It appears as if the right is just falling apart.

[shoxlax]

Dude! Seriously? This is what I don't understand. The only president in recent memory who was able to balance the budget--hell, create a surplus!!!--and actually PAY DOWN the national debt was a Democrat. A Democrat. The next guy in office--a Republican--spent money like he stole it! A weak military and "godless"?--sigh, that's just so silly I won't respond to that.

I like tax cuts just as much as you do, but the Republicans don't seem to understand that if you're going to cut taxes, you better cut spending. Reagan and Bush, though both did some good things, also spent ludicrous amounts of money, and at the same time cut taxes, driving up the debt to unheard of levels, so please forgive me if they have totally convinced me the party's platform of "fiscal conservatism" is complete and utter hogwash. Sorry, but when you preach about being fiscally conservative, but your actions show you spend money like you think it grows on trees, and the guys you call "tax and spend" are the only ones who have actually figured out how to be responsible with the nation's money, you lose all credibility.

Actually your point about Bush and his Republican Senate and Congress is spot on, but many federal agencies and new foreign aid were created in response to 9/11. I will point out Clinton had a Republican Congress and Senate and they held his feet to the fire on a lot of things, but there was bi partisan agreement. Reagan drove up a lot of his debt to bury the Soviet Union, which was a pretty good investment. How would you like fighting spreading communism and radical Islam at the same time today?

BL: We need term limits so politicians will quit pandering to their constituents with garbage earmarks and start working on solving the country's problems economically. I am in the military-I have seen some of the earmarks come down that benefit the military. I deal directly with politicians or their aids on many of them. While we have no choice but to take them, I often just shake my head and wonder why this or that constitutes a necessity. Some of the earmarks in the name of research or the environment are a 1,000 times worse than the ones I deal with.

[ShockBand]

Shoxlax, being currently in the military (and thank you for your service), do you think overall the DOD could provide a strong enough military presence on the existing budget, if it were handled better? Better as in more focused and targeted expenditures that are rational and not as earmarks for the "home folks" as you allude to?

[shoxlax]

The Republican Party is well on its way to becoming as irrelevant as most of the rest of the old line religious denominations (in my opinion that is what it has become).

They (the religious extremists) are hell bent on pushing their social agenda on everyone else no
matter what the cost.

The extremists that have taken over the Republican party apparatus are nothing more than lackeys and puppets of the top 1% of the wealth holders of this country (who have their own separate agenda).

I am a life long Republican, fiscal conservative and social moderate, and I feel that the greatest danger facing our nation is the blurring of the lines between church and state.

The last thing we as a freedom loving people really want or need is a theocracy. When people are on a "mission from God" they can justify any type of atrocity, and that scares the Hell out of me.

No offense Gumby but you sound more like a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

[shoxlax]

Shoxlax, being currently in the military (and thank you for your service), do you think overall the DOD could provide a strong enough military presence on the existing budget, if it were handled better? Better as in more focused and targeted expenditures that are rational and not as earmarks for the "home folks" as you allude to?

On the existing budget, yes. After sequestration, no. The military also brings a huge amount of money to the private sector in a variety of different ways. So the cause and effect of trimming the military is more than just a weaker defense.

Here are some examples of what we could do:
1. Consolidate more facilities and (especially) functions here in the States. Let the military decide this, unlike BRAC, and not congress, who is way less impartial based on their constituency.
2. Give the military the technology it needs to kick ass, but quit replacing 20 and 30 year old buildings with brand new ones.
3. Drawdown, but not close, bases in places like Germany, Japan, and England. Closing them would come with a huge environmental clean up bill.
4. Start exerting our influence more in Latin America (where we actually have a chance to influence the populations) and less in the Middle East. This is all facets (diplomacy, information, military, and economics).
5. Thin out the rank of General. We have way too many Generals, especially the Air Force. The retirements alone cost our country a fortune.
6. Energy independence. Or I should be clearer, oil and gas independence. This goes hand in hand with #4 above.
7. Offer more ten and fifteen year retirements. The military wasn't expecting so many people would stay in for 20+ years when they put the current retirement structure in place. Now we have a must pay (a well deserved one) that may get sacrificed for something else.

