PDA

View Full Version : The official Election 2012 discussion thread...


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9

pricejj
02-28-2012, 03:13 PM
Politics = the death of a sense of humor.


:Broncos:

Obamacare = rolling over the 3-day-old dead carcass of humor

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 03:43 PM
Also, the government should pay me extra every year I stay married.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=2298049

Imagine what all those selfish single people are costing the health care system. :)

Also an employer cost-of-wedding mandate should be an immediate HHS priority.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 03:51 PM
http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/spirituality-may-help-people-live-longer

Employer Bible Mandate. Wonder what the ACLU will think.

That One Guy
02-28-2012, 04:52 PM
I like the way this thread is going. I think I recall reading that having sex makes you healthier. The wife is already gonna live longer so if Uncle Sam hooks me up, maybe I can extend this thing out and catch her.

That One Guy
02-28-2012, 04:53 PM
A glass of wine a day makes you healthier. Government sponsored booze?

SoCalBronco
02-28-2012, 05:01 PM
Snowe is retiring. That's a big loss, as it immediately becomes a near lock pickup oppurtunity for the Dems.

Pseudofool
02-28-2012, 06:10 PM
Snowe is retiring. That's a big loss, as it immediately becomes a near lock pickup oppurtunity for the Dems.
Surprising she would do so, just two weeks before filing. Maybe it's a stretch to connect her move to the birth control debate by her fellow Republicans, but the party did no favors with that stance for their moderate woman office holders.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 09:23 PM
http://www.menshealth.com/health/health-and-sexual-benefits-masturbation

First dibs on fap breaks mandate. :)

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kUZYuOVezA8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kUZYuOVezA8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Dexter
02-28-2012, 09:34 PM
http://www.menshealth.com/health/health-and-sexual-benefits-masturbation

First dibs on fap breaks mandate. :)

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kUZYuOVezA8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kUZYuOVezA8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>


Now that I could get behind.

Bronco Yoda
02-28-2012, 10:00 PM
Congrats to Romney to winning Massachussets and all 2,000 of it's GOPers!

.

Bronco Yoda
02-28-2012, 10:20 PM
Mittens wins tonight even though he was in favor of liquidating the American Auto industry but yet voted for the Wall Street bailout.

BroncoBeavis
02-28-2012, 10:30 PM
Mittens wins tonight even though he was in favor of liquidating the American Auto industry but yet voted for the Wall Street bailout.

Mitt voted on that? What was that an OM Poll?

Drek
02-29-2012, 01:49 AM
Mittens wins tonight even though he was in favor of liquidating the American Auto industry but yet voted for the Wall Street bailout.

His mainstream competition (Santorum and Gingrich) held the same views. Ron Paul wanted to let both burn.

The fact that Santorum is finishing within striking distance when Romney's family is a legacy in the state, when he carried it strongly in '08 against McCain, etc. is nothing but bad news for Romney.

He can't win Michigan in the general. He won't win PA either. The GOP is already facing an uphill battle in Ohio and Wisconsin. If Obama takes all four he just needs one other swing state off the map, any state out of nearly a dozen, and he's locked up a second term. GOP went into this thinking that beating Obama was assured and have since failed to put up a single credible candidate.

alkemical
02-29-2012, 05:47 AM
His mainstream competition (Santorum and Gingrich) held the same views. Ron Paul wanted to let both burn.

The fact that Santorum is finishing within striking distance when Romney's family is a legacy in the state, when he carried it strongly in '08 against McCain, etc. is nothing but bad news for Romney.

He can't win Michigan in the general. He won't win PA either. The GOP is already facing an uphill battle in Ohio and Wisconsin. If Obama takes all four he just needs one other swing state off the map, any state out of nearly a dozen, and he's locked up a second term. GOP went into this thinking that beating Obama was assured and have since failed to put up a single credible candidate.

The "middle part" of Pennsyltucky is more Santorum - but PHI & PITT - not so much.

