How Conservatism Killed The GOP

[Revere]

Indeed, Riedl acknowledges, “Yes, the 2001/2003 tax cuts played some role in keeping revenues below their historical average for most of the 2000s, but the country was also recovering from a recession at that time, too.” This makes my point: that McConnell is wrong in contending “there’s no evidence whatsoever” that the tax cuts diminished revenue.

PostPartisan - Did the Bush tax cuts reduce revenue? Of course.

Models and historical averages are bogus.

They are fudged by people who want to make a particular point. "Health care savings," to wit.

Revenues increased. Period.

most? nice way of avoiding the topic. deflect and run away

No, the entire, weak premise of your argument are "models."

How did the Obamacare "models" work out?

 

[Trajan]

How The Conservatism Killed The GOP

1. If the GOP of today were the GOP of our fathers and grandfathers, all of us would be better off. The GOP of old had great liberals in it's ranks. Most all the great past achievements the GOP crows about today were liberal ideas made policy and law.

2) Over the past 3 or 4 decades the conservatives in the GOP have chased out most every liberal in it's midst. They no longer have a voice representing the people. They have a voice representing the conservative fringe.

3) Today the conservative Tea Party movement is looking to finish the job started in seriousness under the reign of Ronald Reagan, the great communicator who rarely kept a campaign promise.


The GOP is not longer great or grand.

it's the social conservatives, imo.

Mostly, but who started to use them to rebuild a base? After the conservative racists left the DNC for a seat of power in the GOP, they felt more comfortable recruiting the social cons in the churches and dark alleyways of America life

talk about boring, if that's your game spare me, which apparently all your position amounts too, I can watch any network and get that dreck.... talk about glib and intellectually bankrupt...sheesh.

 

[The T]

Models and historical averages are bogus.

They are fudged by people who want to make a particular point. "Health care savings," to wit.

Revenues increased. Period.

most? nice way of avoiding the topic. deflect and run away

No, the entire, weak premise of your argument are "models."

How did the Obamacare "models" work out?

Why can't we ask those that remain umemployed due to his and the Statist Congress? I'm sure they'll sink this silly thread and it's OP with it.

 

[Revere]

most? nice way of avoiding the topic. deflect and run away

No, the entire, weak premise of your argument are "models."

How did the Obamacare "models" work out?

Why can't we ask those that remain umemployed due to his and the Statist Congress? I'm sure they'll sink this silly thread and it's OP with it.

Yeah, I forgot the "8% unemployment under stimulus" model.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm healthy, I don't need meds.

I can't wait to read another thread made by a liberal talking about what the TPM is or what the GOP is... Or better who should or is going to run as a Republican in 2012.

Does your "side" suck so bad this year that we have waht, 5 threads like this on the first page everyday now?

grow up.


and then eat shit.

Uhh, ok... Awesome "comeback" dood. How about you realize you represent a dinosaur, outdated and failed version of how Governments role in people lives.

Nope, dishwater, your way is the outdated unacceptable model for the 21st century.

 

[Urkie]

The GOP was a losing, regional party when it was dominated by liberals, or moderates.

2007-2010.

Good riddance.

LOL...the Republican party hasn't changed at all. If you actually believe that then you must believe all the propoganda thrown your way.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Models and historical averages are bogus.

They are fudged by people who want to make a particular point. "Health care savings," to wit.

Revenues increased. Period.

nope. the health care savings arguments are all based on things unknown, not proven.

discussions on the budgets are all about things known.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Umm. . . McConnell? McCain? Boehner? Most of the ranking GOP shadow chairman of the committees in Congress? Are you out of your mind?

 

[Revere]

The GOP was a losing, regional party when it was dominated by liberals, or moderates.

2007-2010.

Good riddance.

LOL...the Republican party hasn't changed at all. If you actually believe that then you must believe all the propoganda thrown your way.

Really? Mike Lee is the same as Bob Bennett? Joe Miller is the same as Lisa Murkowski? Marco Rubio is the same as Charlie Crist?

 

[Revere]

Models and historical averages are bogus.

They are fudged by people who want to make a particular point. "Health care savings," to wit.

Revenues increased. Period.

nope. the health care savings arguments are all based on things unknown, not proven.

discussions on the budgets are all about things known.

Same difference. Bogus projections with a political endgame in mind.

What were "models" made on September 10th, 2001 worth?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the answer is indisputable: the tax cuts did their intended job of returning money to taxpayers. The government took in less than it would have otherwise.

How do I know? Brian Riedl said so. Riedl found that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were responsible for “just 14 percent of the swing from the projected cumulative $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002-2011 to an actual $6.1 trillion deficit.”

How much is just 14 percent? Riedl did the math so I don’t have to: $1.7 trillion. Throw in other tax costs -- primarily the annual patching of the Alternative Minimum Tax, made more expensive by the existence of the Bush tax cuts -- and you get another $400 billion. Throw in the extra interest payments caused by the increased debt -- a cost Riedl conveniently omitted -- and you have $377 billion more.

