AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I did find that Mark Kennedy (R) of Minn gave up $450 for every day he was absent from Congress when he was running for reelection in 2006.
Michael Bloomberg, mayor of NYC, earns $1/year.
It strikes me as potentially very bad when only rich people can run for or serve in elective offices.

Mark Dayton for one..
He also worked for $1 a year in state office.
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=878861


The right referred to him as "the worst Senator ever"

One of the core beliefs of republicanism is "the worker is worthy of his wages."

Some people try to buy into government positions - mostly republicans. Whitman spent $141 million of her own money to try to "win" the California governorship - and lost. She probably would have worked for "free."

Ah, yes, but nixon dressed the WH security detail in outfits that were a cross between the Pope's Swiss Guards and something out of "Naughty Marietta."

Then there was ronnie raygun and fancy nancy who flaunted their money before the nation and increased the size of government.

Both put forth pomp and circumstance that only suited a Republican administration.

Why?
Was it because of his voting record and his positions on issues, or because of him only working for $1?

Nixon didnt dress the WH security detail at all.
The Marines where their standard uniform, the Uniformed Secret Service agents wore the standard uniform, and the rest of them wore normal suits.


You mean like the Kennedy's did.
Or are you actually saying that the dems never use pomp and circumstance when they are in the WH?

I know you have an irrational hatred for anything republican or conservative, but at least try to be honest in your claims.

Mark Dayton won the race for Governor in Minn by less than 1%. Closer than expected. He becomes the 1st Dem Gov since 1986.
Why he is branded as "the worst Senator ever" by conservatives is best explained by looking at the final four or five paragraphs of the article Parados linked to above.

Time Magazine, 9 February 1970

As Britain's Prime Minister Harold Wilson arrived at the south portico of the White House last week, he may have had a fleeting fancy that he had come to a banana republic or a Balkan kingdom. On hand to greet him were a squad of White House guards caparisoned in Graustarkian dress uniforms festooned with gold braid and nipped at the waist with black leather gunbelts. The black vinyl hats trimmed in gold suggested, by turns, a Ruritanian palace guard, a Belgian customs inspector, and Prince Danilo in The Merry Widow.
The President was impressed during his European tour last year by the shakos and braids of the ceremonial guards he encountered. Nixon—who himself wears, somber grays and blues—had his staff order some kitschily elaborate threads for 150 of his White House police from a Washington military tailor. What did the President think of the uniform? "He likes it," reported Press Secretary Ron Ziegler. Some guests may have wondered whether the White House would soon revert to its old name. For a time, in the 19th century, the executive mansion was known as the President's Palace.
The Nixonian court jester may well be Red Skelton. Last week, in the first of a series of "Evenings at the White House," Skelton gave the VIP-studded audience the kind of entertainment that has made him a sort of cultural hero to Nixon's generation. After all the belly laughs were over ("I played golf today and shot a 72; tomorrow I'm going to play the second hole"), Skelton displayed an old trouper's feel for his audience by dramatically reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag amid a reverential hush.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,876538,00.html#ixzz14f5y4crc

Well, what is so benevolent then for only the rich paying all the taxes? It seems to me that if the poor pay no taxes at all, it might also be a bad thing in terms of them having no vested interest in how the tax money is being spent. I thought my idea was fairly stimulating and may have validity, to ask if we need to pay taxes based upon our ability to pay, then why not base the federal workers pay scales upon their need to be paid. Why not? If the accepted standard has now become, to each according to their need and to each according to their ability, as it applies to taxes, why not to salaries too? That is an appropriate question that relates to how we should apply principle to our taxing system and our federal employee compensation system. In other words, what is our guiding principles in forming our policies in this country?

okie, All the past congress' and presidents have determined that the poor shouldn't have to pay any taxes. What makes you think you are smarter than they to make that decision? Do you have any understanding of what a democratic republic is? How about our Constitution; a subject most conservatives are supposed to know.