Romney understands, and will continue to do the right thing for Business. I just don't feel it's the right thing for America.

alkemical
02-29-2012, 07:49 AM
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/2/28/14/enhanced-buzz-6510-1330456963-12.jpg



http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romney-tried-to-sell-other-peoples-stuff-for

Why sell them your personal belongings on eBay when you could sell them for Mitt Romney instead? Romney's 2008 Presidential campaign website let people sell off their old personal belongings to raise money for the campaign. They seem to have dropped this idea for 2012. If this seems confusing, it's because it is.

bendog
02-29-2012, 08:09 AM
Snowe is retiring. That's a big loss, as it immediately becomes a near lock pickup oppurtunity for the Dems.

What's funny is that Obama's initial missteps saved the gop from just imploding from lack of enthusiasm and outright despair after Bushii, and now the only thing keeping the dems in power, at least in the senate, is the whackadoodles left in the gop.

I'm not a witch.

TonyR
02-29-2012, 10:00 AM
Both have called for radical downsizing of government, with Santorum seeking to cap federal spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product and Romney seeking to cap it at 20 percent. Either cap, if enacted, would decimate key federal programs and all but certainly require undermining cherished social welfare programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Both want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, effectively taking health insurance away from 30 million people. Both have called for reducing taxes in ways that will disproportionately favor the wealthy. Both promise the deficit will come down – and both have sketched out fiscal plans that would, according to a recent report from the Committee on a Responsible Federal Budget, make the deficit go up.http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/101195/romney-santorum-michigan-primary-campaign-deficit-spending-tax

alkemical
02-29-2012, 10:59 AM
http://propagandatimes.com/images/propaganda/pyramidscheme.jpg

alkemical
02-29-2012, 11:03 AM
http://propagandatimes.com/images/propaganda/resolution_revolution.jpg

BroncoInferno
03-01-2012, 07:19 AM
Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart dead at 43:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/01/10548738-conservative-firebrand-andrew-breitbart-has-died-at-age-43

TonyR
03-01-2012, 12:07 PM
When you have a candidate few people really like, whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep, whose raison d’etre (a 4am fancy word) is fixing an economy that is fixing itself without him, and who only wins his actual, factual home state by three percentage points against a guy no one took seriously only two months ago, there really is little reason for independent voters in the general election to choose him if the economy keeps improving.

Seriously, putting it bluntly, conservatives may not like Barack Obama, but most other people do. And when faced with a guy you like and a guy you don’t like who says he can fix an economy that no longer needs fixing, you’re going to go with the guy you like.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/02/29/three-percent/

Rohirrim
03-01-2012, 12:11 PM
Breitbart dropped dead. Only 43. What a terrible tragedy.





:spit:

alkemical
03-01-2012, 12:50 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/the-argument-about-the-economy-in-four-charts

The Economic Debate In Four Charts

Dueling blog posts from The Atlantic's Derek Thompson and the conservative American Enterprise Institute's James Pethokoukis crystalize the debate over the economy that will dominate the presidential election. Democrats contend that the economy is getting better, while Republicans say it's happening too slowly.


http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web04/2012/3/1/10/enhanced-buzz-18329-1330616874-30.jpg


http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web04/2012/3/1/10/enhanced-buzz-18329-1330616888-32.jpg

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/3/1/10/enhanced-buzz-25498-1330616914-44.jpg

Pethokoukis: The current recovery in the labor market has badly lagged others that occurred after deep recessions.

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2012/3/1/10/enhanced-buzz-321-1330616939-31.jpg

Pethokoukis: The official unemployment rate is 8.3%, but when you include labor force dropouts and part-timers who want full-time work, the rate jumps to 15.1%.