PostPartisan - Did the Bush tax cuts reduce revenue? Of course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The GOP was a losing, regional party when it was dominated by liberals, or moderates.

2007-2010.

Good riddance.

LOL...the Republican party hasn't changed at all. If you actually believe that then you must believe all the propoganda thrown your way.

Really? Mike Lee is the same as Bob Bennett? Joe Miller is the same as Lisa Murkowski? Marco Rubio is the same as Charlie Crist?

They are not Republicans but reactionary wacks. The winners are going to upset the Republican minority in the Senate badly, permitting many GOP senators now to work with the Democrats. If the GOP wins the House, a possibility now, it will be by a very small minority. The wacks will force the caucus much further to the right.

America will say no to that in 2012. Most Americans want a centrist government, period. The Tea Party will not provide that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, just liberals who try to pass themselves off as conservatives by putting both words together.

Don't tell Dante...He's on a roll and on drugs...

I want to know what a conservative liberal is, or is that a liberal conservative.

What are three philosophies that distinguish these people?

It's just liberal word play. This is their attempt to overt from the truth of what a socialist is.
Plain and simple Stalin was a communist who used socialism as his method of control.
Any one who wants socialism is either in it for the control or they do not understand what happens when a central power gains control.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Models and historical averages are bogus.

They are fudged by people who want to make a particular point. "Health care savings," to wit.

Revenues increased. Period.

nope. the health care savings arguments are all based on things unknown, not proven.

discussions on the budgets are all about things known.

Same difference. Bogus projections with a political endgame in mind.

What were "models" made on September 10th, 2001 worth?

Clearly revere does not know about what he pontificates.

 

[Revere]

the answer is indisputable: the tax cuts did their intended job of returning money to taxpayers. The government took in less than it would have otherwise.

How do I know? Brian Riedl said so. Riedl found that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were responsible for “just 14 percent of the swing from the projected cumulative $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002-2011 to an actual $6.1 trillion deficit.”

How much is just 14 percent? Riedl did the math so I don’t have to: $1.7 trillion. Throw in other tax costs -- primarily the annual patching of the Alternative Minimum Tax, made more expensive by the existence of the Bush tax cuts -- and you get another $400 billion. Throw in the extra interest payments caused by the increased debt -- a cost Riedl conveniently omitted -- and you have $377 billion more.

PostPartisan - Did the Bush tax cuts reduce revenue? Of course.

"Otherwise" is speculative bullshit for mental masturbators.

 

[Urkie]

Really? Mike Lee is the same as Bob Bennett? Joe Miller is the same as Lisa Murkowski? Marco Rubio is the same as Charlie Crist?

Still the same buddy. A couple new people but the overall philosophy of the party hasn't changed hardly at all.

And what I really want to know is this...since when did it become conservative to be at war for 10 years and counting?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Listen to the racist woman-hater bigreb pontificate on that which he knows nothing is entertaining.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Models and historical averages are bogus.

They are fudged by people who want to make a particular point. "Health care savings," to wit.

Revenues increased. Period.

nope. the health care savings arguments are all based on things unknown, not proven.

discussions on the budgets are all about things known.

Same difference. Bogus projections with a political endgame in mind.

What were "models" made on September 10th, 2001 worth?

your as bad as the truthers and birthers where every answer raises more questions because you desperately need to challenge results.

You can stay stuck on arguing over models. Fine, but as the author writes: "the tax cuts did their intended job of returning money to taxpayers. The government took in less than it would have otherwise.""
PostPartisan - Did the Bush tax cuts reduce revenue? Of course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the answer is indisputable: the tax cuts did their intended job of returning money to taxpayers. The government took in less than it would have otherwise.

How do I know? Brian Riedl said so. Riedl found that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were responsible for “just 14 percent of the swing from the projected cumulative $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002-2011 to an actual $6.1 trillion deficit.”

How much is just 14 percent? Riedl did the math so I don’t have to: $1.7 trillion. Throw in other tax costs -- primarily the annual patching of the Alternative Minimum Tax, made more expensive by the existence of the Bush tax cuts -- and you get another $400 billion. Throw in the extra interest payments caused by the increased debt -- a cost Riedl conveniently omitted -- and you have $377 billion more.

PostPartisan - Did the Bush tax cuts reduce revenue? Of course.

"Otherwise" is speculative bullshit for mental masturbators.

Revere's bluff was called and his hand is empty. Remember that your mental masturbation, revere, just like your physical, is fun but sterile. You reactionary wacks have offered nothing of worth here. Just sterile thinking.

 

[The T]

Really? Mike Lee is the same as Bob Bennett? Joe Miller is the same as Lisa Murkowski? Marco Rubio is the same as Charlie Crist?

Still the same buddy. A couple new people but the overall philosophy of the party hasn't changed hardly at all.

And what I really want to know is this...since when did it become conservative to be at war for 10 years and counting?

What I want to know is when did preserving Liberty go out of vogue?