Republicans Only: What should our Party be?

[Nixon in '80]

Well the phrasing of this question isn't biased at all... regardless, you know my answer, hopefully presented in a less self-aggrandizing way.

Becuase the Republican Party's greatest victories were with politcans like Reagan, and that people will vote Republican in the future because of Reagan not because of a big tent party.

Really that's what alot of populist conservatives use when talking about a bigger tent party.

This is a stupid argument. 58% of the country voted for Reagan in 1984 not because he was a "principled conservative", but because he was an inspiring leader and unifying figure who advocated common sense solutions to the problems of the day.

Similarly, 55% of the electorate voted against Republican House candidates in 2008 not because they were too moderate, but because the party has become a stubborn, divisive monolith which seems to think the only solutions to today's issues are making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, waterboarding, and attempting to contact Ronald Reagan on the Ouija board.

[Nixon in '80]

Similarly, 55% of the electorate voted against Republican House candidates in 2008 not because they were too moderate, but because the party has become a stubborn, divisive monolith which seems to think the only solutions to today's issues are making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, waterboarding, and attempting to contact Ronald Reagan on the Ouija board.

Get real. People vote against this party these days for one major reason: George W. Bush

2008, like 2006, had very little to do with ideology.

Yeah, it obviously wasn't the Bush tax cuts and waterboarding, it was all that stuff people associate with George W. Bush.

[Nixon in '80]

Similarly, 55% of the electorate voted against Republican House candidates in 2008 not because they were too moderate, but because the party has become a stubborn, divisive monolith which seems to think the only solutions to today's issues are making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, waterboarding, and attempting to contact Ronald Reagan on the Ouija board.

Get real. People vote against this party these days for one major reason: George W. Bush

2008, like 2006, had very little to do with ideology.

Yeah, it obviously wasn't the Bush tax cuts and waterboarding, it was all that stuff people associate with George W. Bush.

No, I really don't think it was those issues. I think people still like those tax cuts, my friend.

Not so much what the tax cuts are as what they have done and what they've failed to do...

They were sold as "recession insurance"... what?

Oh, and we have massive budget deficits...

Sure, the main issue is a lack of fiscal restraint, but while it's all well and good to rail against excess spending, the tax cuts, too, were a part of that irresponsibility.

But that's not the issue... I wasn't criticizing the tax cuts, I was criticizing the Republican Party for selling tax cuts as a cure-all for society's ills... also, it was kind of a joke.

I found it quite humorous... especially the bit about the Ouija board... nobody? Screw you guys, I'm going home.

[Nixon in '80]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

Your Party had best learn right quick the difference between economic conservatism of the genuine, Coolidgean variety and supply-side welfareism. One won't drain the treasury.

So instead of letting people keep their money, or giving them their money back directly, or redistributing their money, we should just... take their money, and keep it?

I don't really understand what you're getting at, here... I mean, I support your idea of genuine "low taxes, low spending", but you're saying cutting taxes is equivalent to welfare... in a bad way? If you're advocating a low, flat-tax, I can respect that, but I honestly don't get what you're saying here.

Just, clear this up for me... please.

[Nixon in '80]

A tax cut is still a goddamned hand-out, no better than a welfare check. Ronald Reagan was the biggest welfare-whore this country has ever seen, and you didn't even need to be poor to qualify for welfare checks under him - they were just called 'rebates'.

How is a tax cut a hand-out?  When your taxes are reduced, you get to keep more of the money you've earned.  When you get a welfare check, you get money that other people have earned for you. 

These rebate checks you get aren't actually your money, regardless of what El-Rushbo might tell you. Rather, they come out of the Treasury, and most people get back far too much relative to what they pay in taxes. Supply-side economics is populism for social conservatives, who just can't stomach the idea that their taxes go to support nigrahs.

An authentically conservative government, to the contrary, would focus on eliminating spending: end entitlements, auction off military bases and slash the defense budget, sell off government-owned land and utilities, stop funding to innumerable government programmes, etc. It would then take the money thus saved and place it in a Rainy Day Fund or something similar, for use during an actual catastrophe.

Disregard my earlier post, I completely understand what you're saying now, and for the most part I agree with it.