That is just the tip. I could go on and on forever. Our Navy means more to us now than ever before. Obama's crack about them being okay with 1916 levels because technology is advanced was so ridiculous and disrespectful it is not even funny. What percentage of waters did we patrol then? How many jobs did we outsource then and how much did we import from places other than Europe? Whether we like it or not, the Navy keeps commerce flowing by clearing the sea lanes. This means the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America. Yes, the Navy has changed since 1916 but so has it's role.

Frankly, I never thought I would see a president in our lifetime that didn't get the military more than Bill Clinton. I was wrong.

[proshox]

I pretty much agree with this. The moment the GOP embraces true political conservatism (including not trying to tell others how to live through federal legislation and not spreading democracy through military might), they will steal away a majority of left-leaning moderates and render the Dems virtually sterile, at least for a few election cycles.

Like it or not, we aren't going to make the country (ie. people) more socially conservative through government. That can only happen at home.

Personally, I believe our culture is already headed for the cliff and there's very little hope of turning it around. I'd rather step to the side and try and pull a few out of the herd than to get run over trying to stop the whole group, saving none.

We have a winner... Also, some of us just "right of center" don't enjoy getting absolutely shouted down for attempting to discuss complex economic issues in shades of gray that don't necessarily align with the "invisible hand of the free market "in all cases. The rhetoric on the right has made that behavior socially acceptable in Kansas (maybe it has always been that way). It is to the point where a dissenting opinion on any republican policy issue is akin to committing social and corporate suicide in Wichita...

[Aargh]

the "invisible hand of the free market "

Free market? That horse has left the barn and the barn has burned down.

Do you really want a free market? If someone were to build an oil refinery, would you want them to be able to build it wherever they owned a chunk of dirt, build it however they wanted to build it, do whatever they wanted with their waste and byproducts? Or would you prefer some protection of the citizens against practices that maximized income, but poisoned the population?

There's a principle in economics that the more difficult it is to enter an industry, the higher the profit margins will be in that industry. The government has created some huge obstacles to entering the refining business and that industry has been incredibly profitable during one of the worst economic periods in the last 80 years.

There is government regulation of the energy costs (electricity, natural gas, water) for refining gasoline, but no regulations on how much can be charged for that gasoline.It seems a bit disingenuous to campaign for a "free market" when your costs are minimized by government controls, but the price you charge for your products are not. If you re in an industry with extremely high regulatory obstacles yo entry and extremely high start-up costs, you own the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The refining companies are pretty much free to charge whatever the market will bear. Do you ever see one "brand" of gasoline selling below the cost of another brand? Name another industry with that lack of competitive pricing. It fdoesn't even seem odd that all the refining compaines are reporting record profits. It's almost like they're cooperating in their pricing structure, but boy do they drop a lot of money on lobbying and think tanks to try to ensure that their "free market" is unfettered by any government regulation - well, of course with the exception of the government regulations that restrict their competition.

The US auto industry is a perfect example of a "free market" industry. The Big 3 got rid of all their competition, and started putting out poorly designed and built cars that actually had planned obsolescence. The cars were designed to fail to ensure an artificially stimulated market for their products. Unfortunately for those auto makers, Japan was also building cars and once those cars were introduced in the American market and forces of a "free market" were actually allowed to operate, 2 of the Big 3 had to go to the government to get bailed out of bankruptcy. A "free market" is great as long as it's your industry that benefits from a lack of competition and free of government involvement, but go broke in that situation and then show up on the government's porch steps with your hat in your hand begging for protection from the evil competitors that put you out of business.

[Gumby]

No offense Gumby but you sound more like a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

Thank you, I will take that as a compliment.

But the only way an individual in this state (Kansas) can hope to stem the tide of extremism (social and religious) is to be a Registered Republican and vote in the primary with the slimmest of hope of getting educated, intelligent, thinking candidates on the ballot for the general election.

[Kung Wu]

Ahem.