Oh.. I see okie..
to each according to his need...



Good one there okie... How long have you been a Marxist?

Except that isn't the principle for taxes okie.

Rasmussen has a couple of new polls out regarding possible Republican candidates for the 2012 Presidential race.
Admittedly, voters of every stripe are suffering from election fatigue but the campaign will begin in earnest around about January.
Likely voting Republicans indicated that they favored Romney (20%), Huckabee (19%), Palin (19%) and Gingrich (13%).
Rasmussen asked Repubs who had voted in Republican primary elections how they would feel about leaning towards a 3rd party candidate if (insert name) was the nominee.
31% they would do so if Palin was the nominee, followed by 28% and 27% for Romney and Gingrich respectively. Huckabee came in at 24%.
Of course, the flip side is that 70% of those polled would not consider bolting the party regardless of who the nominee is.

I am still hoping that one of our Repub brethren would consider hosting a thread on the race for the 2012 nomination that will not descend into the rancor of most of the political threads on A2K.

USA GDP growth trends are not relevant to the health of or trends in the USA economy.

Total employed (TCE) and percent civilian work force employed (PTCWFE) are relevant to the health of the USA economy.

Hoover raised taxes and giveaway spending, and TCE and PTCWFE dropped. Roosevelt in turn raised taxes and giveaway spending, and TCE and PTCWFE dropped much further. It wasn't until 1941 when Roosevelt started purchasing stuff from the private sector to actually produce and started drafting (i.e., hiring soldiers) to support the growing WWII war effort that both TCE and PTCWFE began to increase significantly.

I have been thumbing up posts that the okie/ican axis thumbs down for quite some time.

But, if they are hungry enough after paying their taxes, their children won't develop well. Their brains will not grow.

Oh, then they might turn into Republicans! Ah, starve them into voting for you! What a plan!

On the other hand, they might have a vested interest in revolution.

Of course you ignore the fact that it has primarily been liberals and progressives that have pushed for more and more progressivity in the income tax system, parados. So I think my question is valid. After all, what is good for the goose might be good for the gander. I am asking the question in humor, parados, in case you haven't caught on. It is illustrating the absurd with absurdity. The point is, if progressivity is not appropriate for wage scales, why should it be appropriate for taxing what people have made on their own?

I have also pointed out the reality that it is a Marxist principle, "to each according to his need and to each according to his ability," that underlies the entire concept or principle of a progressive income tax system. Most of us consent to it to a slight extent, but some of us are astute enough to know when it is taken too far, to its extreme, which is what the liberal extremists among us would like to do. We especially start protesting when we are not only paying most of the taxes, but we are told we should feel guilty about not paying more and more, and more. I think that is what the Tea Party movement is largely about.

okie, You have the temerity to still talk about taxation when you have continually advocated for tax cuts for the wealthy, while they're not asking for tax cuts. They are asking to be taxed more!

How dumb are you? They have not asked for your support for more tax cuts; why are you so dense? They understand taxes must be collected to pay for all of our government services; they also understand that the poor are unable to pay more. That's the reason they are prepared to pay more taxes.

Why do you continue with your nonsense? You have absolutely no common sense. Your arguments only makes our country weaker in every way; economically and socially.

Apparently you missed my posting of my proposed marginal income tax table, ci. I pointed out it is not my first choice, but if we are stuck with what we have, that is what I posted. My first choice would be a national retail sales tax, but if and only if the income tax was totally done away with.

My national retail sales tax would exclude shelter up to a threshold, also exclude food and energy to heat our homes and power our cars and transportation. I think we should at least take a serious look at it. My final support would depend upon how it is structured. My worst fear would be ending up with both income tax and sales tax, that would be the worst possibility of all.

Actually, a national retail sales tax would mean that Paris Hilton would fund the entire country.

What a moronic idea! A national retail sales tax! The people of NH would secede from the Union. I guess there is a silver lining to every cloud.