Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#16 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,058 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 12:05 PM

Here is the problem with that quote.

It isn't factual. The rich aren't being offered low taxes, in fact they pay the highest tax rate. It's all BS.

I am starting to think that Obunga has told his lies so much that people accept them for truth.



Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn’t conservatism; it’s a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation.



I'm pretty sure he is saying the Republicans are wanting to lower taxes for the rich. Also the current tax % that the richest tax bracket is being taxed at is one of the lowest ever.

Edited by Cat, 22 November 2011 - 12:07 PM.


#17 pantherfan49

pantherfan49

    Angry inventor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,311 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 02:47 PM

I'm pretty sure he is saying the Republicans are wanting to lower taxes for the rich. Also the current tax % that the richest tax bracket is being taxed at is one of the lowest ever.


The highest tax bracket (as far as income) is one of the lowest in the modern era. Of course, that was offset in the 80s by the introduction of taxes on capital gains, sources of revenue for people that were not previously taxed. Sure, the highest tax rate is lower now than it was in say 1998 (by like 3% points), but the tax rate on the middle class has been dropped even more to the point of being eliminated for many middle and low income earners.

If you crank the numbers, we might could all realize that raising taxes won't fix our budget issues. In fact, if we dropped the bush tax cuts on the highest income earners, there would only be a roughly 75 billion USD increase in revenue (ignoring entirely whether GDP growth would then slow). If we dropped the bush tax cuts on middle and low income earners, there would be a roughly 200 billion USD increase in revenue (subject to same caveats). That won't hardly close the gap on the 1.4 trillion a year in debt that president Downgrade in racking up. This is all about class warfare and trying to get president Downgrade reelected.

Nobody wants to make deep and serious spending cuts and program changes to military, medicare, medicaid, and social security spending. Everyone is worried about getting reelected and catering to society that is, by and large, incapable of cranking the numbers themselves. But spending is the problem, plain and simple!

Everybody should sit back and ask themselves if they think they are getting a good return on the (let's just assume an effective tax rate of 25%) 25% that the feds seize from each of your paychecks. Sure, the feds provide me safety in the form of an army, the feds also had a decent amount of involvement in establishing our communications and travel infrastructure, and the feds provide the courts in which our law is based, but does anyone really think that the 25% of your money that the feds take in taxes each year from your paycheck is being spent wisely? Compare that to the roughly 7% effective tax rate that the State takes in and what the State provides- education, roads, police, etc.

#18 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,353 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 03:56 PM

Term limits on congressional members would help. When they're held to 8-12 years in office, they may be more willing to get poo done rather than just worrying about being re-elected.

#19 pantherfan49

pantherfan49

    Angry inventor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,311 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 04:00 PM

Term limits on congressional members would help. When they're held to 8-12 years in office, they may be more willing to get poo done rather than just worrying about being re-elected.


I dunno. It's all about your respective team (dems, repubs) now.

#20 beach

beach

    |~~-~-~|

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,671 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 04:53 PM

I dunno. It's all about your respective team (dems, repubs) now.


That's the way its projected but not the way it is imo

#21 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,969 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 22 November 2011 - 05:17 PM

The Democrats have had ZERO concept of reality for years.

They believe that you can spend, spend, and spend some more regardless of whether you can afford it.

They believe that you shoudl take from those who have achieved success in their financial careers....to merely hand it to people who do nothing but "want" it.

Their rallying call is to create one more entitlement to entice the lazy, uneducated, and entitlement generation to become that much more dependent upon the government for their survival.

The American way of being accountable for your successes and failures....getting a good education (and I am not talking about the idiot in the paper who racked up $250k in student loans to get a damn masters degree in photography)....and working your ass off for 20 years to obtain success has gone the way of....20 year olds who expect the same lifestyle immediatly that their parents worked 20 years f.or

#22 pantherfan49

pantherfan49

    Angry inventor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,311 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 05:19 PM

That's the way its projected but not the way it is imo


really? I see a bunch of party line votes. All Repubs on one side, all Dems on another.

#23 fitty76

fitty76

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,545 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 08:27 PM

Republicans lost me when they became the party of Jesus.

#24 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,058 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 08:47 PM

Madhatter, That's not what they believe, thats what you like to think they believe. Straw man, easy to refute.

#25 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,353 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 11:26 PM

They believe that you shoudl take from those who have achieved success in their financial careers....to merely hand it to people who do nothing but "want" it.


Does success = failure, bankrupting/nearly bankrupting millions of citizens, and being bailed out?

#26 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,356 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 23 November 2011 - 12:03 AM

Politicians have had ZERO concept of reality for years.

They believe that you can spend, spend, and spend some more regardless of whether you can afford it.


fixed

#27 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,382 posts

Posted 23 November 2011 - 01:37 AM

Term limits on congressional members would help. When they're held to 8-12 years in office, they may be more willing to get poo done rather than just worrying about being re-elected.


If they don't have to worry about being re-elected why exactly would they get stuff done?

#28 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,356 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 23 November 2011 - 01:42 AM

If they don't have to worry about being re-elected why exactly would they get stuff done?


I'm in favor of either one long term or unlimited terms.

My reasoning: Presidents' first terms are nothing but a four year long campaign for a second term, in which they usually go apepoo with the failures. Why would you want the same from Congress?

#29 Catalyst

Catalyst

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,107 posts
  • LocationMorehead City

Posted 23 November 2011 - 04:23 AM

I've said in the past that, had I been born 40 years ago I'd likely be a republican. The party today has taken such a sharp turn to the right, though, it's insane. Political extremism is one thing I just can't support and while most conservatives today don't even see how far right the GOP has gone, if you look at the party over the long haul of history you begin to see it.

I uncovered a video on YouTube once of one of the GOP's nominees that ran against FDR and he was doing an ad for his campaign and was talking about all the things he supported: worker's right to unionize, minimum wage, common sense regulations, social security, etc, while still promoting limited/common sense government. He sounded like a modern blue dog democrat. Compare that to today's fringe/tea party GOP - not to mention the way the religious right has hijacked the party - and it's the type of party that would have been considered on the political fringe 40-50 years ago.

That said, the democrats are just only slightly better. I don't think any of them have any backbone at this point short of the Bernie Sanders/Dennis Kucinich types and they're considered left wing nuts. It'd be nice to find a more moderate dem with that same type of backbone and a legit populist message/ideology.

#30 pantherfan49

pantherfan49

    Angry inventor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,311 posts

Posted 23 November 2011 - 06:26 AM

Does success = failure, bankrupting/nearly bankrupting millions of citizens, and being bailed out?


Well both parties bailed out the banks (including many by Mr. Obama). The libertarian fringe of the Republican party would have let the banks fail.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.