot contend with the content, and attempt to argue against the way facts are presented.

It is rare that any of you Leftists can assemble a cogent argument to rebut my posts. Far more often it is either objections to documentation, e.g., 'cut and paste,' or lies....or, my fav.....when you make the post all about me.

True?

The content of the OP is just another collection of GOP platitudes.-

 

[Joe Steel]

I like those 11 principles. now if they are SERIOUS and they can sell it.

only time will tell. But I do think the people are READY to get something new in their lives then this UGLY progressive party in there now

Anyone can put-up a wish list. The trick is implementing it in the face of determined obstructionists. Just ask The President. He'll tell you how hard it is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the OP is an imbecile for believing otherwise. Eh?

You seriously want me to argue that the OP is not an imbecile?

Yes, but your argument must not contain any of your insights. You must cut and paste other people's opinions only.

And least 1/3rd of them must be virtual unknowns, and another 1/3 must be dead.

 

[bripat9643]

• Poverty: The best anti-poverty program is a strong family and a good job, so our focus should be on getting people out of poverty by lifting up all people and helping them find work.

Platitudes that dodges the problems. The issue is how will you bring jobs to those who need it? How does government enforce strong families?

This issue is that anyone believes the fairy tale that government creates any job outside of the government without creating inflation or raising taxes, both of which erode the benefit of having a job, and creating a "strong family." ...

Taxing the rich to provide jobs for the poor and middle-class is a good thing.

Wrong. It's a bad thing. In the first place, as Obama so emphatically demonstrated, it doesn't work.