Schock and Awe - Can he be the face of the party?

[Mint]

Did he.. wax his eyebrows? Also nice spray on tan. Really rugged.

[Mint]

In all seriousness, if he's not gay I'll be very surprised.

[Mint]

Hopefully.  The last thing the Republican Party needs is to remain the party of John McCains and George Bushes.  Old is not the way to go, but conservative still is.

That's ironic coming from you.

[Mint]

He doesn't even represent his generation, so...

Relevance?

The relevance is, he's part of the 18 - 29 age group, the group that's really rejecting the GOP party, so even if he becomes the face of the party, it's not like it'll magically shift the young voters' minds because they don't share the same ideologies. And they'll still lose a generation.

Pretty much. Obviously I don't want the Republicans to become full of 'me too' drones like they were during a lot of the Eisenhower-Nixon era. But running people born in the '80s who hold opinions that were dated by then, and expecting them to do better just because of PR, isn't going to help them in the long run.

[Mint]

Hopefully.  The last thing the Republican Party needs is to remain the party of John McCains and George Bushes.  Old is not the way to go, but conservative still is.

That's ironic coming from you.

Why, because of my experience obsession?

Well, that and your actual views.

[Mint]

@ the thought that this generation is always going to hate the GOP. Really, people. Get a grip.

So you're saying the Republican party will eventually change?

No, most of them will become more conservative the older they get and start paying taxes.

The historically low taxes?

'Historically Low'? The only time we had tax rates like the ones you want was 1933-1986. That's a tiny sliver of our history. Especially when you consider we got along fairly well with essentially no income tax until the start of the 20th century.

[Mint]

I think the "historically low" comment implied "since the tax existed," boy wonder.

What tax rates do "I want" again?

50% or greater on the 'wealthy.'

[Mint]

I think the "historically low" comment implied "since the tax existed," boy wonder.

What tax rates do "I want" again?

50% or greater on the 'wealthy.'

After creating additional tax brackets.

Oh yeah, that's so much better.

BTW: What's with the condescension.

[Mint]

I think the "historically low" comment implied "since the tax existed," boy wonder.

What tax rates do "I want" again?

50% or greater on the 'wealthy.'

After creating additional tax brackets.

Oh yeah, that's so much better.

BTW: What's with the condescension.

Creating additional tax brackets makes the system more progressive than it is, which it really isn't. For some of the lower groups it makes sense but the higher it gets it's essentially just a flat tax for a large array of people, regardless.

Less bad for my family, but still not desirable. Plus somehow, higher taxation is never enough for government. It just enables them to spend more. Something like the Clinton years, which were heavily fairly center-right anyway, don't really count.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mint]

Yeah, taxes and spending are too high.

[Mint]

I don't think anyone should have to give the government more than a third of what they earned. Right now when you factor in sales, property, etc. in addition to a 35% income tax it's far more than that in many cases. I don't care that we've had similarly stupid tax rates thanks to you liberals, that's just robbery.

[Mint]

Right, anyone that doesn't want >40% of their income gobbled up is a right wing extremist...

[Mint]

I don't think anyone should have to give the government more than a third of what they earned. Right now when you factor in sales, property, etc. in addition to a 35% income tax it's far more than that in many cases. I don't care that we've had similarly stupid tax rates thanks to you liberals, that's just robbery.

Robbery that in turn will probably benefit everyone(at least with education, infrastructure and research). I am not going to try and argue that they aren't high but the rich can afford to pay higher taxes while those at the bottom cannot.

I don't necessarily think more spending is the answer to all of those things, especially education where we've consistently spent more since the '80s only to see continued deterioration. And who exactly is 'rich' according to you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems to be the case regardless of which party dominates, generally speaking. Now perhaps the situation would be improved with a Democrat in office and a Republican Congress as we saw before, but overall raising taxes to mitigate spending... just results in more spending. Note the trends in the 'Liberal Consensus' (1933-1973). Many of the worst deficits were when we had the highest tax rate, although that's explainable in part due to the depression resulting in lower tax receipts.

[Mint]

Why not just make a flat tax rate of about 20%-30% across the board?

30% would kill a lot of families. I'm not that opposed to something like a 15% flat tax (at least in theory), but we'd need massive cuts in military spending, entitlements, etc. to sustain one. Ones which aren't happening barring something like a government default or some other crisis.

[Mint]

@ the thought that this generation is always going to hate the GOP. Really, people. Get a grip.

So you're saying the Republican party will eventually change?

Or that people might change! Imagine that! Young people not always feeling the same way throughout life!

Not every election will be like 2008 forever.

[Mint]

Because, as everyone knows, the slow and gradual trend over the years leading to now is the equivalent of radical social movements of the 60s.

The thing is, the radicalism of the baby boomers is vastly exaggerated. Groups like College Republicans actually had very high membership rates in the '60s, for example. We just remember the vocal minority (who, not coincidentally, are in charge of academia now) as opposed to the silent majority.

[Mint]

Because, as everyone knows, the slow and gradual trend over the years leading to now is the equivalent of radical social movements of the 60s.

The thing is, the radicalism of the baby boomers is vastly exaggerated. Groups like College Republicans actually had very high membership rates in the '60s, for example. We just remember the vocal minority (who, not coincidentally, are in charge of academia now) as opposed to the silent majority.

Accepting that as the truth for the sake of argument, that doesn't really do much to counter my point, assuming that was your intention.

It's not to counter your point. The reality is that the baby boomers as a whole were never that liberal. Actually, as far as generations go they've been fairly conservative (if idealistic). Let's not forget that the bulk of the evangelical movement, supply side economics, etc. have all been largely baby boomer-driven movements. The 1960s were the way they were not because the boomers as a whole were so much more liberal but because a combination of factors (courts, student movement, vietnam, etc.) all violently coincided together to force change.