Why the Hawley hype?

[Saint Milei]

He's an economic populist that targets poor whites. That's a dangerous foe

I don't think he will win in 2024, but Hawley helps build an economic populism that can reach across traditional political divides. Don't underestimate him.

The GOP can't hold its growing working-class support forever without giving up some of its economic libertarianism. Hawley-style populism, if combined with a more Rubio-like approach on immigration, could make headway with the multiracial working class. Especially as Democrats make more concessions to White PMC liberals, they threaten to alienate more culturally traditional groups.

Hawley would be like pete butigieg to blacks

[Saint Milei]

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

The market seeks its own equilibrium, even if at the expense of ten million middle class jobs. Husbands who go home, fight with their wives in front of the kids, turn to drugs in despair, leading the wife to seek a divorce. Meanwhile the schools have lost their tax base, and the kids start hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Throw in the fact that said equilibrium is being skewed by the simple fact that we play by free market rules while China lives by neo-mercantilism, and essentially turning free trade into the unilateral disarmament of the previous cold war.

Anything good can be taken too far and that includes democracy itself. The Constitution was written to reign in "excess of democracy" and that was IIRC, Washington's words in the lead up to the convention. That is why diehard libertarians reject the Constitution as an illegal, reactionary counter coup by authoritarian elites to repress the freedoms won in the revolution, a view I don't share but it is out there.

If democracy and freedom can be taken too far (be it yelling fire in a crowded theater or voting to enslave people because they look different - Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass ftr), then surely capitalism, markets and free trade can be taken too far and need to be reigned in at times.

There is no other outcome to the situation in healthcare drug prices then some form of gov't dictation. Either the left will do it via single payer, or the right can do it as a stand alone regulation as Hawley wants to do. Either way you slice it, people will only stand for this hostage style distorted market (the only way for demand to drop is for bodies to hit the floor so there is no natural restraint on prices). If you think "America's legacy" as a free country will stave off desperate people from seeking redress, the next decade or two is going to be eye opening.

If Conservatives don't adapt to this reality now, they are going to find themselves in the exact same place the New Deal Democrats found themselves in by 1985. Outside looking in, having failed to address the current economic misery.

This is all under the assumption that the U.S. is economically libertarian or even close to it. No radical libertarian on the right would argue this. In fact, no moderate libertarian economically would argue this. It would be a stretch to even say a die-hard fiscal conservative would argue this as well.  The closest instances of the U.S. having libertarian economics were in times where the family was stronger, cultural identity was in greater unison, and religious values remained strong.


If anything, the current situation we are in is exactly because we drifted away from classical liberalism. Libertarianism emerged because of the failures of government to address all the problems government created. Libertarianism became more radical when there was a greater case of businesses working with government to create unfettered corporatism that masked itself as unrestrained capitalism.

[Saint Milei]

I didn't answer the question before, but Hawley has hype because he's culturally conservative and is willing to address the plight of Middle America, while also not coming across as an overly aggressive warhawk. Hawley will run on shifting foreign policy towards China, traditional values, bringing jobs back to middle america, tough on immigration, and criticizing the "failures of capitalism".

How is Haley a juggernaut? Unlike Hawley, DeSantis and Crenshaw she was already in elected office in 2015, and in an important primary state, no less. If she's so great, why didn't she run for president then? By 2024 she will have been out of elected office for nearly a decade. The only thing that's changed in her favor is being appointed UN Ambassador, but if that makes you a juggernaut someone should speak to juggernaut Samantha Power.

She didn’t run because in 2012, she would’ve been a one term Governor who wasn’t well known. In 2016, she continued to not be a big name and she would’ve run against a Senator from her home state and 15 other candidates including fundraising powerhouse JEB Bush, establishment favorite Marco Rubio, Evangelical favorite Ted Cruz, and multiple tell it like it is candidates

In 2024, she has a national brand and many big names including Nick Ayers wants to work for her. Also, is well liked by the establishment and not hated by the grassroots

But why was she not a big name in 2016 but suddenly is in 2024? What has she done in the interim that is so remarkable? And how do we know the field won't be equally crowded in 2024?

