I know lots of people are saying the Republicans need to change to sway more independents, but the scariest part of this election was that Romney won independents. He just couldn’t win over his own party. Republicans complained for 4 years about Obama. They showed up in droves in 2010 and the Tea Party took the midterm elections.
Then they picked a guy that apparently not even their own party wanted and just sat at home on election night. Meanwhile, the Democrats, many of whom were far from happy with Obama, show up and re-elect the guy. Seems like Obama gift wrapped the presidency and the Republican Party marked return to sender.
[quote]burgerbob wrote:
I know lots of people are saying the Republicans need to change to sway more independents, but the scariest part of this election was that Romney won independents. He just couldn’t win over his own party. Republicans complained for 4 years about Obama. They showed up in droves in 2010 and the Tea Party took the midterm elections.
Then they picked a guy that apparently not even their own party wanted and just sat at home on election night. Meanwhile, the Democrats, many of whom were far from happy with Obama, show up and re-elect the guy. Seems like Obama gift wrapped the presidency and the Republican Party marked return to sender. [/quote]
You make some valid points. But you have to understand the thought process of many republicans. If our candidate is not conservative enough then we would much rather have someone who is far left.
Makes no sense you say?
Well…that didn’t stop 3 million republicans who could have sent Obama packing from staying home.
And what happens when we find someone conservative enough for their tastes? The independents and several other key voting blocks that we did win defect to the democrat.
They’re really smart those 3 million they sure showed Obama who was boss.
(eye roll)
Some people need to get their asses kicked twice before they wake up…
Edit: That’s with independents breaking for Romney. And evangelicals voting for Romney more than they did for McCain, and the same percent as for Bush. Just cause I know that’s a particular interest of yours
Could some of those independents Romney won have changed affiliation from R since 08? I don’t think it says good things for the R’s right now that they did so well with Independents and still lost (at least electorally) handily. I’m just finding it hard to believe that Republicans stayed home that much more this time. I’d say they were MUCH more energized this election than 08 when the Republican brand was pretty damn low.
It’s also possible, given the GOP base that a bunch of the 2008 voters just got old and died, had their meth labs blow up or were killed in hunting accidents.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
It’s also possible, given the GOP base that a bunch of the 2008 voters just got old and died, had their meth labs blow up or were killed in hunting accidents.[/quote]
So you are throwing in the towel on the West bashing and moving on to childish stereotypes?
Still waiting on your explanation of what “fair share” shakes out to be numbers wise.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
It’s also possible, given the GOP base that a bunch of the 2008 voters just got old and died, had their meth labs blow up or were killed in hunting accidents.[/quote]
So you are throwing in the towel on the West bashing and moving on to childish stereotypes?
Still waiting on your explanation of what “fair share” shakes out to be numbers wise.[/quote]
BEANS,
Regarding “Childish Stereotypes”, people that refuse to hold their own side up to the same standards that they expect from others don’t really have any credibility (I’m looking at you).
As far as the West bashing, what did I say that is actually untrue? He was kicked out of the Army for being a nutcase, he was voted out of congress for the same thing, his actions, accusations and bizarre threats label him as either a lunatic or an idiot (I vote for crazy simply because I don’t like to think that a moron would have advanced that far in his career, although after my experiences in the Army I would say it’s very possible that he is just not very bright).
With regards to the “fair share” tax argument, that seems to be one that you are making for me. I told you what i would like to see, and despite you constantly saying “Taxation without representation” for no reason whatsoever (I don’t think it applies) I was pretty pleased with my suggestions (which is why I made them). I have not formulated an exact % plan, since my access to the CBO, the exact needs of each Federal Agency and the incomes of all Americans is limited. But I agree that a return to the Clinton Era tax rates wouldn’t be bad for a start, jumping the top rate to 39.6%, and the 2nd highest from 35% to 36% both seem acceptable (yes I know I am in the 28% bracket for MFJ so it doesn’t impact me), I would also like to see investment income taxed at about a 5% higher clip, if the rich feel oppressed they are free to be poor.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
It’s also possible, given the GOP base that a bunch of the 2008 voters just got old and died, had their meth labs blow up or were killed in hunting accidents.[/quote]
So you are throwing in the towel on the West bashing and moving on to childish stereotypes?