BroncoInferno
03-01-2012, 06:55 PM
Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High:

The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/27/432749/buffett-corporate-tax-myth/?mobile=nc

alkemical
03-05-2012, 08:21 AM
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/15425317936/chipping-away-first-amendment-new-trespassing-bill-could-be-used-to-criminalize-legitimate-protests.shtml

Proposed US law bans protesting near anyone who rates a Secret Service detail
from Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow

HR437, "the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011" makes it illegal to protest in the vicinity of anyone who rates a Secret Service detail (even if you aren't aware of the person's presence), thus sparing politicians and VIPs the ugly and unseemly spectacle of having to confront voters who disagree with their policies. Only three Congressmen voted against it.

On top of that, the punishment can be pretty severe. You can get up to a year in jail for being found guilty of these things, and that jumps up to 10 years if you are carrying a "deadly or dangerous weapon."

As Amash notes, there are legitimate safety concerns to be aware of, and there are issues with doing something that significantly impedes government regulations. But it's really not difficult to see how this bill could very, very easily be stretched to be used against those doing standard protesting against significant political figures.

Rohirrim
03-05-2012, 09:00 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51gfQ2kKlUL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-All-Politics-Washington-Richer-Turned/dp/1416588698

A groundbreaking work that identifies the real culprit behind one of the great economic crimes of our time— the growing inequality of incomes between the vast majority of Americans and the richest of the rich. We all know that the very rich have gotten a lot richer these past few decades while most Americans haven’t. In fact, the exorbitantly paid have continued to thrive during the current economic crisis, even as the rest of Americans have continued to fall behind. Why do the “haveit- alls” have so much more? And how have they managed to restructure the economy to reap the lion’s share of the gains and shift the costs of their new economic playground downward, tearing new holes in the safety net and saddling all of us with increased debt and risk? Lots of so-called experts claim to have solved this great mystery, but no one has really gotten to the bottom of it—until now. In their lively and provocative Winner-Take-All Politics, renowned political scientists Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson demonstrate convincingly that the usual suspects—foreign trade and financial globalization, technological changes in the workplace, increased education at the top—are largely innocent of the charges against them. Instead, they indict an unlikely suspect and take us on an entertaining tour of the mountain of evidence against the culprit. The guilty party is American politics. Runaway inequality and the present economic crisis reflect what government has done to aid the rich and what it has not done to safeguard the interests of the middle class.

alkemical
03-06-2012, 06:13 AM
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k82/amesj523/426571_10150565426196780_505906779_.jpg

Rohirrim
03-06-2012, 06:41 AM
In 2010 -- the first full year since the end of the Great Recession -- virtually all of the income growth in America took place among the country's very wealthiest people, says an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. The top 1 percent of earners took in a full 93 percent of all the income gains that year, leaving the other 7 percent of gains to be sprinkled among the vast majority of society.

Those numbers come courtesy of Emmanuel Saez, the Berkeley economist who co-created a resource known as the World Top Incomes Database. Saez and his colleagues crunched the data on income growth from 2010, the most recent year available, and found that it was shockingly lopsided.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1321008.html

alkemical
03-06-2012, 06:43 AM
http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

TonyR
03-06-2012, 08:21 AM
...says an economist at the University of California, Berkeley...

You can't trust anything that comes from academia. Universities are full of liberal, elitist snobs who are busy indoctrinating our youth. Just ask Rick Santorum. We want our youth stupid and ignorant so they keep voting GOP!

bendog
03-06-2012, 08:32 AM
i sorta look at it differently. In 2008, I think at least in the senate there were gopers who really did think the tax code had been used for class warfare, or at least the tax code's effect was to shift wealth/income. And that was bad for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was the rich were paying a greater % of taxes compared to the rest of us than under Poppy and Slick.

But, when the great recession hit, the rich took a pounding. Investment has to come from somewhere ... and not the govt.

But today, most of us understand that the top 1%, and even 5%, have done nicely while we have not. And that's why the gop is really irrelevant outside of places like Utah and SC. (No mormon bashing occured in the making of this post)

alkemical
03-06-2012, 09:12 AM
You can't trust anything that comes from academia. Universities are full of liberal, elitist snobs who are busy indoctrinating our youth. Just ask Rick Santorum. We want our youth stupid and ignorant so they keep voting GOP!

