An immediate GOP purge won’t work

posted at 5:01 pm on January 24, 2016 by Taylor Millard

The GOP Establishment of “biggish government works just fine” needs to go away. They need to either join the Democrats or just retire and let “the base” (which allegedly loves freedom and libery) run things. That’s a fine thought to have, but there seems to be a split on how to actually make that happen. There are plenty of people who believe an atom bomb-like purge needs to happen, which vaporizes the Establishment in one fell swoop. Ace over at Ace of Spades seems to have decided this is the best way to go because he’s tired of just hoping “winning elections” will solve things:

Although I’ve come to hate politics and I just despise reading the news now, the one good thing is that I’m liberated from splashing some ketchup on Sandwiches Made of Actual [Crap] and trying to sell them to people as tasty and healthful.

I feel liberated. I serve no “Greater Good,” as I don’t know that there’s a Greater Good to be served anymore. So I can just say exactly what I think.

And what I think is that the establishment has to be destroyed.

We will not be ignored, we will not be condescended to, we will no longer accept broken promises and lies as our payment for our service to the GOP.

And if it requires destroying the GOP and electing a Democrat to teach the establishment this lesson, to chastise them and to humble them, then we shall do just that, and do so happily.

You will either come to terms, or you will be destroyed.

The anger makes total sense, and it would be absolutely fantastic if the Establishment could be sent packing in one election cycle. I’m angry too at how the GOP Senate leadership of Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn and the GOP House leadership of Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, and Pete Sessions appear willing to make a deal which is more 80-20 in favor of President Barack Obama and not the reverse. This idea that the GOP has to be “moderate” to attract voters makes no sense to me because there needs to be an actual difference between Republicans and Democrats (not just on social issues, but on surveillance, spending, taxes, subsidies, etc). But here’s why an immediate purge isn’t going solve anything. It’s like a landscaper getting rid of a tree. He doesn’t replace the old tree with a fully-grown new tree. Instead, a young sapling is planted which can grow into the spot where the old tree was. Those wanting a GOP purge have to realize this is what’s going to have to happen if they want the so-called RINO’s gone. The new party is going to have to grow into power, and it’s going to take years. This means being willing to think long term and realizing true victory isn’t going to be found in just two or four or even ten election cycles. This means completely changing the minds of people, and convincing them a more fiscally responsible way of governance is better than what’s been going on for the last 116+ years. One thing Jim Geraghty at National Review pointed out is it’s possible people DON’T want to see government cut because they like the status quo.

Polling indicates that 70 percent want a smaller deficit . . . but the only spending cut that gets anywhere near a majority support is to foreign aid — about 1 percent of the budget — and even that’s close to an even split. “For 18 of 19 programs tested, majorities want either to increase spending or maintain it at current levels.” People want smaller government right up until the point where it actually affects them.

This shows it’s going to take years to convince the electorate to put a true majority of smaller government advocates into power. So it’s more important for conservatives and libertarians to play the long game (the very long game) to see their plans come to fruition. It means not chasing every new populist bauble or figure who comes along promising to bring about change or fixing a country with even more big government. It also means being more active and deciding to keep politicians accountable when big votes come up. It also means resisting the urge to immediately throw someone out when they vote the way we don’t want them too or when we disagree with another pundit or blogger. Ed, Jazz, AP, and myself all have different opinions on certain things, but I’d rather have them on my team. Ace and I disagree on immigration, and I disagree with a majority of Reason writers on abortion, but they’re folks who are freedom fighters and despise statism. It means I’ll work with them, unless they start advocating an expanded government on a regular basis. The same goes for politicians who don’t vote the way I’d prefer them to on everything. I disagree with Thomas Massie on the Farm Bill, but he’s still someone I support. The same goes for Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and myself have differences on foreign policy and online gambling, but they’re much better politicians than the ones they replaced. They aren’t perfect, but no politician (or pundit) ever will be.

The Right should always be looking for better candidates to represent their freedom and liberty viewpoints in government (whether it’s federal, state, or local). But a big, gigantic purge all at once is not going to solve anything (as much as we’d like it to happen). The Right has to think long term when it comes to getting rid of the Establishment. If we don’t, then people are just going to get more angry and reactionary which could end up completely destroying their chances at all of success.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I don’t know, do you guys think that maybe if more Trump supporters had seen form i-485, then perhaps they wouldn’t be quite as concerned about letting Muslims in? Every single word on that form is scrutinized by immigration officers who can check records in other countries, and are trained to interrogate the immigrant, if it appears necessary.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 12:52 AM

You really can’t be serious?

