Texas Republican party releases 2012 platform...you gotta see this to believe it

[Greenday]

Lets give Texas back to mexico.

We can't do that. What we should do is sell it back to Mexico so we can at least make some money.

[crashhelmet]

…

A free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference or subsidies.
…

Except for the Oil Subsidies, right? They'd never want to give those up.

[mikoyan29]

How come the same people that are for unfettered capitalism (or claim they are) are the same people that pass things like the no hands holding law in Tennessee? Well maybe that's not entirely true because there are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Sometimes they are one in the same and sometimes they are not. I think for instance, the Libertarians would support repealling drug laws where the Religious Right folks would not.

And quite honestly, I have no quarrel with fiscal conservatives, as long as they are of the stripe that we should actually pay for what we got. If that means raising taxes, so be it. Where I have a quarrel is with the people who call themselves fiscal conservatives but think that we can achieve fiscal nirvana by merely cutting some spending. But with all the folks signing the tax pledges, I think the first variety of fiscal conservative is a dinosaur.

I love their statement on Executive Orders as Bush was a master of them. I didn't hear them complaining much when Bush was issuing executive orders (or signing statements). and it seems like the time when executive orders come up is when Congress keeps punting on its duties.

[Giggle Goose]

Except for the Oil Subsidies, right? They'd never want to give those up.

Hey now, don't forget farm subsidies for corn and wheat!

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

My only response is...WHY? Why Repeal the very law that means ANY can vote? What POSSIBLE reason could there be for that?

Minorities tend to vote heavily Democratic. Take away their rights to vote and the GOP picks up a big advantage. It's the same theory behind the "Voter ID" laws that have popped up in several states over the last couple of years.

[Nekojin]

Where I have a quarrel is with the people who call themselves fiscal conservatives but think that we can achieve fiscal nirvana by merely cutting some spending. But with all the folks signing the tax pledges, I think the first variety of fiscal conservative is a dinosaur.

We could balance the budget by cutting spending, but if cutting the military is off the table, then there aren't many other places that you can actually cut and actually make a dent in the economy. (And no, Social Security doesn't count - SS still largely pays for itself. People who talk about slashing Social Security because of how much it costs without also mentioning how much SS generates just want it to be a back-door tax)


Chart source
The military, Medicare, and Medicaid are three of the largest standard budgeted items. Also note that the military has had considerable extra "discretionary funding" over the last decade, which isn't usually included in the budget charts (and not included in this one).

* You can't really touch Medicare or Medicaid without effectively committing political suicide. Old people are willing to get out and vote when they think their own welfare is being threatened.

* Social Security is a little less secure, since a lot of the "cut SS!" proposals include keeping the current SS recipients at their current level, and only new SS recipients would be shafted. However, cutting SS payouts without also cutting the SS tax effectively becomes a back-door tax on the working class. If that gets noticed by the rank-and-file, political lynchings will occur.

* Of course, the government could very well prop all of this up by printing more money with which to pay the bills, but that would effectively devalue the $USD, which in turn would cause inflation - and, if they printed enough to make a difference, it'd be a LOT of inflation.

[draco664]

The sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization to natural death.

I suspect that if you pointed out that, by supporting this assertion you are in fact advocating the abolishment of the death penalty, you'd cause more than a few heads to explode...

[mikoyan29]

I was referring to Rand Paul (or whatever the hell his name is) in particular. I believe he is the darling of the Republican Party at the moment because of his "serious" budget. If I recall, his "serious" budget would increase military spending, lower taxes (for the rich mostly), leave Social Security and Medicare alone and pretty much gut everything else. But it wouldn't actually address the deficit for about 30 years...or something like that. I think Romney's plan is similar. So basically it amounts to another shift from the Treasury to their Wall Street buddies and pretty much screws anyone else.

But on the flip side, I think the Democrats are living in a fantasy land if they think they can balance the budget by only increasing taxes on the wealthy.

[Andara Bledin]

But on the flip side, I think the Democrats are living in a fantasy land if they think they can balance the budget by only increasing taxes on the wealthy.

Don't forget that the "wealthy" (the top 20%) currently have about 93% of the wealth... That's a lot of money to draw taxes on.

The poor are legion, but they're fiscal stones; you're not going to squeeze funds out of them. There's a reason the bottom 50% pay only 3% of taxes collected; you can't take what they don't have.

The wealthy are paying the lowest tax rate since the 20's. That's an interesting parallel right there on its own. >_<

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

In a nutshell, Republicans mistake Corporatism for Capitalism and Socialism for Communism.

