Continuing saga of the Atlas Shrugs Guy.

[Bourne]

I don't know if anybody else has been keeping up with this, but I have to admit that it has become soap operatic, and quite a diversionary good time.

In order:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...t-time/264556/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ed-guy/264564/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...s-back/264588/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ll-say/264612/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ed-guy/264852/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ed-guy/264947/

[walto]

Interesting. I do think that the battle over the soul of the GOP will be between Rand Paul and, maybe Paul Ryan, or somebody even more religious. A libertarian push would appeal to young voters while keeping the high rollers. A tea party push hangs on to the conservative white middle class while also keeping the high rollers. (The 1%ers will take either since both wings are in favor of lower taxes and less regulation of business.)

[jesus marion joseph]

Ha ha! "He built this".

[rollhead]

We talking about the 4:01 marathon runner?

[Bourne]

Interesting. I do think that the battle over the soul of the GOP will be between Rand Paul and, maybe Paul Ryan, or somebody even more religious. A libertarian push would appeal to young voters while keeping the high rollers. A tea party push hangs on to the conservative white middle class while also keeping the high rollers. (The 1%ers will take either since both wings are in favor of lower taxes and less regulation of business.)

I like that scenario if only because either will ensure the continued dwindling of relevance of the Republican Party.

They're in it pretty deep right now.

[jesus marion joseph]

In a way I suppose Rush and Rove and the others are correct; this election may very well mean the end of the Republican party as we know it. None too soon, as far as I'm concerned.

[Bourne]

In a way I suppose Rush and Rove and the others are correct; this election may very well mean the end of the Republican party as we know it. None too soon, as far as I'm concerned.

Nah.

Republicans were saying the same thing about the Democratic Party when Kerry lost an easily winnable election to Bush (as well as the popular vote!). It's not the end, or anywhere near it. But, they are going to have to choose whether or not they are going to continue to let the Religious Right play such a large role in it. Neoconservatives were discredited quickly. Hell, you didn't even see them at the convention. Too much neoconservative foreign policy remains in place, even in the Democratic Party, but now they're going to have to figure out how to lurch a little more towards the center if they want to remain viable. And they will. Somehow.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

In a way I suppose Rush and Rove and the others are correct; this election may very well mean the end of the Republican party as we know it. None too soon, as far as I'm concerned.

As Dolan indicated the same thing was said about the Democratic Party not too long ago, but they're still around.

The teeter totter will continue to go up and down with these two parties until the people have finally had enough.

One can hope and pray both parties end up in the ash heap of history, so that we can have some real changes in this country, but it's not likely to happen any time soon.

[jesus marion joseph]

Well, apparently one Republican senator hasn't gotten the "we hafta' change" memo:


"Johnson's new counterpart from Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate will be Rep. Tammy Baldwn (D-Wis.), who defeated Republican Tommy Thompson.

Johnson said he spoke with Baldwin on Wednesday, and he hopes he they can work together -- just as soon as he explains "facts" about the federal budget to her.

"Hopefully I can sit down and lay out for her my best understanding of the federal budget because they're simply the facts," he said. "Hopefully she'll agree with what the facts are and work toward common sense solutions."

Baldwin has served in Congress since 1999; Johnson took office in 2011. Presumably, Baldwin is already familiar with how the federal budget works. She also double-majored in college in government and mathematics."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2095322.html

She's got a way to shut that stuff down.

[Bourne]

Well, to be fair, the kind of change we're talking about doesn't happen overnight a few days after the election.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Considering we still have the same Prez, The House controlled by the Repubs and the Senate controlled by the Dems it doesn't look like much of anything will change.

[walto]

My prediction is that the Dems will take up the Repub suggestion to put a dollar cap on personal deductions. It's a clever move, since it (a) avoids the particular wrath of the realtor and non-profit lobbies; (b) gets most of its revenue from rich guys, and (c) doesn't require Repubs to vote for increases in marginal tax rates.

The Dems will just have to figure a way to claim it was their idea in the first place (and for all I know, it was).

[Bourne]

Yeah, but walto, you obviously haven't been reading your signature. Why on earth would you want taxes raised? Let's lower the top margin and really make them rich folks suffer!!!

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

gets most of its revenue from rich guys

The federal government already gets the vast majority of its money from rich guys. The rest it prints out of thin air.

[Bourne]

Yeah, getting the most money from the richest folks is an abomination. It's akin to getting most of your groceries from a grocery store.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

I was just correcting the false assertion made by Walter: That the rich don't already pay a vast majority of the taxes that fund the socialist state.

[walto]

I was just correcting the false assertion made by Walter: That the rich don't already pay a vast majority of the taxes that fund the socialist state.

Where, my little Fox-spouting numnutz, did I make this "false assertion" exactly?

[RBS]

Until the Republican party understands that the minorities are slowly becoming the majority, that more and more people are accepting of gays, that God doesn't "hate fags," that we actually are already a Socialist country (taxes going to the public welfare: highways, police, firefighters, public schools, etc.), and that the majority is in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire and that we don't really have a Muslim American-hating President, they are going to do away with themselves and won't rise out of the ashes like a phoenix. Which is fine by me.

[Bourne]

The Bush tax cuts were set to expire in 2010.

What happened?

And where was this "majority" then?

[RBS]

Obama felt like it wasn't a good time to do it for whatever reasons he had at the time. The truth is, it didn't become a major issue until the past year when it was brought more to the forefront.

[Bourne]

No, that's not the "truth".

The truth is that was when it was finally brought to your attention.

The Bush tax cuts have always been a big issue. They didn't magically cease to be a big issue in 2010 when they were extended. That's just the Democratic amnesia talking.

[RBS]

How long do you think they've been a big issue? Do you think they became a bigger issue the last couple of years?

[Bourne]

They've been a big issue from the beginning. Increasing spending while cutting taxes is about as smart as maxing out your credit card while taking a pay cut.

[jesus marion joseph]

That's not smart? Crap.

[RBS]

Damn. I better stop spending so much.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Damn. I better stop spending so much.

If Congress would think the same way we wouldn't be in this mess.

[crawjo]

If Washington had ended the Bush tax cuts and cut spending a year or two years ago it would have been very bad for the recovery. Check out how Britain has been doing since trying to implement austerity measures: unemployment higher, the economy back in recession, the deficit larger than it was to begin with.

[clinthopson]

The economy is going to do what it does, up and down, regardless of the politicians, taxes or the phase of the moon.

[Bourne]

Thank you, Hoppy. Taxes have next to nothing to do with the economy. What they do have to do with is all of our monstrous debt which will come due some day when someone like China decides we've hit our credit card limit.

But, if it makes Democrats feel better to think tax cuts are "necessary because of the economy" then who am I to argue with such airtight logic?

[crawjo]

Thank you, Hoppy. Taxes have next to nothing to do with the economy. What they do have to do with is all of our monstrous debt which will come due some day when someone like China decides we've hit our credit card limit.

But, if it makes Democrats feel better to think tax cuts are "necessary because of the economy" then who am I to argue with such airtight logic?

There is no logic in this post, none. Just a bunch of recycled talking points that have nothing to do with the issue. If you think raising taxes has NO effect on the economy, if you think cutting spending has NO effect on the economy, then you are badly uninformed.