2022 House and Senate election

[mchammer]

The tea leaves show that the America First Republicans reflect more consistently the will of conservative voters. If the R party doesn't shift to them then it will lose its grip in the 2 party system. One of the parties must follow the grass roots conservative movement. The Tea Party was corrupted, strike 1. If MAGA/America First fails that is strike 2. It won't take many more swings for Republicans to fail. Conservative candidates aren't extreme or crazy or unelectable. They aren't a part of the US regime, uniparty system. As the system shifts the left Republicans, which are the majority, will move towards the Democrat Party. As more voters see the Republicans as untrustworthy they will drift away. Something new will take their place. There have been multiple party systems in America. It won't be the last.

If what you say is true, why wouldn’t those republicans not get primaried?

 

[Monahorns]

If what you say is true, why wouldn’t those republicans not get primaried?

Because the Republican leadership won't allow conservatives to win like in 2022.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The Tea Party was corrupted, strike 1. If MAGA/America First fails that is strike 2. It won't take many more swings for Republicans to fail.

What I find kinda amusing about this is that the Tea Party was corrupted primarily by MAGA. It started as a populist movement centered on fiscal conservatism and opposition to bailouts but without the weirdness that went with Libertarians. Rand Paul was its exemplar. Then it jumped in the sack with Trump and didn't give a **** about any of that anymore.

2. It won't take many more swings for Republicans to fail. Conservative candidates aren't extreme or crazy or unelectable.

Very self-serving framing. The objection to MAGA candidates isn't their conservatism. It's the weird fealty to Trump (which isn't based on conservatism - in fact it's a rejection of some parts of conservatism), the poor communication skills, and the choice to focus on foolish things (most of which have nothing to do with conservatism) while being derelict on other things (many of which are conservative).

 

[mchammer]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...esident_trump_do_not_doubt_his_influence.html

 

[Monahorns]

What I find kinda amusing about this is that the Tea Party was corrupted primarily by MAGA. It started as a populist movement centered on fiscal conservatism and opposition to bailouts but without the weirdness that went with Libertarians. Rand Paul was its exemplar. Then it jumped in the sack with Trump and didn't give a **** about any of that anymore.

I don't think that is correct. The Tea Party was taken over by the establishment before MAGA ever appeared. MAGA was a second wave of populism which occurred because R voters felt betrayed by the establishment's coopting of the Tea Party.

Very self-serving framing. The objection to MAGA candidates isn't their conservatism. It's the weird fealty to Trump (which isn't based on conservatism - in fact it's a rejection of some parts of conservatism), the poor communication skills, and the choice to focus on foolish things (most of which have nothing to do with conservatism) while being derelict on other things (many of which are conservative).

I agree that fealty to Trump is weird and misdirected. I don't understand it honestly. But the America First guys of today have put conservative issues at the top of the list. Not perfectly. I don't agree with all of it. But they are closer to the voters than McConnell and McCarthy.

 

[Monahorns]

without the weirdness that went with Libertarians

Nice jab.

 

[horninchicago]

Nice jab.

At least it wasn't mandatory.

 

[theiioftx]

Well played sir, well played.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't think that is correct. The Tea Party was taken over by the establishment before MAGA ever appeared. MAGA was a second wave of populism which occurred because R voters felt betrayed by the establishment's coopting of the Tea Party.

You have it bass-ackwards. The Tea Party was a pain in the *** to the establishment during the Obama Administration (often but not always for good reason). Then 2015-'16 came around, and most of them jumped on the Trump Train, because the establishment didn't like him.

In a weird way, this made them less of a pain in the *** to the establishment on Capitol Hill, because it made passing a budget a lot easier. They freaked out about any of sort of compromise with the Obama White House on the budget and then were quietly willing to go along with Trump budgets that made the Obama compromise budgets look like they were written by Milton Friedman. That was the corruption of the Tea Party.

I agree that fealty to Trump is weird and misdirected. I don't understand it honestly. But the America First guys of today have put conservative issues at the top of the list. Not perfectly. I don't agree with all of it. But they are closer to the voters than McConnell and McCarthy.

You don't understand it? He speaks their language, and many of them aren't very deep or principled. Many - not all but many - were fiscal conservatives not because they believed in it as a principle but because Obama wasn't. And of course, they didn't like Obama. Once a guy they liked wanted to spend like an even drunker sailor, they stopped caring about it. Now that a guy they don't like (Biden) wants to spend a lot of money, they're going back to not liking it.

But to you, they're the epitome of principle and courage and "put conservative issues at the top."

 

[Mr. Deez]

Nice jab.

It wasn't actually meant as a jab. I was talking about some of the weirdness and political baggage that Libertarian Party (why I capitalized the word) candidates often carried. You have some of it in the foreign policy realm, but I was mainly thinking about the longtime celebration of drugs and sexual libertinism that a lot of Libertarians were cool with, which (to your credit), you've always opposed.

 

[Monahorns]

You have it bass-ackwards.

The Tea Party, Fifteen Years Later | Dale Steinreich

It wasn't actually meant as a jab. I was talking about some of the weirdness and political baggage that Libertarian Party (why I capitalized the word) candidates often carried. You have some of it in the foreign policy realm, but I was mainly thinking about the longtime celebration of drugs and sexual libertinism that a lot of Libertarians were cool with, which (to your credit), you've always opposed.

Ha. It's funny. My brain blocks out the libertines when I think about libertarians. But you are right. They are there and ran the Libertarian Party for many years. They have been taken out of power. The LP is basically a Ron Paul party now. There is still some looniness there but much less.