She was in the news all the time because she was an ambassador. She's a woman who constantly makes statements that gain a lot of traction. Her support for tearing down confederate statues while also trying to push the GOP in a more racially tolerant direction also makes her attractive. It's not hard to see the difference. Nikki is easily one of the most recognizable figures now. Any kind of publicity is good publicity. She's also done enough to associate herself with the neocon establishment

[Saint Milei]

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

The market seeks its own equilibrium, even if at the expense of ten million middle class jobs. Husbands who go home, fight with their wives in front of the kids, turn to drugs in despair, leading the wife to seek a divorce. Meanwhile the schools have lost their tax base, and the kids start hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Throw in the fact that said equilibrium is being skewed by the simple fact that we play by free market rules while China lives by neo-mercantilism, and essentially turning free trade into the unilateral disarmament of the previous cold war.

Anything good can be taken too far and that includes democracy itself. The Constitution was written to reign in "excess of democracy" and that was IIRC, Washington's words in the lead up to the convention. That is why diehard libertarians reject the Constitution as an illegal, reactionary counter coup by authoritarian elites to repress the freedoms won in the revolution, a view I don't share but it is out there.

If democracy and freedom can be taken too far (be it yelling fire in a crowded theater or voting to enslave people because they look different - Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass ftr), then surely capitalism, markets and free trade can be taken too far and need to be reigned in at times.

There is no other outcome to the situation in healthcare drug prices then some form of gov't dictation. Either the left will do it via single payer, or the right can do it as a stand alone regulation as Hawley wants to do. Either way you slice it, people will only stand for this hostage style distorted market (the only way for demand to drop is for bodies to hit the floor so there is no natural restraint on prices). If you think "America's legacy" as a free country will stave off desperate people from seeking redress, the next decade or two is going to be eye opening.

If Conservatives don't adapt to this reality now, they are going to find themselves in the exact same place the New Deal Democrats found themselves in by 1985. Outside looking in, having failed to address the current economic misery.

This is all under the assumption that the U.S. is economically libertarian or even close to it. No radical libertarian on the right would argue this. In fact, no moderate libertarian economically would argue this. It would be a stretch to even say a die-hard fiscal conservative would argue this as well.  The closest instances of the U.S. having libertarian economics were in times where the family was stronger, cultural identity was in greater unison, and religious values remained strong.


If anything, the current situation we are in is exactly because we drifted away from classical liberalism. Libertarianism emerged because of the failures of government to address all the problems government created. Libertarianism became more radical when there was a greater case of businesses working with government to create unfettered corporatism that masked itself as unrestrained capitalism.

It's not really assuming anything about ideology, though the right does get very libertarian when it comes to resisting proactive preclusion of the growing left-wing tide.

Most people don't view things in an ideological lense, especially issues like drug prices. All they now is prices are rising 12,000% in some cases with no natural restraint on prices other than people dying. Classical liberalism doesn't have a good answer to that.

A classical liberal or a libertarian would point out government enabled the drug prices to rise by working with drug companies. A classical liberal or a libertarian would also point out drug companies lobby for the FDA to heavily regulate competition, resulting in higher prices due to a lack of competition. While this might be hard to sell to some people, it isn't a bad answer or no answer. It's just about wording it the correct way.

[Saint Milei]

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

The market seeks its own equilibrium, even if at the expense of ten million middle class jobs. Husbands who go home, fight with their wives in front of the kids, turn to drugs in despair, leading the wife to seek a divorce. Meanwhile the schools have lost their tax base, and the kids start hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Throw in the fact that said equilibrium is being skewed by the simple fact that we play by free market rules while China lives by neo-mercantilism, and essentially turning free trade into the unilateral disarmament of the previous cold war.

Anything good can be taken too far and that includes democracy itself. The Constitution was written to reign in "excess of democracy" and that was IIRC, Washington's words in the lead up to the convention. That is why diehard libertarians reject the Constitution as an illegal, reactionary counter coup by authoritarian elites to repress the freedoms won in the revolution, a view I don't share but it is out there.

If democracy and freedom can be taken too far (be it yelling fire in a crowded theater or voting to enslave people because they look different - Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass ftr), then surely capitalism, markets and free trade can be taken too far and need to be reigned in at times.

There is no other outcome to the situation in healthcare drug prices then some form of gov't dictation. Either the left will do it via single payer, or the right can do it as a stand alone regulation as Hawley wants to do. Either way you slice it, people will only stand for this hostage style distorted market (the only way for demand to drop is for bodies to hit the floor so there is no natural restraint on prices). If you think "America's legacy" as a free country will stave off desperate people from seeking redress, the next decade or two is going to be eye opening.