If any of you are bewildered as to why you lost yesterday. Wondering how it could be. "Can't everyone see what you are seeing?" "Don't they feel what you feel?"

Then look no further than this forum: you all have surrounded yourself with like-minded people, posting in a forum likely to elicit pats on the back for even the most delusional tidbit, so long as it's anti-left or anti-Obama; you watch Fox News and Fox News only, because it's "the #1 rated news channel" and the "liberal media is just to biased"; you live in Wichita and surround yourself with likeminded conservatives at all your parties, luncheons, and get-togethers; and you pay attention to only the studies that result in what you want them to say, the polls that result in what you want the people to feel, the lives of only those you think you care about.

But by only listening to thoughts you know you will like and only speaking where you know you will find agreement, you have become afraid to challenge yourself in any real way and have thus become weak in your thoughts. Why do you believe what you believe? is it something right to believe in? Do you consider alternatives? I see it here all the time: I post something from my point of view, and the ensuing conversation goes almost immediately to attacking my character because you guys don't know how to attack the content of the thought because you don't know how to defend your own. Look at this thread. Childish notions of what a "real American" is. Don't you know how embarrassing that is?

You have feared new outside thought and burrowed into the far right for so long that even a centrist notion hits your head as if it were fired from the "liberal" howitzer cannon. So when reality hits you in the face, and you realize that the national populous doesn't feel what you feel or think what you think, and you wonder why... this is why. I challenge you all to leave this forum for a while. Go look at the world. Look at what people think. Talk to people from opposing points of view on a real, communicative basis. Watch different news outlets. Appreciate opposing points of view. Then come back to this forum, read what has been posted here, and tell me if you don't feel the least bit disgusted.

Your party started falling apart more than two years ago and you didn't even know it because you let a delusional contingent take it over, and you did it willingly. I dare say that if Lincoln, Eisenhower, or Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, they would have voted for Obama out of disgust over what their once proud party has become.

Bump.

[Aargh]

OK, I'll bite.

What's going to happen when the Dems in Topeka propose getting rid of sales taxes on groceries?

The legislature in Topeka is likely to still be far right and insisting more tax cuts are needed. Will they go along with exempting food as a way to cut taxes?

[Kung Wu]

OK, I'll bite.

What's going to happen when the Dems in Topeka propose getting rid of sales taxes on groceries?

The legislature in Topeka is likely to still be far right and insisting more tax cuts are needed. Will they go along with exempting food as a way to cut taxes?

I don't follow local politics, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you send me a link?

But this made me think of a similar question: Is there even the remote possibility for bipartisan support for a fair tax or flat tax?

[SHOCKvalue]

OK, I'll bite.

What's going to happen when the Dems in Topeka propose getting rid of sales taxes on groceries?

The legislature in Topeka is likely to still be far right and insisting more tax cuts are needed. Will they go along with exempting food as a way to cut taxes?

You'll bite on what? Kung Wu brought back a 2 year old thread with a post that says "bump."

I'm curious why you would think one party would be more predisposed over the other on the issue of grocery sales tax roll-back? I mean I can totally see the left suggesting such a move in the hopes that the right wouldn't go along, so that they could have a new platform for their "War on ____" MO, and effectively buy a new dem voting segment in the process ("disenfranchised grocery shoppers?"), but what would be the hold-up on the right for such a move? I don't get it. Seems like a pretty bipartisan issue to me.

[Aargh]

Seems it should be bi-prtisan, but does that even exist any more? It seems to be the knee jerk reaction for one party to oppose ANYTHING proposed by the opther party, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the proposal.

The little kicker at the end of the sales tax exemption for groceries is that it would cost the state around $392 million a year. I know the right wing accepts starving the government as possibly the only way to shrink it but $392 million on top of what they've already proposed might cause some head scratching.

[wufan]

I would go for a grocery exemption. It benefits all, but poor people the most...right?

[WuDrWu]

Pretty sure all sales taxes affect the poor the most, either way.

[pinstripers]

Consume a lot, pay a lot. Consume little, pay little.