What I am challenging them to do is “put up or shut up” — either come up with ways to solve the problem of government dysfunction, or stop complaining.

The downside of cynicism: I no longer have that kind of faith in people. Individuals and small groups can do amazing things over the long haul, and large groups can do amazing things in a short burst, but a hundred million people pulling off a sustained revolution when their lives or livelihoods are not immediately threatened…I just don’t see it.

As for people taking the check because that’s the system, I’ve seen too many conservatives passionately defend their entitlements to believe that a majority of people would be happy to see everyone’s check go.

These are the ones who have been told by Hastert and Frist to sit down/shut up because the GOP needs to present a united front against the Dems.

Reduce the Dems to insignificance, and that threat no longer works against them. You would see the conservatives and RINOs battle for control — itself producing gridlock.

Add to that voter opposition on other issues besides taxation/spending, and you have several serious challenges against continued dominance of the RNC in determining public policy.

The difference is, then we will not be limtied to only one, or two, choices to address these problems, simply because those one/two choices have major-party backing.

The DNC and RNC need each other “as is” to stay in power. Render one politically impotent, and our checks, balances, and voters will render the other either impotent or truly compliant, IMO.

As for the “number” of voters issue you initially brought up — how many of those who accept the check do so because they think they can’t change the system to curb the spending … so they go along for the ride?

Give ‘em a real way out — and explain to ‘em why they need to go there — and their tune might change.

Also, as we’ve seen again these past two years, the rules that help keep government in line change when the populace is afraid. If the GOP uses fear to become a supermajority (and that seems to be the reason put forward by many here as to why we should support them), why would they then start governing by the rules?

I’d prefer a flat tax on income, no deductions, no exemptions and no grace salary.

Now, one possible pothole on “my” road is, if wealthism is already too rampant in our society, a single-party government could stay in power by divide-and-conquer through the use of precision-guided pork. The Roman use of “bread and circuses” to placiate the masses is an example of this.

That, of course, would leave the GOP wide open to effective attack from conservatives and liberals alike … that they do not practice what they preach. And, the GOP could not hide behind the cover of “well, the Dems would be even worse.”

The question is: are there enough people looking to “get theirs” from the government to override principled opposition?

I don’t think that wealthism is so entrenched yet, that a single party gov. could capitialize on it this way — but that’s why MattG’s voter education ideas are essential, even after pushing one party off the cliff.

Since consumption is such a driving force in our economy, tying taxation to it applies instant, intense, and widespread feedback of just how much the government is taking from us to fund what we think we want from it. This is a beneficial feedback that is orders of magnitude stronger than filling out Form 1040 once a year.

“Widespread” is significant — for right now, a majority of the nation pays only 4% to 5% of the income taxes collected. Since they don’t significantly feel the pinch of increased government spending, they are not informed voters.

OTOH, even though the rebate provisions of the Fair Tax significantly reduce the net tax paid by lower-income households, they — along with everyone else — will still be reminded of the cost of government, every time they make a purchase. They will be informed

And, since a lot of consumption is built on the rickety scaffold of easy credit, a little — not a lot — of negative feedback (in the form of the taxes making you think twice before buying what everyone else is buying on QVC) would be beneficial as well.

Now, many will panic at the economically depressive possibilities of imposing a 23% tax on today’s prices — but we have to remember that there is even more tax than that already embedded in those prices. When that goes away, competition will lower those prices, so we should end up with the same, or even greater, purchasing power as a result.

Back on topic, I now understand the difference between fair and flat tax, neither of them are really fair. Thanks.
What about a national sales tax? Why would that be a good or bad idea?

However, Trotsky didn’t have the checks-and-balances in our system to protect him, either. I think they are up to the task of handling the “brief” existence of a supermajority.

The thing is, a supermajority puts the GOP into a no-win situation. They must either practice what they preach — and end the pork and growth of government, the awarding and direction of which is the fuel of party politics — or they will enrage the voters, who will then look for alternatives with vigor.

Given today’s information technology, I don’t think one necessarily needs the millions for TV time to get their message out … especially when they won’t be under the shadow cast by two parties, which is what really blanks out the alternative messages already out there. This is especially true in congressional races.

There is a risk in a supermajority — that we will end up with a government like Mexico. I believe that risk to be small, because of the structural protections of our voice and freedoms within this government.

More later …

I hate to sound callous, but the total number of soldiers we’ve lost since the start of hostilities a year ago is about equal to an average month in Vietnam — and this against enemies that are even more inclined to suicide than the VC ever were.

The mistake we made that has resulted in both the Fallujah and the Shi’ite uprising, is when we decided to leave elements with a history of inciting and executing violence in place, in order to avoid “escalating” the violence.

That’s what we get for borrowing a page from the Leftist “let’s get along” playbook, instead of engaging in the precision-guided ruthlessness I described above.

Through our resolute action against ONLY those who take up arms against us, the Iraqis should get the message that America fits the description of “No Better Friend … No Worse Enemy”.

The question is … in the face of the political sniping that is going on, will this Administration have the resolve to implement the above policy?

I’d hate to think that the opposition to this President is engaging in this sniping, not because they seek to correct him, but because they seek to replace him … with that desire producing a false coloration of the information and opinions they present about the conduct of the war.

I’m curious if you think the two(so far) terrorist attacks in Spain immediately following their capitulation; is a sign of the failure of their new policy.

Also, please cite a number of casualties low enough to stop you from asking the Fallujah question. Thanks.