Comments on Caveat Suffragator: The Nomination of Harriet Miers

Empty slogans! Go, empty slogans!No more tax cuts ...

2005-10-05T17:19:00.001-04:00

Empty slogans! Go, empty slogans!

No more tax cuts for the rich!
*shouts, screaming*
Cut taxes to 1.5% on everything!
Kill the death tax!
*shouts, screaming*

Go, bananas! Go, go, bananas! (latin club joke)

Empty slogans! Go, empty slogans!No more tax cuts ...

2005-10-05T17:19:00.000-04:00

Empty slogans! Go, empty slogans!

No more tax cuts for the rich!
*shouts, screaming*
Cut taxes to 1.5% on everything!
Kill the death tax!
*shouts, screaming*

Wow, I don't see how you can group Santorum & McCa...

2005-10-04T19:27:00.000-04:00

Wow, I don't see how you can group Santorum & McCain together like that. McCain is an independent minded, honest broker, small-government conservative who I totally respect, and could easily vote for. Santorum, on the other hand, is an extremist religious conservative demagogue who things the government should control any and all societal behavior. If he has a libertarian streak, modern instrumentation is unable to detect it. (Coburn too).

So, who is actually ever said "rich people don't really need their money, therefore, they have no claim to it and ergo, they need to pay more taxes." Besides Hannity, I mean, quoting some non-existent straw man liberal.

Tax policy is all about trade-offs. Cutting taxes for one income bracket means the burden is shifted to others. Billionaires like Warren Buffett pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary or the guy who delivers his mail. To whom does that make sense?? (It doesn't to him!)

It's inarguable that the percentage of the tax burden on the wealthiest 1% of Americans is at it's lowest in 100 years or so, thanks to GWB.

Things like killing the estate tax sound swell in theory, but that just means a larger percentage of the taxes that have to be picked up by the rest of us, or added to the debt. Is cutting that particular $50 billion (or whatever the number is) in annual revenue that big a priority for some reason?

I'd like to see an honest debate about these priorities. Yes, of course it will never actually happen. Bring on the empty slogans, instead!

Yeah, it's the people's money, so why not talk about who is paying what? Not to mention that it's the peoples debt, as well!

Oh, and the states can only add an additional two-...

2005-10-04T10:08:00.000-04:00

Oh, and the states can only add an additional two-and-a-half percent to the tax.

I can't disagree with you much, which bothers me. ...

2005-10-04T10:07:00.000-04:00

I can't disagree with you much, which bothers me. But I will attack two small flanks: this party has to get rid of the hacks and put in the real ideologues; by which I mean to say the people whose sole goal in life is doing things, not electing Republicans with vague promises of doing things. Mike Pence is this type. Santorum/Kyl/McCain are this type. So's Cornyn. So's Coburn.

That, and enough with the "tax cuts for the rich." Should we just throw money at people making $20K a year? The argument of the Left is that rich people don't really need their money, therefore, they have no claim to it and ergo, they need to pay more taxes.

22% national sales tax on all products except for food, non-alcoholic drink, and clothing; abolish the 16th amendment. That, and return to making gross income equal take-home pay and have people pay out their Social Security and other taxes from their gross income. It's not the government's money, folks. It's yours.

I was obviously speaking about the party & the pol...

2005-10-04T09:30:00.000-04:00

I was obviously speaking about the party & the politics of it, not to your personal beliefs. Bush/Rove/Delay, et. al, are clearly Republicans who act conservative when they feel it suits them.

The only big goals that the Republican party has achieved is a lock on the power structure, for now. A fine goal, to be sure, but not exactly ideological.

Why, which goals that the party has achieved were you referring to?
1- Reducing the size of government?
2- A competent, responsible, dignified governing style?
3- Fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets?
4- Tax Cuts for the rich, and increased concentration of power for the wealthiest? (Ok, you got that one!)
5- Knocking down Roe v. Wade?

It’s starting to look like the last one ain’t happenin’ either, unless Pat Robertson’s god takes out Stevens in the next 2 ½ years.

Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave.As to your a/b theoriesa) i...

2005-10-03T22:24:00.000-04:00

Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave.

As to your a/b theories
a) is probably right; he's no stranger to ID politics.
b) a-yep. Unfortunately for the rest of us.

First of all, it's Roe v. Wade; second of all, screw the Republican party, I'm a conservative, especially legally. As the guy on RedState says--"Roe delenda est!"

But I want a Court of Scalia/Thomases. I sure don't want more Brennans or Marshalls, but I could live with them. I really don't want Souters, Kennedys, O'Connors, and other spineless types who not only are legal minimalist but write awful opinions (sweet mystery of human life (AK), expiration dates on Court opinions (SDOC))

I wouldn't mind Rick Santorum being elected President. Brownback, maybe, but I like Santorum. He's not so polished, he's actually a fiscal conservative, etc. That said, I'd rather see a Coburn, a Kyl, or a Mike Pence, with the emphasis on fiscal realism...

Dave, do you honestly believe that any party that achieves its goals is dead?
Is that good for the country, doing nothing to prop up the party.

I've said this a thousand times, I'll say it again. I'm not a Republican who happens to be conservative, I'm a conservative who identifies most closely with the Republican party.

It's hard to fathom why Bush would make such a "un...

2005-10-03T16:51:00.000-04:00

It's hard to fathom why Bush would make such a "unique" choice, but my theories are a) He decided he wanted a woman for whatever reason, and b) he values loyalty above almost all else.

My other working theory, and this encompasses the Roberts choice as well, is that Karl Rove simply doesn't want a Brown/Alito/Luttig/etc. "movement conservative". He believes if Rove v. Wade is tossed aside, it would be bad politically for the future of the Republican party. On that I think he's right.

Mainstream America does not want a court full of Scalia/Thomases. It's a fact that the conservative base gets Republicans elected, but if they ever really got what they wanted, the party would be finished. Those who are more political than ideological, such as Rove clearly get this.

It's a catch-22 for the religous right, especially. The Bush types will pander to the movement with occasional appeals court nominations and empty gestures, but ultimately offer very little to social conservatives. And there is no chance of a true believer Brownback/Santorum type getting elected nationally.

Thank god for that, at least.