You do know that the terrorists who murdered people in San Bernadino filled out that form, right?

You better sit down for this kid.

Ya ready?

They lied!

Right there in black and white on an OFFICIAL government form…they lied.

Let me explain…

It is someone who behaves in a way that is contrary to reality.

Yes…I am speaking of deception, lies.
You may only recently become aware of this concept in your dealings with the world.
Often, people will say one thing and do another.
Promise you mercy, but deliver destruction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3371240/Sloppily-approved-visa-application-San-Bernardino-terrorists-reveals-authorities-concerned-met-asked-details-approved-anyway.html

In one part of Malik’s immigration file, described to Reuters by congressional sources, Malik answered ‘no’ to questions about her background and activities, including whether she had ever used or sold weapons or engaged in ‘terrorist activity.’

The questions were included as part of a permanent residence application, a Form I-485 used by the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration unit. The process began in January 2014 and it was approved on July 27 the same year.

sharrukin on January 25, 2016 at 1:27 AM

You do know that the terrorists who murdered people in San Bernadino filled out that form, right?

You better sit down for this kid.

Ya ready?

They lied!
sharrukin on January 25, 2016 at 1:27 AM

Yeah, and the government agent in charge of checking out their story really f**ked up. So why are you taking it out on innocent Muslims who didn’t lie on that form?

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 4:50 AM

Yeah, and the government agent in charge of checking out their story really f**ked up. So why are you taking it out on innocent Muslims who didn’t lie on that form?

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 4:50 AM

Oh please. They are “taking it out” as you put it, precisely becuase In Gov We CAN’T Trust.

rhombus on January 25, 2016 at 6:11 AM

So why are you taking it out on innocent Muslims who didn’t lie on that form?

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 4:50 AM

If you could just show us which ones they are…..

Don L on January 25, 2016 at 6:15 AM

How about a constitutional amendment banning sharia law?

Don L on January 25, 2016 at 6:18 AM

How about a constitutional amendment banning sharia law?

Don L on January 25, 2016 at 6:18 AM

Not necessary becuase sharia itself is unconstitutional. It would be like creating a law to ban something that is already illegal. If the government won’t enforce our existing laws, they aren’t going to enforce new ones they don’t like either.

rhombus on January 25, 2016 at 6:22 AM

A Syrian refugee who does not come to America cannot commit acts of terrorism here.
So simple, even DHS and the New York Times can understand it.
If they wanted to do so.
Which they do not.

orangemtl on January 25, 2016 at 7:22 AM

This post is more of the same GOP apologist nonsense.

The new party is going to have to grow into power, and it’s going to take years. This means being willing to think long term and realizing true victory isn’t going to be found in just two or four or even ten election cycles. This means completely changing the minds of people, and convincing them a more fiscally responsible way of governance is better than what’s been going on for the last 116+ years.

Look, this non-conservative Millard guy may be too young to understand this, but this is what the GOP and “conservative elites” have been telling us for 30 years.

And it is what we have done for thirty years. We have worked, and worked, and worked to try and change the party. But, the party and the “conservative elites” work against us at every turn.

the “Conservative elites” like how things are – because they have access to the GOP elites, and have some modicum of influence, so they try to sell us this tripe and tell us we have to support the likes of McConnell and Romney because they are “electable”.

And, they continually tell us we MUST rally around the GOP “because what else is there”?

During the past 30 years, we have tried to primary liberal republican incumbents in dark red states/districts – and have been beaten by the GOP/money class. We have held rallies, we have called representative’s offices, we have held marches, we have elected “conservatives” (who the GOPe almost immediately co-opts [if the politician was even truly conservative in the first instance] – see Marco Rubio). We have done all the work that Millard proposes here.

And the GOP is actually further left than it was 30 years ago. And more openly leftists. And more openly hostile to conservatives and conservatism.

NO.

the “long game” is a ruse to get you to back the GOP while it lurches ever leftward. We must blow it up now and rebuild. While the same people control the levers of power within the GOP (the donors, the aids, the advisers, the campaign managers, the incumbents) the GOP will never move rightward. As long as they control power, they can absorb a primary loss here and there – because when that new “conservative” politician gets to Washington, he quickly learns he must either get along, or be a pariah like Cruz. And how many politicians are willing to be a pariah? One in a million at best.