If Conservatives don't adapt to this reality now, they are going to find themselves in the exact same place the New Deal Democrats found themselves in by 1985. Outside looking in, having failed to address the current economic misery.

This is all under the assumption that the U.S. is economically libertarian or even close to it. No radical libertarian on the right would argue this. In fact, no moderate libertarian economically would argue this. It would be a stretch to even say a die-hard fiscal conservative would argue this as well.  The closest instances of the U.S. having libertarian economics were in times where the family was stronger, cultural identity was in greater unison, and religious values remained strong.


If anything, the current situation we are in is exactly because we drifted away from classical liberalism. Libertarianism emerged because of the failures of government to address all the problems government created. Libertarianism became more radical when there was a greater case of businesses working with government to create unfettered corporatism that masked itself as unrestrained capitalism.

It's not really assuming anything about ideology, though the right does get very libertarian when it comes to resisting proactive preclusion of the growing left-wing tide.

Most people don't view things in an ideological lense, especially issues like drug prices. All they now is prices are rising 12,000% in some cases with no natural restraint on prices other than people dying. Classical liberalism doesn't have a good answer to that.

A classical liberal or a libertarian would point out government enabled the drug prices to rise by working with drug companies. A classical liberal or a libertarian would also point out drug companies lobby for the FDA to heavily regulate competition, resulting in higher prices due to a lack of competition. While this might be hard to sell to some people, it isn't a bad answer or no answer. It's just about wording it the correct way.

Libertarians often struggle to come across as populist, one of the things I did like about Rand in say 2013/2014 was his attempts to pull this off. "Not a dime from welfare, until all the corporate welfare is cut" was a very effective line.

I agree if we talk about libertarians running in general, but the most successful libertarian was Ron Paul, who used populism to create the new liberty movement. As a result, Ron had a hand in the Tea Party Movement (I consider him the founder/godfather), the alt right movement, and at least some hand in the growing movement to criticize Neoconservatism and Liberal Internationalism. Ron effectively was the bridge between Buchananites from the 90s, libertarians, and people dissatisfied with the Bush era. Rand distanced himself from the movement so I won't agree he did a decent job at being a libertarian populist, but it's definitely possible to do it. There's a bunch of articles about it.

[Saint Milei]

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

The market seeks its own equilibrium, even if at the expense of ten million middle class jobs. Husbands who go home, fight with their wives in front of the kids, turn to drugs in despair, leading the wife to seek a divorce. Meanwhile the schools have lost their tax base, and the kids start hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Throw in the fact that said equilibrium is being skewed by the simple fact that we play by free market rules while China lives by neo-mercantilism, and essentially turning free trade into the unilateral disarmament of the previous cold war.

Anything good can be taken too far and that includes democracy itself. The Constitution was written to reign in "excess of democracy" and that was IIRC, Washington's words in the lead up to the convention. That is why diehard libertarians reject the Constitution as an illegal, reactionary counter coup by authoritarian elites to repress the freedoms won in the revolution, a view I don't share but it is out there.

If democracy and freedom can be taken too far (be it yelling fire in a crowded theater or voting to enslave people because they look different - Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass ftr), then surely capitalism, markets and free trade can be taken too far and need to be reigned in at times.

There is no other outcome to the situation in healthcare drug prices then some form of gov't dictation. Either the left will do it via single payer, or the right can do it as a stand alone regulation as Hawley wants to do. Either way you slice it, people will only stand for this hostage style distorted market (the only way for demand to drop is for bodies to hit the floor so there is no natural restraint on prices). If you think "America's legacy" as a free country will stave off desperate people from seeking redress, the next decade or two is going to be eye opening.

If Conservatives don't adapt to this reality now, they are going to find themselves in the exact same place the New Deal Democrats found themselves in by 1985. Outside looking in, having failed to address the current economic misery.

This is all under the assumption that the U.S. is economically libertarian or even close to it. No radical libertarian on the right would argue this. In fact, no moderate libertarian economically would argue this. It would be a stretch to even say a die-hard fiscal conservative would argue this as well.  The closest instances of the U.S. having libertarian economics were in times where the family was stronger, cultural identity was in greater unison, and religious values remained strong.


