Esquire - Your history of the Clinton administration is not quite accurate. You said that Clinton's "tax cut - [resulted in ] a vibrant
economy and balanced budgets in the Clinton years.Clinton is known
for the huge tax INCREASE he pushed through Congress in 1993. Although, he did
reduce taxes for the middle class later on.The credit for that
vibrant economy goes to the active promotion of the Internet as a business tool
by VP Al Gore, which resulted in an explosion of Internet businesses and the dot
com boom.Clinton's tax hike skimmed many billions off the
profits of those high earners, and consequently our nation enjoyed balanced
budgets for several consecutive years.
I watched Cruz's rise here in Texas. He taps into the fears and
resentments of those at risk of being left behind by a changing America. This
is his fuel. But he really has just one over-riding principle: the
aggrandizement of Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz. Personally I've never
been able to shake the feeling that he is the second coming of Joe McCarthy.A few things I do agree with him on: A lifetime ban on lobbying and term
limits. What about one 6-year term for both Senators and Representatives. This
would allow enough time to actually accomplish something and they won't be
spending any time raising money for the next campaign.
"Tax cuts in general are followed by a growth in the economy. Tax burdens
are followed by a shrinking of the economy"Only if you cherry
pick the data.I can certainly understand how cutting the highest tax
rate from 90% to 70% could have the affect of growing the economy. Same with
70% to 50%.It would be much harder to make that case using 39% and
36%.But, answer this. If the 50% tax rate under Reagan was such an
stimulus for the economy, why is 39% such an economy killer?This is
where the logic fails.
@RedShirtMITDespite protestations to the contrary, the conservative
movement has devolved into a cult of personality. Information is only valuable
with regard to the speaker. In the case of the government shutdown, Mr. Cruz
indeed led the way along with his misfit sidekick Mr. Lee to rile up the base of
the Republican party trying to "defund" a legitimately passed ACA. This
was a fruitless attempt at opposing legislation in the name of
"conservatism". There was nothing prudent about the tactic and it caused
billions in missed economic activity. One man? Sure, so was Mao. And Stalin. But
when their followers don't value information for its' own sake, they
become figureheads of a movement. In this case a sad, cringe-inducing movement
of spoiled boomers afraid of progress.
Ted Cruz brings down the house leaving the Tea Party faction howling with
delight at his every utterance. He should enjoy it while it lasts because for
him that’s as good as it’s likely to ever get. He haughtily sneers
at Dole, McCain and Romney but the White House can’t be won without
broader support than Cruz with his abrasive manner is capable of winning.
Gildas,We will always need a tax collection agency (call it what you
will) even with a flat tax. Smaller? Sure. But you will need one for
enforcement.Auditing the Fed is fine as long as it is apolitical.
Too many politicians trying to direct the Fed would make it a total disaster
(yes, worse than whatever you might think it is today).As to term
limits. Yes please. Would I (and everyone else) lose folks I love? Sure. But
a bit more of the citizen servant and far less of the political dynasty seems a
I liked some of the principles mentioned: the Bill of Rights, abolish IRS, Audit
the Fed, honest government etc.I was rather suspicious of the speech
generally though:1. Ted emphasized "the young" but went too
far in calling their parents and grandparents "dead beats". The young
had "a right to a good education", which their parents pay for,
apparently, but it sounded as though he might not approve of Social Security
payments, which parents also paid for.2. He started by throwing out
some buzz words. He was concerned for "single mothers" (unmarried
mothers?), and "Hispanics" (never once addressing the serious problem of
illegal immigration) etc.3. I do not know what he means by a
"flat tax" unless he will specify that the basic exemptions would be
protected, spouse and minor children.4. I do not support "term
limits". We have so few good congressment; I don't want to lose the
few admirable ones.
To "LOU Montana" but why do you blame conservatives for the feeding
frenzy that Liberals go into whenever somebody says that principles are needed
or that Republicans should explain why they are different from Democrats?You also don't sound like you have been paying attention to
Politics over the past 5 years. Conservatives have proposed and passed a lot of
legislation to get things back on track, but have been shot down by the Senate
every time.To "slcdenizen" Ted Cruz didn't take the
country to the brink of default. He is just one person, and 1 person cannot do
anything by themselves in the Senate. If you want to blame anybody, blame Harry
Reid for not getting a budget passed over the past 5 years.To
"vern001" Actually, you are wrong. Just look at the number of Tea-Party
canidates that have spent less than half as much as their rivals, and win
because they explain themselves and are people who live by their principles.