And that’s even assuming that someone who runs as a dark-red, tea-party conservative actually believes those things. Most politicians will say whatever it takes to get elected, so more than 1/2 of the politicians who run as “real conservatives” aren’t, and will betray you the first chance they get. And when the GOP itself is leftist, you can’t expect those politicians to hold true.

So, the entire “we must support the GOP and work from within” argument has been disproven again and again. The only way to change the GOP is to blow it up. Make it suffer. Make it fear its own voters. You don’t do that by voting for it when it moves leftward.

When you vote for a party that has done what the GOP has done, you are telling that party to continue doing that thing. They won’t change if you vote for them no matter what. Why would they?

The GOP will never change if we “play the long game” and try to primary a liberal republican incumbent here or there. As I said, they can absorb the occasional loss in a primary. The only way to change the GOP is to blow it up.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 8:23 AM

Yeah, and the government agent in charge of checking out their story really f**ked up. So why are you taking it out on innocent Muslims who didn’t lie on that form?

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 4:50 AM

For someone who is allegedly “libertarian” and doesn’t like the gov’t, you sure do have a lot of faith in the gov’t.

You are essentially arguing “Dude, even thought there is a ton of muslims willing to engage in terrorism – don’t ban muslim immigration, our great, strong, competent gov’t will discovery any possible terrorists by reading form i-485 and stop them from getting in. After all, our great, strong, competent gov’t is soooo good at everything it does”.

I guess you are only anti-gov’t for some things. When it comes to open borders, you are all about the gov’t.

Some libertarian. Can’t even conceive of the concept that the gov’t might not do a good job at something.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 8:27 AM

From the now defunct Woodpile Report, archived at The Smallest Minority:

The middle class is the designated prey in all this. This is unwise. Middle class America is no less violent than any other people. They seem passive because they’re results oriented. They rise not out of blood frenzy but to solve the otherwise insoluble. Their methods of choice are good will, cooperation, forbearance, negotiation and finally, appeasement, roughly in that order. Only when these fail to end the abuse do they revert to blowback. And they do so irretrievably. Once the course is set and the outcome defined, doubt is put aside. The middle class is known, condemned actually, for carrying out violence with the efficiency of an industrial project where bloody destruction at any scale is not only in play, it’s a metric. Remorse is left for the next generation, they’ll have the leisure for it. We’d like to believe this is merely dark speculation. History says it isn’t.

GrumpyOldFart on January 25, 2016 at 8:55 AM

Yeah, and the government agent in charge of checking out their story really f**ked up. So why are you taking it out on innocent Muslims who didn’t lie on that form?

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 4:50 AM

For someone who is allegedly “libertarian” and doesn’t like the gov’t, you sure do have a lot of faith in the gov’t.

You are essentially arguing “Dude, even thought there is a ton of muslims willing to engage in terrorism – don’t ban muslim immigration, our great, strong, competent gov’t will discovery any possible terrorists by reading form i-485 and stop them from getting in. After all, our great, strong, competent gov’t is soooo good at everything it does”.

I guess you are only anti-gov’t for some things. When it comes to open borders, you are all about the gov’t.

Some libertarian. Can’t even conceive of the concept that the gov’t might not do a good job at something.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 8:27 AM

You’re so right…

…and another thing, how would the agent know without checking her Facebook and other online history?

Cue screams of “invasion of privacy” from TBSidiot in 1…2…3..

This is one for the archives.

ebrown2 on January 25, 2016 at 9:35 AM

The GOP will never change if we “play the long game” and try to primary a liberal republican incumbent here or there. As I said, they can absorb the occasional loss in a primary. The only way to change the GOP is to blow it up.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 8:23 AM

Exactly.

ebrown2 on January 25, 2016 at 9:39 AM

You are essentially arguing “Dude, even thought there is a ton of muslims willing to engage in terrorism – don’t ban muslim immigration, our great, strong, competent gov’t will discovery any possible terrorists by reading form i-485 and stop them from getting in. After all, our great, strong, competent gov’t is soooo good at everything it does”.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 8:27 AM

It also begs the question of why we would want to import cadres of millions of future voters who hate the Founding Fathers’ political philosophy and think that BigGov is wonderful.

I want people here who support classical liberalism, individual liberty and universal human dignity and essence.