If anything, the current situation we are in is exactly because we drifted away from classical liberalism. Libertarianism emerged because of the failures of government to address all the problems government created. Libertarianism became more radical when there was a greater case of businesses working with government to create unfettered corporatism that masked itself as unrestrained capitalism.

It's not really assuming anything about ideology, though the right does get very libertarian when it comes to resisting proactive preclusion of the growing left-wing tide.

Most people don't view things in an ideological lense, especially issues like drug prices. All they now is prices are rising 12,000% in some cases with no natural restraint on prices other than people dying. Classical liberalism doesn't have a good answer to that.

A classical liberal or a libertarian would point out government enabled the drug prices to rise by working with drug companies. A classical liberal or a libertarian would also point out drug companies lobby for the FDA to heavily regulate competition, resulting in higher prices due to a lack of competition. While this might be hard to sell to some people, it isn't a bad answer or no answer. It's just about wording it the correct way.

Libertarians often struggle to come across as populist, one of the things I did like about Rand in say 2013/2014 was his attempts to pull this off. "Not a dime from welfare, until all the corporate welfare is cut" was a very effective line.

I agree if we talk about libertarians running in general, but the most successful libertarian was Ron Paul, who used populism to create the new liberty movement. As a result, Ron had a hand in the Tea Party Movement (I consider him the founder/godfather), the alt right movement, and at least some hand in the growing movement to criticize Neoconservatism and Liberal Internationalism. Ron effectively was the bridge between Buchananites from the 90s, libertarians, and people dissatisfied with the Bush era. Rand distanced himself from the movement so I won't agree he did a decent job at being a libertarian populist, but it's definitely possible to do it. There's a bunch of articles about it.

I think the shift on foreign policy is certainly in large part because of Ron Paul and if nothing else that will be one of the liberty movement's lasting legacy at least for now.

Rand was always a mixed bag in that sense. You would think he was on to something and he would do something that just left you scratching your head. He has certainly used his influence to push several things in that direction though, such as surveillance.

Rand definitely angered a lot of the Paul coalition. He was right about spreading ideas to minority voters but he nearly abandoned his libertarian base by doing that.

[Saint Milei]

Threads like this are always going to show why the conservative movement will forever be fractured. The Reagan coalition was needed in the 80s, but even that created massive problems both ideologically and practically.

1. I don't see how any fiscal con can really justify the bad things Reagan did and defend them by saying "well he knew it would get worse so he did this bad thing to prevent another bad thing". I'm not accepting that argument. I'm a firm believer Reagan did not have the follow-through to finish what he wanted to start in 76 and only got worse as his presidency continued.

2. I think I've come to accept that most market conservatives are either libertarians that don't care about social issues that much or are pro-business conservatives and not actually pro-markets. This probably explains why so many cons are willing to sacrifice economics to preserve social or cultural fights, and also preserve their seats in Congress.

3. I see no path for the GOP moving forward if we have to target suburban America and the wealthy.  The only way we will ever see the real change we want to see, and by real I mean a balanced budget, cuts in spending, a more united foreign policy, and an era where the right is not deemed inherently racist, is by catering to the most disenfranchised and marginalized groups in society. This, ironically would possibly create a huge demographic flip that most conservatives wouldn't understand.

4. I know most conservatives hate to admit this, but the GOP has to become more libertarian if it wants to be the party of small government and traditional values. Buchanan and Paul (both) did far more to energize the base and preserve conservatism than typical generic Rs such as Romney and Bush. This doesn't mean go LP crazy.

5. It's weird how I agree more with Yankee than I do Haley/Ryan, when Yankee is probably less conservative (PM score wise) than Haley/Ryan



IMO, the strategy should look something like this:
1. Condemn neoconservatism (sorry Sunrise) and liberal internationalism
2. Target AAs who are going to suffer the most from these changing demographics
3. Attack the elite which include the establishment, wealthy white liberals, and academia
4. Stress honest capitalism and attack corporate capitalism
5. Be more tolerant on social issues
6. Do not give in to the left on culture wars

Right-winged populism bringing together a coalition of paleos and marginalized groups is our future

[Saint Milei]

@DeadPrez
You raise good points, but regarding balancing the budget, I don't think the GOP are interested in balancing the budget.
I was born in 1990, in my lifetime the budget was balanced under Clinton in the 1990s. Then Bush came the surplus turned into a deficit. Obama reduced the deficit, Trump came and the deficit went up again.
GOP tried to cut spending, Bush seriously tried to privatize social security but he failed. The military eats up a large portion of the budget and for the GOP cutting the military budget is a big no-no.
Trump introduced unpaid-for tax cuts, that saw the deficit go up again.
Ironically for all talk of fiscal responsibility from the GOP, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the GOP in the past 30 years.