The only principle (if you can call it that) I see in Ted Cruz is the principle
of getting elected to higher office by any means necessary.
Check out Cruz preacher Dad ,mormons will be amazed! Like father like son! Just
google the guy.
From what I can see, Republicans, especially Senator Cruz, don't have much
in the way of principles. They have values, everyone does. But they don't
have principles.Re-read Covey's "Seven Habits" if you
really want to understand the difference.
Once again here's our political problem in a nutshell. Republicans dislike
of Obama is so severe that they refuse to deal in reality. "Business and rich people are doing well. However wages and jobs for the
average person are in decline. Thank you for that Mr. Obama. 5 years now. It is
his and only his economy. 7 trillion added to a debt that began with George
Washington and ended with George Bush at 10 trillion. What has this nation
gotten for that added 7 trillion dollars spent in 5 years? Nothing but more
debt. "First of all it's well documented and indisputable,
the decline in wages for the average person has been on a steady decline since
the 80's. No need to thank Obama for that, try Regan.Secondly
what you got for the 7 trillion is an economy that didn't crash into a
depression. Since the recession spending and the ending of the Iraq war
Obama's spending has pretty much been in line with Bush's.Our tax system is a mess and there's plenty to talk about but without
honesty we get nowhere.
Lilalips,If true then we could cut taxes to 1% and the govt. would
have all the money it could ever use and the economy would be growing at leaps
and bounds forever.Unlikely.Like all things, there is a
@ Lilalips, you are wrong about your tax cut philosophy. Here's why.
Government is not only essential, it is a driver of economic activity,
innovation, research and investment in areas where the private sector, for
various reasons, falls short. If this effort is paid for as fully as possible,
we don't get the double hit of government activity and deficit spending.
Higher taxes (within reason, of course) actually puts more money into the
economy and makes more money avaliable for private investment. This was
abundently shown when President Clinton, in the wake of the Bush I recession,
pushed through a tax cut in 1994. While it caused the Dems to lose control of
the House (a profile in courage, especially for Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky,
the result was a vibrant economy and balanced budgets in the Clinton years.
Funny how this works, right? Sadly, Bush II reversed all of that and we went
back to big deficits and a horrific recession.
It would sure be nice to see the Republicans, especially the Tea Party wing of
Cruz and Lee, lay out their proposals to address some of the country's
issues, with specificity, rather than continuing to take vague potshots aagainst
those who actually govern and deal with the issues in a practical way.
It's really issue to take shots, and quite another thing to execute the
business of governing. And if we ever get any specific proposals from the GOP,
we should overlay them on what they did when they were in power. Is there
consistency? What was the result of the last time they controlled the Executive
branch? In the meantime, Cruz has no credibility, and I think most Republicans
would agree. This is nothing more than feel-good pandering.
The Party of Lincoln once stood for liberty and equality. But we were hijacked
by religious interests who have opposed marriage equality and imposed their
religious beliefs to continue the oppression of some American citizens. The
Grand Old Party used to honor the Founding idea of separation of Church and
State, but the hijackers insist on imposing their brand of religion to the
exclusion of all others into the laws of the land. The Republican Party held the
welfare and prosperity of the Republic as its highest aim once, but now it has
raised partisanship and pettiness to the forefront of its so called values.Principles? Ha! Don't make me laugh.
OneWifeOnly, I was on board for the first couple of sentences, but then you
otherwise demonstrated part of the problem in why people look at Republicans as
only standing "against" things.We need to somehow illustrate
to people that rioting and chanting and emotive reasoning aren't
government. Although we need to cut back on the fish we take from fishers and
give to people not fishing, we need to help those people be fishers
themselves.Instead of letting people pit rich vs. poor, black vs.
white, and male vs. female, we need to highlight the truths we maintain as the
Republican platform: That wealth isn't a zero-sum game, that one's
race is irrelevant next to their character, and that families are more
financially and emotionally stable and beneficial to the state than living in a
world focused entirely around "me, myself, and I".In
addition, there does need to be a level of pragmatism. As much as I support the
values of the tea party, I cringe at the short-sightedness of those who insisted
on voting for Romney's many upsets.