That’s why I’m not a “libertarian.”

ebrown2 on January 25, 2016 at 9:43 AM

Which would give the dems ~400 seats in the house and ~95 senate seats and the presidency.

Be careful what you wish for.

Tlaloc on January 24, 2016 at 6:18 PM

It looks like we are already there and I didn’t even wish for it. The only difference between a Reid/Pelosi leadership and a McConnell/Ryan leadership is that the Democrats only get 80% of what they wanted with McConnell/Ryan. Funny thing is that with Reid and Pelosi in charge, they were rightly blamed for the idiocy. Now Republicans are also rightly blamed for it.

jya lai on January 25, 2016 at 10:16 AM

Ace over at Ace of Spades seems to have decided this is the best way to go because he’s tired of just hoping “winning elections” will solve things:

The problem is in the difference between what the base thinks is ‘doing their job’ and what the elected elites believe. To the base, sending someone to DC to eliminate ObamaCare means, at the end of the day there is no ObamaCare. To the elites, having a vote on the issue or passing a bill that is vetoed meets the requirement. No, we have had a decade of winning elections and getting nothing done. When we send a weenie to DC to kill an idea or enact one we expect that as the end result and failed votes and vetoed bills simply does not meet that standard.

The elites confuse an excuse with doing hat they promised. If the rules as they exist do not suit the desired end result, change the rules. The dems do this all the time.

JIMV on January 25, 2016 at 10:32 AM

MJ,
I think you will find the actual percentage of whites in America to be about 61%. Whites have not made up 77% of America in a couple of decades. It really does matter.

A.T. Tapman on January 25, 2016 at 10:47 AM

Oh please. They are “taking it out” as you put it, precisely becuase In Gov We CAN’T Trust.

rhombus on January 25, 2016 at 6:11 AM

Yet you trust the government to implement a COMPLETE ban on Muslims without people getting killed over it?

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM

If you could just show us which ones they are…..

Don L on January 25, 2016 at 6:15 AM

Civilized, free societies abide by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on you if you want to take away someone’s liberty.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 11:01 AM

Yet you trust the government to implement a COMPLETE ban on Muslims without people getting killed over it?

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 11:00 AM

Ahh. So your new argument is: if we ban the peaceful muslims, people will get killed, so we should trust our gov’t to weed out the bad ones.

Nice. Logic really doesn’t get involved in your head at all, does it?

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 11:02 AM

Civilized, free societies abide by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on you if you want to take away someone’s liberty.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 11:01 AM

they are not citizens. We don’t have to let them in. They don’t get a “burden of proof”.

Geeze, do you even understand the concept of Citizenship? Of immigration?

they don’t get the full constitutional rights before they get in. Everyone in the world is not a citizen of America that is owed entry.

You are truly delusional. You have no idea of very basic concepts.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 11:03 AM

Civilized, free societies abide by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on you if you want to take away someone’s liberty.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 11:01 AM

by the way, not allowing a non-citizen entry into the country is NOT “taking away someone’s liberty”.

Get a grip.

You open borders nuts are just that – nuts. This kind of nuttery is why Rand will never be president. Even as he tries to hide such beliefs, his followers make it clear.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM

Civilized, free societies abide by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on you if you want to take away someone’s liberty.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 11:01 AM

Why do you want more Muslims in America? Do we at present have a shortage of uneducated, low IQ hostiles? What purpose would they serve? Does their living here benefit the citizens of America? Does any of this matter to you?

A.T. Tapman on January 25, 2016 at 11:12 AM

they are not citizens. We don’t have to let them in. They don’t get a “burden of proof”.

Geeze, do you even understand the concept of Citizenship? Of immigration?

they don’t get the full constitutional rights before they get in. Everyone in the world is not a citizen of America that is owed entry.

You are truly delusional. You have no idea of very basic concepts.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 11:03 AM

The human right to liberty is inalienable. That means it doesn’t go away, even if you refuse to recognize it by treating one group of people as inferior to another.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM

Civilized, free societies abide by the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

In court rooms…not customs lines.

The burden of proof is on you if you want to take away someone’s liberty.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 11:01 AM

So having a door on your house take’s away someone’s liberty?

rvastar on January 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM

The human right to liberty is inalienable. That means it doesn’t go away, even if you refuse to recognize it by treating one group of people as inferior to another.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM

Really? So why do we have police? And court rooms? And jails?

rvastar on January 25, 2016 at 12:05 PM

In court rooms…not customs lines.