Rick would know, he went to 3 of 'em.

alkemical
03-06-2012, 09:43 AM
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k82/amesj523/religion1fhfhgf.jpg

TonyR
03-06-2012, 11:58 AM
Right now, Obama is winning in all of the swing states against the presumptive GOP nominee, Romney. He's pulled even in Florida, he has a comfy 4 point lead in Virginia (with one recent poll showing him ahead by 17!); his margin in Pennsylvania is growing; it's tied in North Carolina; he's ahead in Ohio. The president's margins over the other GOP nominees is even bigger.

I suspect it's because of the GOP primary campaign exposing the flaws of their candidates and the contraception debate highlighting their reflexive religious fundamentalism. But that could wane if Romney does well tomorrow, stanches the bleeding and somehow manages to unite his party. Working against him is a slowly recovering economy, and high grades for Obama's foreign policy. If Romney had shown any signs of improving as a candidate, as distinguished from getting more endorsements, I'd say he could recover by the summer.

But very few candidates have gone into the general election with the kind of unfavorable numbers Romney now has. Unless there's another Romney under the plastic, they will be hard to shift. I mean: how do you win when half the country doesn't, you know, like you?http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/03/romneys-nadir.html

Rohirrim
03-06-2012, 12:11 PM
^Not only that, a poll yesterday showed Obama with an 18 point lead over any Republican among women voters. Looks like the social issues campaign isn't working too well.

bendog
03-06-2012, 12:23 PM
I think it'll tighten up once Mitt gets the nomination and Santorum stops lobbing grenades about contraception being radical, and it's pointed out that no one is making the catholic church buy birthcontrol but rather insurance companies would rather provide if free of charge than pay for unplanned pregnancies because ..... it's the only rational economic course. The catholics (and the baptists for that matter) have every right to not use contraception but they don't have a right to make my insurance more expensive for me and my employer.

But when Mitt can start talking about the mandate (well, that's gonna be embarrasing) and the economy and not have to say he will never, ever, compromise on taxes, and college needs to be affordable, and Obama's regulations are ineffective and harmful .... the polls will change.

Chuck Todd said the think in the gop party is that they need 48% in the general election to hold the house and make any run in the senate, and they think Romney can give them that. Personally, I think that's a little optimistic because Romney's poison among latinos with Obama getting 75%, and blacks going at least 85% for him, and there's no way the gop will recover enough of the suburban woman vote to beat the dims with women voters. Obama has a problem with voter enthusiasm with the young first timers who voted for him in 2008, but Romney's not gonna set the tea party or religious right on fire either.

Rohirrim
03-06-2012, 12:26 PM
^And wait until the commercials start coming out with the talking dog on top of the car going down the highway at 70 mph.

There goes the pet-owner vote. ;D

bendog
03-06-2012, 12:33 PM
^And wait until the commercials start coming out with the talking dog on top of the car going down the highway at 70 mph.

There goes the pet-owner vote. ;D

Ben lept out of the bed of my pick up one time when I was driving up the street by the apt going about 5mph. Face plant. I can give Mitt a pass on that. I like his wife, too. No disrespect to Mrs. Obama.

But Axelrod is gonna savage this guy. It's gonna make Rove on Kerry look like making nice.

BroncoLifer
03-06-2012, 01:01 PM
You can't trust anything that comes from academia. Universities are full of liberal, elitist snobs who are busy indoctrinating our youth.

Good to see that you're finally starting to get it. :thumbs:

bendog
03-06-2012, 01:26 PM
Good to see that you're finally starting to get it. :thumbs:

that's what I've never really understood. I do understand that probably a majority of professors tend to lean left, and dems have a large voter edge in people with post-grad degrees, but in law schools the left has nothing to compare with the Federalist Society, and the leading undergraduate econ textbook is written by Bushii's chair of econ advisors, though in 2008 he appeared to back track a bit on his record.