If the GOP are serious about balancing the budget, then the party needs to embrace raising taxes on the wealthy and the upper-middle classes.
The military budget needs to be cut. Pentagon more than once recommended the number of bases in the mainland should be reduced, but many congress members been resisting such cuts, those cuts would save billions of $$$.

Pentagon Proposes Closing Almost 180 U.S. Military Bases
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pentagon-proposes-closing-almost-180-u-s-military-bases

Base closings ‘hot potato’ issue again as Pentagon insists new round could save tens of billions
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/base-closings-hot-potato-issue-again-as-pentagon-insists-new-round-could-save-tens-of-billions.html

Plans for a new base closing round may be running out of time: Report
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/08/15/plans-for-a-new-base-closing-round-may-be-running-out-of-time-report/

Neither are gonna be easy choices. But cutting things like education, healthcare, or disability benefits are deeply unpopular with the public.

GOP obsession with tax cuts has become a problem. Tax cuts aren't as popular as they used to be, Trump tax cuts didn't change public opinion and they're blowing up the deficit.

I agree with what I bolded. It's the unholy alliance between the left and right in order to prevent budget cuts. Both get what they want: entitlement spending and military spending.

I don't agree Dems are better at balancing the budget. With Clinton, i must be stressed that the GOP forced him to balance the budget. The GOP rejected every budget Clinton proposed that would have increased deficits. And Obama didn't cut spending. Check the numbers again. Even when you ignore the stimulus, he increased spending.

[Saint Milei]

@DeadPrez
You raise good points, but regarding balancing the budget, I don't think the GOP are interested in balancing the budget.
I was born in 1990, in my lifetime the budget was balanced under Clinton in the 1990s. Then Bush came the surplus turned into a deficit. Obama reduced the deficit, Trump came and the deficit went up again.
GOP tried to cut spending, Bush seriously tried to privatize social security but he failed. The military eats up a large portion of the budget and for the GOP cutting the military budget is a big no-no.
Trump introduced unpaid-for tax cuts, that saw the deficit go up again.
Ironically for all talk of fiscal responsibility from the GOP, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the GOP in the past 30 years.

If the GOP are serious about balancing the budget, then the party needs to embrace raising taxes on the wealthy and the upper-middle classes.
The military budget needs to be cut. Pentagon more than once recommended the number of bases in the mainland should be reduced, but many congress members been resisting such cuts, those cuts would save billions of $$$.

Pentagon Proposes Closing Almost 180 U.S. Military Bases
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pentagon-proposes-closing-almost-180-u-s-military-bases

Base closings ‘hot potato’ issue again as Pentagon insists new round could save tens of billions
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/base-closings-hot-potato-issue-again-as-pentagon-insists-new-round-could-save-tens-of-billions.html

Plans for a new base closing round may be running out of time: Report
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/08/15/plans-for-a-new-base-closing-round-may-be-running-out-of-time-report/

Neither are gonna be easy choices. But cutting things like education, healthcare, or disability benefits are deeply unpopular with the public.

GOP obsession with tax cuts has become a problem. Tax cuts aren't as popular as they used to be, Trump tax cuts didn't change public opinion and they're blowing up the deficit.

I agree with what I bolded. It's the unholy alliance between the left and right in order to prevent budget cuts. Both get what they want: entitlement spending and military spending.

I don't agree Dems are better at balancing the budget. With Clinton, i must be stressed that the GOP forced him to balance the budget. The GOP rejected every budget Clinton proposed that would have increased deficits. And Obama didn't cut spending. Check the numbers again. Even when you ignore the stimulus, he increased spending.

Certainly, I'd agree with you that the Republican congress was responsible for balancing the budget, It's one of the reasons why I voted for John Kasich in 2016 primaries, he was the house budget committee chairman. Of course, it was much easier to balance the books when the economy was booming in the 1990s.
Regarding Obama, the deficit did in fact go down, he didn't impose major cuts, but he did raise taxes. And the economy was growing hence budget revenue increased. The graph shows the budget deficit since 1981.