No, everywhere. Police officers don’t get to punish you for crimes you didn’t commit. Border officers don’t get to punish immigrants for crimes they didn’t commit.

So having a door on your house take’s away someone’s liberty?

rvastar on January 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM

No, the country’s border is not private property.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 12:26 PM

Really? So why do we have police? And court rooms? And jails?

rvastar on January 25, 2016 at 12:05 PM

To deal with the people who have violated the liberty of others. Depriving one person of liberty who would otherwise deprive many others of liberty ultimately increases the amount of liberty experienced by a society.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 12:28 PM

No, everywhere. Police officers don’t get to punish you for crimes you didn’t commit. Border officers don’t get to punish immigrants for crimes they didn’t commit.

Police officers don’t punish you for crimes. Judges do.

And not allowing someone entry into the country is not punishment…in the same way that not allowing someone into your house – for whatever reason you choose – is not punishment.

No, the country’s border is not private property.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 12:26 PM

It is property of the people of the United States. And just like any other property holder, the people have the right to refuse entry to any non-citizen that they choose…for whatever reasons they choose.

rvastar on January 25, 2016 at 12:33 PM

To deal with the people who have violated the liberty of others. Depriving one person of liberty who would otherwise deprive many others of liberty ultimately increases the amount of liberty experienced by a society.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 12:28 PM

So then it’s not “inalienable”? And can “go away”?

Yes?

rvastar on January 25, 2016 at 12:36 PM

The human right to liberty is inalienable.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM

True, but there is no inalienable right to illegally immigrate.

earlgrey on January 25, 2016 at 12:39 PM

The human right to liberty is inalienable.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM

True, but there is no inalienable right to illegally immigrate.

earlgrey on January 25, 2016 at 12:39 PM

It’s not true. When you are imprisoned, your right to liberty “goes away”.

rvastar on January 25, 2016 at 12:47 PM

The human right to liberty is inalienable. That means it doesn’t go away, even if you refuse to recognize it by treating one group of people as inferior to another.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM

this is idiotic. I didn’t say it wasn’t. Non-citizen’s rights to “liberty” doesn’t include the right to immigrate to the U.S.

You really don’t have a clue on these concepts.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM

The human right to liberty is inalienable. That means it doesn’t go away, even if you refuse to recognize it by treating one group of people as inferior to another.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM

z
z
Wherever did you learn this? I thought you were one of the few American Libertarians in the world, I guess you are something very different. Does the word sovereign mean anything to you?

A.T. Tapman on January 25, 2016 at 1:16 PM

Absent a huge financial crisis, which is probably brewing with respect to Social Security and Medicare, it is going to be a long game to turn this ship around. You aren’t going to change the course of the US government by forcing a short term shut down over the budget. You need to do this in incremental steps and doing appropriations under regular order instead of through large Omnibus funding bills.

IMHO the term RINO isn’t that useful. It seems to me that a RINO is any Republican that doesn’t agree with the speaker/poster 100% of the time. It is really only useful in referring to Trump, who goes with the D’s as much if not more often than the R’s.

Sparky on January 25, 2016 at 1:19 PM

Wherever did you learn this?

A.T. Tapman on January 25, 2016 at 1:16 PM

From the same article in the Constitution that discusses the “separation of church and state”.

Because…you know…everybody knows that’s in the Constitution.

rvastar on January 25, 2016 at 1:25 PM

Wherever did you learn this?

A.T. Tapman on January 25, 2016 at 1:16 PM
From the same article in the Constitution that discusses the “separation of church and state”.

Because…you know…everybody knows that’s in the Constitution.

rvastar on January 25, 2016 at 1:25 PM

Thanks, I needed that!

A.T. Tapman on January 25, 2016 at 1:29 PM

IMHO the term RINO isn’t that useful. It seems to me that a RINO is any Republican that doesn’t agree with the speaker/poster 100% of the time. It is really only useful in referring to Trump, who goes with the D’s as much if not more often than the R’s.

Sparky on January 25, 2016 at 1:19 PM

RINO doesn’t work as a term because the GOP is a leftist party. What people mean when they say “RINO” is – you are a very good republican – voting to increase spending, increase the debt, increase gov’t, and help pass the left’s agenda.