And if I really believed Romney had the guts to stick to his guns in the face of grover norquist and the tea party, I'd be defending the hell out of him, and I'll most likely vote for him in the primary.

Rohirrim
03-06-2012, 04:17 PM
Newt Gingrich wins Georgia. He's still alive. :rofl:

24champ
03-06-2012, 04:32 PM
Mitt wins Virginia.

canadianbroncosfan
03-06-2012, 04:34 PM
Newt Gingrich wins Georgia. He's still alive. :rofl:

It's amazing with 1% of the polls reporting and polls only being closed for 22 minutes they can project this. All it appears Romney has taking Virginia.

24champ
03-06-2012, 04:36 PM
Romney also looks good for Ohio. Not good news for Santy.

canadianbroncosfan
03-06-2012, 04:40 PM
Romney sure likes the "V", just took Vermont too.

Old Dude
03-06-2012, 06:02 PM
Santorum takes Tennessee and Oklahoma.

Kaylore
03-07-2012, 10:52 AM
Ron Paul: 0-for-23
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/mar/7/ron-paul-0-23/

With nearly half of the states having voted in the Republican presidential nomination process, Rep. Ron Paul still has yet to win a single state, but he says his message is still catching on in the campaign.

Keep hope alive, Ron Paul supporters. If the USA were the internet, he would win every time! :wave:

Dukes
03-07-2012, 11:36 AM
Ron Paul: 0-for-23
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/mar/7/ron-paul-0-23/



Keep hope alive, Ron Paul supporters. If the USA were the internet, he would win every time! :wave:

The people are the real losers in that one, not Dr. Paul

Kaylore
03-07-2012, 11:48 AM
The people are the real losers in that one, not Dr. Paul

Paul has some great ideas. He also has some ideas that will never be taken seriously. If he ever becomes a real candidate, you'll see him moderate as he accepts money from the special interests interested in keeping the status quo. Or he'll just lose.

El Minion
03-07-2012, 11:55 AM
Ben lept out of the bed of my pick up one time when I was driving up the street by the apt going about 5mph. Face plant. I can give Mitt a pass on that. I like his wife, too. No disrespect to Mrs. Obama.

But Axelrod is gonna savage this guy. It's gonna make Rove on Kerry look like making nice.

IIRC, it was a family vacation and Mitt put the dog on top of the car for the entirety of the trip. The dog was so scared it got diarrhea and s_hitted on the roof and onto the rear window. Mitt just pulled over and washed out the poop and continued on.

bendog
03-07-2012, 12:03 PM
I know. People do stupid things. But the thing is, he ****ed up, but he wasn't living like a rich guy. I don't think he's entirely a fake, but he shows very little spine.


The thing about Paul, and his kid, is they are selective libertarians. Personally, I think libertarianism is a useless political philosophy if you are actually trying to run a govt with an economy of any size, but if anyone can walk the walk I'm not here to judge. I may disagree, civilly. but once somebody starts picking and choosing issues to trumpet their libertarian banner, I call fake.

alkemical
03-07-2012, 12:29 PM
I know. People do stupid things. But the thing is, he ****ed up, but he wasn't living like a rich guy. I don't think he's entirely a fake, but he shows very little spine.


The thing about Paul, and his kid, is they are selective libertarians. Personally, I think libertarianism is a useless political philosophy if you are actually trying to run a govt with an economy of any size, but if anyone can walk the walk I'm not here to judge. I may disagree, civilly. but once somebody starts picking and choosing issues to trumpet their libertarian banner, I call fake.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc6l5w1mhqg

Pseudofool
03-07-2012, 05:58 PM
Paul has some great ideas. He also has some ideas that will never be taken seriously. If he ever becomes a real candidate, you'll see him moderate as he accepts money from the special interests interested in keeping the status quo. Or he'll just lose.Not only that, but his rhetoric will look like fantasy in practice. Ron Paul is great to have in debates and as a member of congress because his philosophy adds an important voice and consistency (just like say Saunders from Vermont). I'm really not sure how any serious person would want Ron Paul in charge of the federal government.

