What do Republicans have to do to become relevant again?

[Kujako]

At the very least, if welfare spending is the issue. Why do states that are synonymous with welfare, like NY and CA, contribute so much more to the federal government coffers, than they receive in return?

Because we live in a democratice representative republic rather then a series of autonomous states. We give money into a common pool that is ostensibly put to work where it is most needed (not saying this always happens, but that's the idea). This is most often less densely populated agricultural states.

Personally, I dont know that spending is the issue overall. But there are definitely areas that could due with some cuts. However I dont know that I would want to cut welfare, medicare, etc without a study to look at how said cuts would effect people. My opinion is that cuts should be made where they will do the least harm to the populace.

[mistuhbull]

Pass a law that you have to pay taxes to vote. Then the republicans will win with 70% of the votes when you take out the welfare/poor/illegals. Why should people who can't afford to pay taxes have a say in putting people in office that spend our taxpayer money.

The 24th amendment is why. Now if you would like to repeal the 24th amendment, you're welcome to try

[smelltheglove]

Fair enough. I think a lot of it could be consolidated into simpler programs instead of the scattered set of policies we have now. I've supported replacing most welfare with a negative income tax.

tbh, we have many things that need a good going over, for the same reason. it seems that anything that becomes politically important instantly has every asshole and his brother jumping in with uninformed ideas on how it should be working, and enough of them get the power to tinker with it. so we end up with frankenstein programs that get bled dry by friends of politicians and/or are completely ineffective

[Cthulhu 2020]

Pass a law that you have to pay taxes to vote. Then the republicans will win with 70% of the votes when you take out the welfare/poor/illegals. Why should people who can't afford to pay taxes have a say in putting people in office that spend our taxpayer money.

Does that mean that people and companies who effectively lower their taxes paid to 0 via loopholes shouldn't vote either? (Completely ignoring the 24th amendment of course)

[Kujako]

Does that mean that people and companies who effectively lower their taxes paid to 0 via loopholes shouldn't vote either? (Completely ignoring the 24th amendment of course)

I think he means the legendary Romney 47%. You know, old people and poor folk who dont earn enough to pay income tax. Sure they still pay other federal and state taxes, but it seems those dont count for some reason.

[FusedMass]

The 24th amendment is why. Now if you would like to repeal the 24th amendment, you're welcome to try

If people seems like they want repeal the 24 amendment. I suggest repealing the 2nd amendment right after.

[Felya]

Because modern conservatism isn't about facts. It's about a moral framework, and that means that they are always right.

That's the thing with demonizing welfare, by asking to cut welfare, you are specifically targeting large states that already contribute far more than they take federal tax wise. They are asking these 'liberal' states to take a cut in how much they receive, while continuing to prop up farm subsidies in states that do not nearly contribute as much. How about we increase taxes in states that receive more federal funds than they contribute?

[smelltheglove]

I think he means the legendary Romney 47%. You know, old people and poor folk who dont earn enough to pay income tax. Sure they still pay other federal and state taxes, but it seems those dont count for some reason.

and funnily enough, probably more of them voted for romney than obama, because they didnt realize that they were the ones he was talking about

[NineSpine]

That's the thing with demonizing welfare, by asking to cut welfare, you are specifically targeting large states that already contribute far more than they take federal tax wise. They are asking these 'liberal' states to take a cut in how much they receive, while continuing to prop up farm subsidies in states that do not nearly contribute as much. How about we increase taxes in states that receive more federal funds than they contribute?

Because the truth is that the reason so many of those red states take so much federal money is because they lap up welfare like it's going out of style.

[Felya]

Because we live in a democratice representative republic rather then a series of autonomous states. We give money into a common pool that is ostensibly put to work where it is most needed (not saying this always happens, but that's the idea). This is most often less densely populated agricultural states.

Personally, I dont know that spending is the issue overall. But there are definitely areas that could due with some cuts. However I dont know that I would want to cut welfare, medicare, etc without a study to look at how said cuts would effect people. My opinion is that cuts should be made where they will do the least harm to the populace.

Which means we need to cut programs in states that are propping up these smaller states, instead of increasing taxes in smaller states? That's just digging a deeper hole...

[NineSpine]

and funnily enough, probably more of them voted for romney than obama, because they didnt realize that they were the ones he was talking about

The 47% number includes retirees and deployed troops.

[Vyxn]

Everybody pays taxes.

but not every one pays federal taxes

[Felya]

Because the truth is that the reason so many of those red states take so much federal money is because they lap up welfare like it's going out of style.

Sadly, red state welfare does not seem to be counted as the same as blue.

[NineSpine]

but not every one pays federal taxes

Everyone with an on the books job, which includes most illegal immigrants, pays payroll taxes.

[Kujako]

Which means we need to cut programs in states that are propping up these smaller states, instead of increasing taxes in smaller states? That's just digging a deeper hole...

Not sure where you got that from, but since you bring it up I dont see how targeting taxes specifically on the states that cant afford them would make much sense. We just had an overall tax increase and an expiration of the payroll tax credit. I would like to see some of the stupid tax loophole and credits removed, but it's not looking likely to happen.

[Felya]

but not every one pays federal taxes

To increase redundancy, we should make people on social security pay taxes!

[Vyxn]

If people seems like they want repeal the 24 amendment. I suggest repealing the 2nd amendment right after.

there is only one time in American history that an amendment was created to take a right away and we all know how that turned out

[Nadev]

We can argue about "is the sky blue?" I pose that it's not - it's actually just a figment of our imagination set by God to keep us calm and peaceful outside. Prove me wrong.

(Point being: we can argue about anything).

Also, add "birth control" to the list of things Republicans shouldn't talk about.

Again, Republicans need to brand themselves as "the party of freedom," which means that they don't get involved in your private life. Your decisions on birth control, health, abortion, gay sex, marriage, etc. are all your private life. They want a world where the government doesn't need to interfere or guide people because everyone already has a great footing.

Ironically, Paul Ryan's Republican Response to the State of the Union was one of the best I remember because it clearly set a vision of the Republican party that people could get around. But then he clouded that vision by talking about abortion, gay marriage, etc. during the race.

If the vision is actually "a country so successful that it doesn't need government," then quit fucking around in private affairs.

Where have you been all my life?

[Kujako]

Sadly, red state welfare does not seem to be counted as the same as blue.

Well its the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality. Often the people who are vocal against welfare, food-stamps, etc have at some point collected them. When they do it, it's because they deserve the help. When others do it, it's because they are lazy good for nothing leeches on society.

Again I must reuse the Craig T. Nelson comment. "I've been on foodstamps and welfare, did anyone help me out? No."

[NineSpine]

there is only one time in American history that an amendment was created to take a right away and we all know how that turned out

Technically, the Second Amendment was largely supported because the Southern states were afraid the federal government would take away their militias that they needed to stop slave rebellions.