I'll never understand the military spending. Its so insanely beyond any other country in the world but at the same time the cost is heavily inflated by ineffeciency and stupidity. Even if you just refocused the military spending on effecient defensive spending. Instead of wasting so much money trying to play world sheriff while the higher ups award sweet sweet government money to their favourite defence contractors.

You could have a thriving free health care system, tons of money for urban renewal and transportation development, and an effective social support system without compromising national security in any way. -.-

[mikoyan29]

I'm a military geek but what we spend on defense pisses me off to no end. It never really dawned on me how wasteful we are until I realized that the F-22 was over 20 years in the making. In 1992, I did a presentation in our undergraduate symposium about vortex shedding and I used a model of a YF-22 as a prop. When I heard about the recent troubles with it, it dawned on me that this aircaft has been in development for half my life and they messed up a system that I wouldn't think would be messed up. Also when it was envisioned, we were supposed to get 1,000 for about what we are paying for 200. Don't get me wrong, if the plane works as expected, it will be a world beater but having 1 world beater when your enemy has 10 adequate planes is not a formula for air supremacy.

Just once I would like to see Congress hold a defense contractor's feet to the fire. For that matter, I would like to see them hold any contractor's feet to the fire. The problem is that many of those contractors are very well connected but yet our Supreme Court tells us that the gobs of money in the election process doesn't corrupt.

[draco664]

Don't forget that the "wealthy" (the top 20%) currently have about 93% of the wealth... That's a lot of money to draw taxes on.

I'd be interested in seeing the citation for that 93% stat.

However, most of the wealth in the top is not 'money' but 'value'.

If you own a house worth half a million, you don't have that cash in the bank. It's tied up in the value of the property. Similarly, a company's 'value' is based on its share price. But you can't just say that Mr. Mega-Rich Bastard's hundreds of millions of shares in BigOilCo are worth the cash value of the share price. They can't be all liquidated at that price.

Case in point. The world's richest woman is an Aussie called Gina Rinehart. Her wealth is estimated at 29 billion - due to the fact that she owns major stakes in many mining concerns. Basically, her wealth tripled over the past year because she signed long term contracts and other such things.

Now, she doesn't have 29 billion dollars in a bank account. If she sold every share she had, she wouldn't come close to that amount.

Yes, there is a lot of money owned by the top 20%. But you're dreaming if you think the fiscal problems can be solved just by getting the rich to pay more. If you *confiscated* and liquidated the combined wealth of the rich, you'd be lucky to get a year to two of current spending out of it. Not to mention that such an action would shatter the economy back to something resembling neolithic times.

Spending *has* to be reined in. The US is broke beyond comprehension. You can live like a king while there is space on the credit card, but eventually, the money has to be paid back.

The poor are legion, but they're fiscal stones; you're not going to squeeze funds out of them. There's a reason the bottom 50% pay only 3% of taxes collected; you can't take what they don't have.

They're not just fiscal stones, they're fiscal sponges. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, but more and more people are consuming more resources than they contribute.

[Andara Bledin]

Article at UCSC about wealth distribution

Another article mentions that the lower half of the top 1% makes, after taxes (including income tax), between $15-20k per month. That's what my boyfriend makes, before any taxes, per year.

Also, it's worth noting that most of the top 1% make their money from capital gains, not income; technically, an income tax is unconstitutional (it specifically prohibits a tax on money earned through labor), and they weasel word around that by calling it a "luxury tax" in the codes that set up this iteration of it (the first iteration being struck down as unconstitutional for the above reason).

They're not just fiscal stones, they're fiscal sponges. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, but more and more people are consuming more resources than they contribute.

The vast majority don't have a choice. The job situation is a farce, and the ones holding the purse strings can't wait until they get to go back to, as mentioned above, go back to the neo-fuedal system where they can legally abuse everyone who isn't one of them.

[edit to add]
What's really disgusting is that I am right at the mid-point for income. Now, I admit that I am fairly comfortable, but I'm still really close to dirt poor. I can barely afford to live in my city at all. And I'm doing better than fully half of the entire US. That anybody thinks that is even remotely acceptable is infuriating. We're one of the most powerful, richest nations in the world, and we treat our lower class like shit, to be misused and manipulated to suit the profits of a very few.

^-.-^

[Racket_Man]

Ladies and Gentleman:

Welcome to the Captiol and may the odds be ever in your favor

[Greenday]

Yes, there is a lot of money owned by the top 20%. But you're dreaming if you think the fiscal problems can be solved just by getting the rich to pay more. If you *confiscated* and liquidated the combined wealth of the rich, you'd be lucky to get a year to two of current spending out of it. Not to mention that such an action would shatter the economy back to something resembling neolithic times.

How do you figure?