Cito Pelon
03-08-2012, 08:57 PM
Not only that, but his rhetoric will look like fantasy in practice. Ron Paul is great to have in debates and as a member of congress because his philosophy adds an important voice and consistency (just like say Saunders from Vermont). I'm really not sure how any serious person would want Ron Paul in charge of the federal government.

Agreed.

ZONA
03-08-2012, 09:19 PM
If you're a person who watches alot of politics on TV, all sorts of different channels and you hear both sides, you'll come to the conclusion that every politician says the same BS every election, I don't care which party it is. They all say the same BS. It's like you're never voting for somebody you actually like, it's voting on the person who you feel most likely not to F Schit up as much as the others. Very sad. I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul for certain reasons but I'll give the guy some credit. At least he goes up there and talks real talk whether it's popular or not. He doesn't give you that fake BS speech with the fake smile and talk about how his 10 kids or his faith makes him a real American. They want to get up their and spend an hour talking about condoms.........WTF? Seriously?

That One Guy
03-09-2012, 05:06 AM
If you're a person who watches alot of politics on TV, all sorts of different channels and you hear both sides, you'll come to the conclusion that every politician says the same BS every election, I don't care which party it is. They all say the same BS. It's like you're never voting for somebody you actually like, it's voting on the person who you feel most likely not to F Schit up as much as the others. Very sad. I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul for certain reasons but I'll give the guy some credit. At least he goes up there and talks real talk whether it's popular or not. He doesn't give you that fake BS speech with the fake smile and talk about how his 10 kids or his faith makes him a real American. They want to get up their and spend an hour talking about condoms.........WTF? Seriously?

The entire process is a condemnation of the people. Too many stupid people to make it worthwhile and productive.

alkemical
03-13-2012, 07:53 AM
http://inhabitat.com/new-gallup-poll-shows-more-americans-mistakenly-blaming-president-obama-for-rising-gas-prices/

According to a new Gallup poll, 65% of Americans mistakenly believe that President Obama and Congress are responsible for the recent spike in gas prices, while only 31% understand that neither the President nor Congress have any immediate control of the rising costs. Gas prices continue to reach record levels in the U.S., with a gallon of gas getting closer and closer to $5 in some parts of the country, and while that’s alarming, the fact that so many Americans are misinformed about who controls those prices is equally problematic. The poll also revealed that 85% believe that the government should step in to help lower the rising prices.


http://inhabitat.com/why-are-gasoline-prices-constantly-rising-in-the-usa/

In a report released today by the federal Energy Information Administration, it emerged that for the first time since 1949, the USA exported more petroleum products than it imported. Not just that, but it appears that the rise in fuel prices will continue for the foreseeable future. To quote the report, “during the April through September summer driving season this year, prices are forecast to average about $3.92 per gallon with a peak monthly average price of $3.96 per gallon in May.”

This is going to appal those of you with low mileage vehicles, especially as the current average price for regular-grade gasoline is $3.74 and could go up as high as $5.

Certain Republican senators have proposed the Keystone XL pipeline, but if that was to start construction today, fuel prices wouldn’t drop (even if they did) for years. Plus, that is not even mentioning the environmental impact. However leading Republican politicians, including the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell have been quick to blame President Obama for rising costs.

“Over the past few weeks, the American people have begun to feel the painful effects of President Obama’s energy policy. Make no mistake: The rising price of gasoline isn’t simply the result of forces we can’t control,” McConnell was quoted as saying to The New York Times.