I agree, we won’t be able to pay down the debt in a single year. But all the other problems can be fixed fairly quickly and easily. It’s just that nobody wants to do it – even many alleged “conservatives”.

but, this article isn’t about “solving the problems in a day”. It’s about whether to continue the delusional hope that the GOP will someday become conservative or blow it all up now and re-make it as a conservative party. I have a comment above where I explain why the former won’t work.

For instance, SS can be fixed by making the retirement age older and making it means tested. (obviously this would have to be done incrementally so as not to screw those at or near 65 right now). And then for much younger workers, change over to retirement accounts that can be invested.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM

I agree, we won’t be able to pay down the debt in a single year. But all the other problems can be fixed fairly quickly and easily. It’s just that nobody wants to do it – even many alleged “conservatives”.

but, this article isn’t about “solving the problems in a day”. It’s about whether to continue the delusional hope that the GOP will someday become conservative or blow it all up now and re-make it as a conservative party. I have a comment above where I explain why the former won’t work.

For instance, SS can be fixed by making the retirement age older and making it means tested. (obviously this would have to be done incrementally so as not to screw those at or near 65 right now). And then for much younger workers, change over to retirement accounts that can be invested.

You have to get a governing coalition to do that, and I doubt you could get enough “true conservatives” in the House and Senate to do that absent a financial crisis. Some jobs people could do into their 70’s, but if you’re involved in actual labor, bricklaying, carpentry, truck driving, road building, etc trying to do that past 60 or 65 is a real challenge. It is physically demanding work that takes its toll on a persons body. Retirement age is already 66 and is moving towards 67 by 2027 for those born in 1960. The bigger retirement problem is not private sector SS recipients but would be public sector workers that often can retire in their mid-50s with 30 years of service, or police and firefighters that can retire after 20 years often after cramming as much overtime as possible into their last 2 or 3 years to inflate their retirement package to above their base pay.

Sparky on January 25, 2016 at 1:41 PM

You have to get a governing coalition to do that, and I doubt you could get enough “true conservatives” in the House and Senate to do that absent a financial crisis. Some jobs people could do into their 70’s, but if you’re involved in actual labor, bricklaying, carpentry, truck driving, road building, etc trying to do that past 60 or 65 is a real challenge. It is physically demanding work that takes its toll on a persons body. Retirement age is already 66 and is moving towards 67 by 2027 for those born in 1960. The bigger retirement problem is not private sector SS recipients but would be public sector workers that often can retire in their mid-50s with 30 years of service, or police and firefighters that can retire after 20 years often after cramming as much overtime as possible into their last 2 or 3 years to inflate their retirement package to above their base pay.

Sparky on January 25, 2016 at 1:41 PM

I never said “true conservatives”. That is your derogatory term to try and dismiss my argument.

What I said was that the GOP is a dishonest party. It is left-of-center but sells itself as right of center. thus, the left’s agenda is always being pushed forward, regardless of which party is in charge.

My argument is that you can’t remake the GOP by primarying people here or there. It has to be blown up. And I’m not talking about making it “true conservative”, but at least right-of-center.

I said to have safe haven for those approaching 65. For those younger, they need to make retirement plans or find other work. depending on SS at 65 when you are currently 50 is foolish, at beset. You are not conservative if you believe the gov’t is expected to take care of them.

Essentially, you are arguing for leftism.

Your arguments are the same that the furthest left republican gives. Essentially the “we must compromise for the sake of compromise” argument. It is not only unpersuasive, but logically makes no sense.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 1:53 PM

The bigger retirement problem is not private sector SS recipients but would be public sector workers that often can retire in their mid-50s with 30 years of service, or police and firefighters that can retire after 20 years often after cramming as much overtime as possible into their last 2 or 3 years to inflate their retirement package to above their base pay.

Sparky on January 25, 2016 at 1:41 PM

This is true but is a separate issue than SS. I think all defined benefit plans need to be scrapped in favor of defined contribution plans. All defined benefit plans, whether SS or state/local pensions, are nothing more than ponzi schemes, which are wildly abused and will always cause problems.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 1:54 PM

Your arguments are the same that the furthest left republican gives. Essentially the “we must compromise for the sake of compromise” argument. It is not only unpersuasive, but logically makes no sense.

Good luck getting a governing coalition with this one. Absent the federal government going bankrupt you won’t get enough votes to make this happen.