Still waiting on your explanation of what “fair share” shakes out to be numbers wise.[/quote]
BEANS,
Regarding “Childish Stereotypes”, people that refuse to hold their own side up to the same standards that they expect from others don’t really have any credibility (I’m looking at you).
As far as the West bashing, what did I say that is actually untrue? He was kicked out of the Army for being a nutcase, he was voted out of congress for the same thing, his actions, accusations and bizarre threats label him as either a lunatic or an idiot (I vote for crazy simply because I don’t like to think that a moron would have advanced that far in his career, although after my experiences in the Army I would say it’s very possible that he is just not very bright).
With regards to the “fair share” tax argument, that seems to be one that you are making for me. I told you what i would like to see, and despite you constantly saying “Taxation without representation” for no reason whatsoever (I don’t think it applies) I was pretty pleased with my suggestions (which is why I made them). I have not formulated an exact % plan, since my access to the CBO, the exact needs of each Federal Agency and the incomes of all Americans is limited. But I agree that a return to the Clinton Era tax rates wouldn’t be bad for a start, jumping the top rate to 39.6%, and the 2nd highest from 35% to 36% both seem acceptable (yes I know I am in the 28% bracket for MFJ so it doesn’t impact me), I would also like to see investment income taxed at about a 5% higher clip, if the rich feel oppressed they are free to be poor.[/quote]
West wasn’t, “kicked out,” of the Army for being a nutcase. He was NJP’d, which effectively ended his career. The military gets political the hire up you go. Also the fact that he was NJP’s vs. Court Martialed is a huge indicator that his career warranted leniency.
Honest question, do you believe forcing a % of the population to give $4 out of every $10
they make to the government fair?
Also how do you think the economy will react if you:
Take more $ out of it via higher taxes?
Reduce $'s invested because
a. Take home pay is now lower, &
b. IF you make money off the investment more will be given to Uncle Sam.
How do you justify making a risky investment if the return is now taxed an additional 5%? Won’t that hurt the economy at a time when the economy is pretty fragile?
Regarding “Childish Stereotypes”, people that refuse to hold their own side up to the same standards that they expect from others don’t really have any credibility (I’m looking at you).[/quote]
What side would I be on then? Do you really even know?
Pretty much everything, because you’ve fail to prove any of it so far.
No, not even remotely close to the case, but keep repeating it over and over again, it may just stick one of these times.
But I suppose to you, doing what he thought he had to do to keep his men alive is “being a nutcase”. I suppose you’ve been in charge of as many troops in a war situation?
Any examples of this? We can already see your Army example is bunk, so…
And seeing as West can articulate a point better than you can… You may want to hold on to the stones you are throwing here.
So, people paying additional taxes, that others don’t have to pay, and in return get zero additional representation from their government for payment of these taxes isn’t taxation without representation?
Please explain how forcing high wage earners to pay more in SS, but not get any additional increase in retirement benefits is representative.
And I’m asking you to try and explain how it could work within the framework of our tax code. Because your suggestions don’t in fact work.
You don’t have exact % plan because you know, just I know, just as anyone who can think knows, the tax code is already progressive. The whole notion of “fair share” is simiply class warfare division rhetoric that is used to justify you wanting someone else to carry more of the load because you don’t want any more of your own skin in the game.
And if I can google search for the rest of the information you talk about, why can’t you?
Right, so long as it doesn’t effect you right? You have no problem with forcing other people to do what you want, as long as you are free to carry on how you please right?
This hurts everyone, not just those with higher investment incomes. This hurts me, it hurts my daughter, it hurts everyone. This especially hurts those people putting away every extra nickle and dime for the future that aren’t rich, that aren’t the evil wealthy.
Why would you be willing to do this? Why do you want to take opportunity away from others?
This is just further proof that you can’t (or refuse) to see beyond your own nose.
Why on Earth would you want people to be poorer? Why is that okay with you? Why wouldn’t you want everyone to be richer?
How do you justify making a risky investment if the return is now taxed an additional 5%?
[/quote]
A lack of critical thinking. He forgets 401k’s, 529’s and pension plans that are invested in the same market he wants to rip an addional 5% out of.
We just recently got back to where we were 5 years ago in the markets. (Unless you were in Gold, lol) This means my retirement lost 5 years of growth, my daughters college fund lost that time as well.