Wow, I got to watch a few out takes of some of the key speakers from yesterday.
They were hilarious and wildly entertaining. CPAC should be a shoe in for best
comedy at next year's Emmy awards. Keep up the good work GOP. It's
refreshing to start off the day with a good laugh and a smile!
The more "principled" (read right-wing) the Republican Party becomes,
the greater the chances that Democrats will pick up seats in Congress in the
next round of elections.Extremism never pays off.
Will somebody please explain how in any way Mr. Cruz is credible on speaking of
principles? He led the charge to push our government to the brink of defaulting
on our national debt and now claims to have done otherwise. If you are going to
do politics in such an erratic and irresponsible fashion, stand by what you do.
That would be considered principled. Still irresponsible and short-sighted, but
Senator Cruz has resurrected the principles which served President Reagan so
well, and which conservatives are preaching. Unfortunately, the last two
generations of Republicans have fallen prey to the notion that they must move to
the left and adopt failed socialist schemes of the Democrats in order to win.
And, instead they have lost. And, our country and future generations have lost
as well.Cruz gets it, and if follow those principles we will be
better off. That does not mean confiscating wealth from those who work, but
enabling those less well off to get better jobs and earn more themselves. To
increase the ability of people to provide for their own needs and desires, not
to shackle them to dependency on government handouts. That means class
mobility, not class warfare.Go Cruz!
OWOSaying "NO" to bad things is in fact a platform. The party of
NO, when the NO is about stopping the runaway train of debt is one of the most
positive platforms coming down the road. As for CEOs getting rich. Have you
noticed that the stock market is still going up. Business and rich people are
doing well. However wages and jobs for the average person are in decline.
Thank you for that Mr. Obama. 5 years now. It is his and only his economy. 7
trillion added to a debt that began with George Washington and ended with George
Bush at 10 trillion. What has this nation gotten for that added 7 trillion
dollars spent in 5 years? Nothing but more debt. When we have a President and
Democrats as bad as they are today, saying NO to more of them is the biggest YES
there is. Sorry, but as things are now in the USA, if the Republicans
don't win big these next two elections and reverse course, our country will
be a 2nd rate nation like all the rest of Europe and other countries.
He is absolutely right. Does anyone who just commented follow history? Tax
cuts in general are followed by a growth in the economy. Tax burdens are
followed by a shrinking of the economy. John Marshall, the first powerful
justice of the Supreme Court, the one who created "judicial review",
said it best. He said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." All
you people out there who think that you can tax your way to prosperity need to
take a hard look at all the countries who have tried to do just that. Right
now, the US is trying to do that. It doesn't work. It never did. That
does not mean we should have NO taxes. Only that it isn't the answer that
will create new jobs and a vibrant, healthy economy.
Once again CPAC meets and does nothing more then throw red meat to the party of
hate. The Republican party is like a bunch of jealous school kids who do nothing
but fight amongst themselves. It is very sad that the Republicans in Washington
as a whole have done nothing but tear down this country. They have spent more
time fighting Obama at every angle they can instead of putting forth valid bills
that would create jobs and build America. They are so worried about creating
wealth for themselves and their already wealthy corporate buddies that they have
no idea who the working class Americans are. Republicans could have beat Obama
if they would have spent more time working and less time hating him.
" We can either choose to keep our head down, to not rock the boat, to not
stand for anything, or we can stand for principle..." But what
principle(s)? Boomers like me would be decimated if Cruz fulfilled his
I love Ted Cruz's speeches. And Palin's. And Mitch walking out on
stage with a gun. Every hour of this conference solidifies the base without
realizing that these things are causing the base to shrink.
Well said, OWO.
Cutting taxes for the wealthy are "principles"?
‘Republicans “got walloped” because they didn’t stand on
principle.’The problem with today’s republicans is that
it doesn’t stand for anything. All I ever hear about is what they stand
against. Republicans hate our current president to such a degree they cannot
even bring themselves to respect the office of the presidency and what it stands
for. Republicans hate our current health care system but are unable to bring
anything better to the table. Republicans cannot see that our current minimum
wage is not a livable wage and that many who works at minimum wage are also on
food stamps and other forms of welfare. This is simply allows the already
wealthy CEOs and shareholders to take more of the corporate profit while the
taxpayer foots the bill. I could create a list a mile long of things
Republicans are against. They need a platform that shows what republicans are