I’m not arguing a leftist position, I’m arguing a realistic position. I’m in favor of getting to a smaller government but the beast wasn’t built overnight and it won’t be disassembled in one or two election cycles.

Sparky on January 25, 2016 at 3:21 PM

Good luck getting a governing coalition with this one. Absent the federal government going bankrupt you won’t get enough votes to make this happen.

I’m not arguing a leftist position, I’m arguing a realistic position. I’m in favor of getting to a smaller government but the beast wasn’t built overnight and it won’t be disassembled in one or two election cycles.

Sparky on January 25, 2016 at 3:21 PM

Your argument, as best I can understand, is that you favor keeping the GOP as is and working slowly toward a smaller gov’t.

Let’s start with your first sentence. In fact, the GOP incumbents all ran on lowering spending, stopping illegal immigration, and reducing gov’t. So, in effect, a governing coalition to do those things exists.

My point is that the GOP incumbents all lied. Because the GOP is a lie. The GOP is not a right-of-center party, but a left-of-center party.

Thus, I see no problem getting a right-of-center coalition formed. Indeed, even the dems run as “conservative” to a large extent. getting the coalition elected is not the problem. Getting them to actually do what the promised is the problem.

In order to get them to do what they promised, we have to change the GOP. We have to change it from a left-of-center party it currently is, to the right-of-center party it claims to be.

So, you are not arguing a “realistic” position, but a defeatist position. Your position appears to be “we can’t do any better, so stick with what we got”.

You also appear to not understand my argument. I”m not arguing changing the federal gov’t overnight. I’m arguing about changing the GOP. Yes, it will take time to change the federal gov’t. Although, probably not as long as you seem to believe. But the first step is changing the GOP. Which can be changed much more quickly by destroying the current incarnation.

I am arguing against the original posters argument – which is that we have to accept the GOP as it is and keep supporting it, albeit with a primary challenge here or there. My counter-argument, as expressed in my first comment on this thread, is that is nonsense and won’t accomplish anything.

Not sure where you actually stand, but you appear to stand on the “keep blindly supporting the GOP” side of the equation.

If so, that isn’t “realism”. Not sure where you disagree.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 3:39 PM

The human right to liberty is inalienable.

TBSchemer on January 25, 2016 at 12:02 PM

So what? Do you contend that it is the duty of the US government to defend the rights of those who are not citizens, nor even legal residents?

If so, you are claiming that the US has a mandate to act as world government. If not, how is the above statement relevant at all?

GrumpyOldFart on January 25, 2016 at 7:26 PM

Police officers don’t punish you for crimes. Judges do.

And not allowing someone entry into the country is not punishment…in the same way that not allowing someone into your house – for whatever reason you choose – is not punishment.

Right, judges do, and in court, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

It is property of the people of the United States. And just like any other property holder, the people have the right to refuse entry to any non-citizen that they choose…for whatever reasons they choose.

rvastar on January 25, 2016 at 12:33 PM

The property of which people? If I’m one of those people, then that means I can deny you entry, right?

TBSchemer on January 26, 2016 at 12:12 AM

this is idiotic. I didn’t say it wasn’t. Non-citizen’s rights to “liberty” doesn’t include the right to immigrate to the U.S.

You really don’t have a clue on these concepts.

Monkeytoe on January 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM

It includes the right to do anything which does not harm another human being.

TBSchemer on January 26, 2016 at 12:13 AM

True, but there is no inalienable right to illegally immigrate.

earlgrey on January 25, 2016 at 12:39 PM

Liberty includes the freedom to do anything which does not harm another human being, including buying private property and moving to that property, regardless of which country claims legal jurisdiction over that region.

TBSchemer on January 26, 2016 at 12:15 AM

It’s not true. When you are imprisoned, your right to liberty “goes away”.

rvastar on January 25, 2016 at 12:47 PM

It doesn’t go away. The right to liberty is violated by imprisonment, but if the prisoner would otherwise be violating the liberty of many other people, then societal liberty is maximized by depriving that one person of it.

TBSchemer on January 26, 2016 at 12:16 AM

z
z
Wherever did you learn this? I thought you were one of the few American Libertarians in the world, I guess you are something very different. Does the word sovereign mean anything to you?

A.T. Tapman on January 25, 2016 at 1:16 PM

Ever read the U.S. Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…

TBSchemer on January 26, 2016 at 12:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 2