I’ve had to do and re-do budgets for fixed income retired people over and over, because they lost 5 years of growth.
Now in this time you’ve seen QE1, 2 & 3, without massive increases in inflation… This should alarm you as to the state we are actually in.
But no, it doesn’t, because people can’t see the big picture. They see Romney’s tax returns, have no idea what % they actually pay in tax only a bracket, and foam at the mouth about “fair”.
The only true “fairness” is liberty. Liberty isn’t forcing others to do something you aren’t willing to do yourself, because of the consequences.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
It’s also possible, given the GOP base that a bunch of the 2008 voters just got old and died, had their meth labs blow up or were killed in hunting accidents.[/quote]
So you are throwing in the towel on the West bashing and moving on to childish stereotypes?
Still waiting on your explanation of what “fair share” shakes out to be numbers wise.[/quote]
BEANS,
Regarding “Childish Stereotypes”, people that refuse to hold their own side up to the same standards that they expect from others don’t really have any credibility (I’m looking at you).
As far as the West bashing, what did I say that is actually untrue? He was kicked out of the Army for being a nutcase, he was voted out of congress for the same thing, his actions, accusations and bizarre threats label him as either a lunatic or an idiot (I vote for crazy simply because I don’t like to think that a moron would have advanced that far in his career, although after my experiences in the Army I would say it’s very possible that he is just not very bright).
With regards to the “fair share” tax argument, that seems to be one that you are making for me. I told you what i would like to see, and despite you constantly saying “Taxation without representation” for no reason whatsoever (I don’t think it applies) I was pretty pleased with my suggestions (which is why I made them). I have not formulated an exact % plan, since my access to the CBO, the exact needs of each Federal Agency and the incomes of all Americans is limited. But I agree that a return to the Clinton Era tax rates wouldn’t be bad for a start, jumping the top rate to 39.6%, and the 2nd highest from 35% to 36% both seem acceptable (yes I know I am in the 28% bracket for MFJ so it doesn’t impact me), I would also like to see investment income taxed at about a 5% higher clip, if the rich feel oppressed they are free to be poor.[/quote]
West wasn’t, “kicked out,” of the Army for being a nutcase. He was NJP’d, which effectively ended his career. The military gets political the hire up you go. Also the fact that he was NJP’s vs. Court Martialed is a huge indicator that his career warranted leniency.
Honest question, do you believe forcing a % of the population to give $4 out of every $10
they make to the government fair?
Also how do you think the economy will react if you:
Take more $ out of it via higher taxes?
Reduce $'s invested because
a. Take home pay is now lower, &
b. IF you make money off the investment more will be given to Uncle Sam.
How do you justify making a risky investment if the return is now taxed an additional 5%? Won’t that hurt the economy at a time when the economy is pretty fragile?
[/quote]
USMC,
Despite the fact that West was allowed to retire from the military with full benefits, the initial punishment ordered by Major General Raymond Odierno was either immediate resignation (three days before his pension eligible date) or face a court martial, they eventually agreed on a $5k fine and retirement with bennies, rather than garner the bad press this issue could have brought in 2003-4 (when a lot of similarly disturbing shit was happening).
Yes I think 4 out of 10 is fair, especially since it worked before. Any idea what the tax rate was during during our “golden years” of the 50’s? From 1941 (81%) to 1982 (50%) our tax rates went as high as 94%. Guess what? We survived and even flourished at times. The idea that people will simply stop making money because they don’t want to pay taxes is ludicrous.
Rates on investment income have been as high as 39.9% (1977) and as low as 15% (today), but the rate of investment over those years has remained pretty consistent regardless of the tax consequences. Would a smart businessman walk away from a good product/asset/idea because they don’t want to pay 5% extra in taxes on the profit from their investment? I don’t think so.
Yes I think 4 out of 10 is fair, especially since it worked before. Any idea what the tax rate was during during our “golden years” of the 50’s? From 1941 (81%) to 1982 (50%) our tax rates went as high as 94%. Guess what? We survived and even flourished at times. The idea that people will simply stop making money because they don’t want to pay taxes is ludicrous.
[/quote]
Without talking about the changes to the IRC in the 80’s this is total garbage.
Please also discuss the difference between effective tax rates and marginal tax rates while you are at it.
Once you are done, you will have blown the hole in your own argument.