The foreign policy is the same on both sides. The funny thing though is that libertarian foreign policy is descended from traditional American conservatism. The change occurred after WW2 when ex-Trotskyites moved into the Republican Party and started the neoconservative movement. It came from the political left.

 

[Garmel]

One-eyed Liz Cheney loses. Awesome.

 

[Horn6721]

Crenshaw deserves our gratitude and appreciation for willingly to go in harms way for our country.
He deserves to get voted OUT of Congress.

 

[Horn6721]

Who on here listed this a a top priority?
IRS on the chopping block on first day of legislative work under Speaker McCarthy

 

[Monahorns]

Who on here listed this a a top priority?
IRS on the chopping block on first day of legislative work under Speaker McCarthy

The FBI and CIA need to be next. They are criminal organizations existing within our federal government.

 

[Horn6721]

Any curtailing of the IRS is a good thing.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Any curtailing of the IRS is a good thing.

Yes, but this isn't curtailing the IRS. It is, instead, giving them an additional 8 billion instead of the 80 billion the fucknut democrats gave them. Only in government world is that considered a cut, or curtailment.

 

[Facing Addiction]

First bill under Speaker McCarthy will cost taxpayers more than $100 billion (msn.com)

So cutting the IRS will cut $71.5B in expense (a real number) but will decrease revenues by $185.8B (a made-up number)?

I also like how in the article in paragraph 4 doesn't list any new enforcement officials in that funding, but then paragraph 6 talks about how new enforcement officials won't look at those making less than $400K.

Which side of the mouth should I be listening to?????

I still hold that getting rid of income tax and going to a consumption tax is the best way to go.....

 

[Horn6721]

FA it is MSN.
I know you like the Pubs putting forth a bill eliminating the IRS, national income tax and replacing it with consumption tax.
Won't pass but maybe people will learn what a cess pool the IRS is

 

[mchammer]

Schiff, Swalwell And Omar To Get Boot From Committees As McCarthy Cleans House | ZeroHedge

 

[mchammer]

 

[Garmel]

It's early but I'm liking what McCarthy and company are doing.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I am also cautiously optimistic.

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Any curtailing of the IRS is a good thing.

what we need is a law that sunsets every single tax write off in the next 8 years and congress must reevaluate and reauthorize each one if it is deemed good policy still. The IRS needs to be diminished but just as important the tax code needs an overhaul. We need a flat tax of around 8% with the rest being raised via consumption taxes.

 

[Facing Addiction]

what we need is a law that sunsets every single tax write off in the next 8 years and congress must reevaluate and reauthorize each one if it is deemed good policy still. The IRS needs to be diminished but just as important the tax code needs an overhaul. We need a flat tax of around 8% with the rest being raised via consumption taxes.

The reason I don't like a flat tax is because a) there's still an IRS b) there'll still be ways to hide income (off shore businesses, etc.) c) still will be arguments on what constitutes "income"

With a pure consumption tax, there's already the mechanism to collect it without the IRS. You buy, you pay. You don't want to pay taxes, don't buy stuff.

But won't that:
Curb spending - yes, and increase saving. We may have to move from a consumption society.
Black market - That's already illegal and can be addressed by local po-po.
Bartering - Oh the humanity.....
Fixing and reusing stuff instead of just buying new - Oh the humanity part II....
Regressive tax, poorest pay the most (% of income) - I've got a fix for that....

The minutia: sales tax %, wholesale v retail, import/US made....

 

[Monahorns]

I support consumption taxes for all the reason's you state. Black markets will always exist. The size and scope will depend on how oppressive the regime is. The less oppressive the smaller.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Curb spending - yes, and increase saving. We may have to move from a consumption society.
...

My concern is that this "curb in spending" won't be a little but a whole lot. I can't imagine the size of sales tax that we would have to pay.

The only countries that don't have an income tax can fund their gov either through large per capita oil wealth that is largely state owned or through substantial tourism taxes. The US has neither option. I can't find any working examples of just relying on Sales tax. What makes you think that the downward pressure on spending won't send us into a prolonged depression?

 

[Facing Addiction]

My concern is that this "curb in spending" won't be a little but a whole lot. I can't imagine the size of sales tax that we would have to pay.

The only countries that don't have an income tax can fund their gov either through large per capita oil wealth that is largely state owned or through substantial tourism taxes. The US has neither option. I can't find any working examples of just relying on Sales tax. What makes you think that the downward pressure on spending won't send us into a prolonged depression?

No idea. I'm not an economist, but I do know that having around 50% of the populace on welfare and incentivized not to work ain't working either. Maybe if we quit expecting Uncle Sam to be our wet nurse, the sales tax wouldn't be that high. There are billions, if not trillions, spent on things you can't find anywhere in the Constitution that the federal government is responsible for.

This would be a kick in the head: Take all the things the federal government doles out money to. Divide it between those things that are Constitutionally authorized and those that aren't (UN Payments, Ukraine, etc.). Set up a consumption tax that will cover the Constitutionally authorized expenditures then ask for voluntary contributions for those that aren't, line by line. If it doesn't get funded voluntarily, it goes away.....

I know I'm just talking out my butt, but I'm retired at 61 after having saved up enough to retire. My number one expenditure every month is taxes, taxes and more taxes. I'm not eligible for SSN or Medicare yet, but I did pay a crap load into those over the years, so I don't consider them welfare. Those are sunk costs, my current taxes aren't going towards those.

I've mentioned before, I've been on two city councils. My claim to fame is we were able to adjust to live off just sales tax, no property tax, in both cities. (Yes, I know those are local not federal) But I bet if enough smart people (I think this is where my argument falls apart) were to get their heads together, they could figure it out.