Look at the actual numbers. Remove the fact that the stimulus occurred and you will see deficits rose under Obama. The first deficit he had was over 600 billion. That's more than any year for Bush

[Saint Milei]

Put like that, I'm totally fine with that -- because it preserves the two things I care about (fiscal/social conservatism) and keeps it alive without giving up on our values. That's completely different from what Yankee whats, which is simply giving into the left and supporting expansions of government and abandoning our principles on healthcare, marriage, taxes, free markets, etc.

This is bullsh**t. I oppose single payer, I support market competition and I think taxes should be kept "as low as practical" while still being able to pay down our enormous debt to places like China, before they use it to start dictating policy to us. I support the right to self-defense/oppose the Assault Weapons ban and I am pro-life.

Frankly, I think Rand Paul was onto something in 2013 when he was trying to sell minorities on a consistent small government platform that runs the gambit of opposing foreign war, minimizing the policy/surveillance state, and scaling back the war on drugs. These policies are all BIG GOVERNMENT whether you want to admit it or not, excuse it or not, and they have all done horrendous damage to minority communities and families (we are suppose to be the small gov't and pro-family people, yet we condone violations of small gov't orthodoxy when it does tremendous damage but never when it might help said family structures. There is a clear double standard here).

Why is it you get to lecture me on deviating from small gov't principles on drug prices, but you get a free pass on big government when it comes to war, and the police?

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/05/recalling-the-days-when-democrats-cut-taxes.html

When JFK's tax legislation came before Congress, Democrats in the House voted for it 223-29 and in the Senate 56-11, while Republicans voted against it in the House 126-48 and for it in the Senate 21-10. The GOP candidate for president in 1964, Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, voted against.

This article was composed by Larry Kudlow by the way.

Fiscal conservatism is not the same as supply side economics, and in fact you could argue they are at contrary purposes. Fiscal conservatism is not spending more than what you have, and working to pay down the national debt. Supply side economics calls for deficit funded tax cuts to grow the economy as a stimulative measure. There are two problems with this, 1) unless you have the political capital to actually restrain spending and lets face it, they don't as Rover and Deadprez pointed out, it will always increase the debt and 2). The benefits always flow to those areas that are already doing well, namely those places that are at the vanguard of social liberalism these days for the most part. If you think about it, you are subsidizing the destruction of traditional marriage this way.

I am a market conservative. I believe in abolishing the income tax, entitlement reform, reducing the size of government, and repealing and replacing Obamcare.

But I am also a social conservative. As I have said on other occasions on this forum, I believe in punishing abortion with the death penalty. I believe life begins at conception. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I support school prayer.

Those two things are not contradictory, and I don't only care about one or the other. I care about them both very deeply, and I know that at least some of our Congressmen do as well.

They are not contradictory to you because you live in a sheltered situation in which you experience none of the negatives of the policies and thus cannot comprehend how it can be inconsistent in practice. How economical neoliberalism, incentivizes social liberalism. How a no knock raid on an innocent man suspected of drug possession that turns bad, can ruin a black family's world. How an unnecessary foreign conflict can break up and destroy a family. Hell, I even laid our a scenario, real life scenario that I practically experienced first hand as to how outsourcing can lead to financial strain, marital problems, abuse and drug/alcohol use and you rejected it and twisted it to claim I was a communist. Instability causes family decay, it is a simple concept and one that is all to real among those non-college whites you want to expand among.

At the end of the day, for all the lecturing me about being out of touch, you don't seem to grasp how these policies interact with real people, or the real damage that they can cause.

Just what do you think will happen when you expand among "non-college whites". I lived up north, I was born there, I can tell you how non-college whites look when you get out of the bible belt.
1. They are very secular, perhaps at most low frequency Catholic
2. They might be pro-life and pro-gun
3. They are most certainly protectionist and want the factories back
4. They want Social Security and Medicare protected
5. A large number of them would probably support Medicare for all when the rubber meets the road, or at least the concept in in a vacuum without consideration for the problems that would cause.

The right has a tendency to blame the social instability and lack of traditional values on cultural marxism, fatherless homes, drug use, and welfare, but in a lot of ways the neoliberalism and warfare state are just to blame. This is another reason I was easily influenced by Paul in 2010. It was easy to see how everything tied together when you aren't sheltered.