SJ Bronco
03-13-2012, 09:25 AM
how about all the candidates just donate the money they raise for campaigns to the national debt? That would be better than their campaign. Seriously. 2 billion for a job that pays less than a CEO of a large corp. makes? Until the money gets out of politics, and the "news" stops sensationalizing pop culture into fallacious facts, no candidate will ever care about your vote. Just the donors votes and the news endorsements,

Old Dude
03-13-2012, 09:31 AM
Weird situation in the primaries today. There seems to be little doubt that Gingrich and Santorum are going to split the southern social conservative vote, so Romney could actually win Misssissipi and/or Alabama primaries, even if nearly two thirds of the voters there have him rated as as their third or fourth choice.

bendog
03-13-2012, 09:34 AM
With the pipeline thing, I don't see what takes so long in rerouting it away from that acquifer, which btw my mothers family took water out of for generations to grow wheat and corn.

Today is my state's primary. Mississippi. I'm torn. Gingrich was polling ahead, but helping the crazy guy get a delegate or two would maybe help keep him in it. I should be for Romney, as I've always been a moderate goper, but I just can't see him growing a backbone.

PS, we are not a winner take all state.

Rohirrim
03-13-2012, 10:16 AM
With the pipeline thing, I don't see what takes so long in rerouting it away from that acquifer, which btw my mothers family took water out of for generations to grow wheat and corn.

Today is my state's primary. Mississippi. I'm torn. Gingrich was polling ahead, but helping the crazy guy get a delegate or two would maybe help keep him in it. I should be for Romney, as I've always been a moderate goper, but I just can't see him growing a backbone.

PS, we are not a winner take all state.

In my darker moments I'm of the opinion that it really no longer matters. No matter who we elect, Wall Street and the bankers win. They've got all bets covered.

alkemical
03-14-2012, 11:45 AM
http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/2012/03/yankeecowboy.html

Carl's 1976 book, The Yankee and Cowboy War describes the historical, current, and future power struggles between the old-money Eastern Establishment ruling class and the upstart new-money oil/real-estate/aerospace ruling class of the South and West. The book used Carl's (and Kirkpatrick Sale's) interpretation of Dallas (a Cowboy assassination of a Yankee president) and Watergate (a Yankee overthrow of a Cowboy president) to make his main points to a public with a short memory. Of course, it would take a Rockefeller Republican, Gerald Ford, former member of the Warren Commission, as a Yankee President, to give amnesty to Vietnam-era draft resisters and placate the Cowboys by pardoning Nixon.


Avoid being distracted by the media game with the Yankee versus Cowboy jokes. There is a much more serious background battle being played out here. Romney appears to be the Republican Yankee here, with various other Republicans trying to appear to be Cowboys. Some may be. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama seems to be firmly entrenched as a Rockefeller Yankee, with ties to the old Henry Kissinger-Zbigniew Brzezinski camp.


An interesting POV.

alkemical
03-20-2012, 07:14 AM
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/make-it-rain-revolving-door/

ANALYSIS: When a Congressman Becomes a Lobbyist, He Gets a 1,452% Raise (on Average)

bendog
03-20-2012, 07:18 AM
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/make-it-rain-revolving-door/

ANALYSIS: When a Congressman Becomes a Lobbyist, He Gets a 1,452% Raise (on Average)

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/13/146836082/the-superpac-super-donors

alkemical
04-23-2012, 10:10 AM
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/04/the-creepiness-factor-how-obama-and-romney-are-getting-to-know-you/

http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/MittObama.jpg

The Creepiness Factor: How Obama and Romney Are Getting to Know You


Barack Romney or Mitt Obama?

Terrence McCoy writes in the Atlantic:

On a clear day in February 2001, a trim mid-career political analyst named Matthew Dowd landed in Washington, D.C., from Austin, Tex., and hurried into the White House for a meeting with Karl Rove. Inside a manila folder, he carried a sparsely-populated bar graph. The few numbers it had hit Rove like a bomb.

“Really?” Rove asked, snatching the document and glancing back at Dowd. “Man, this is a fundamental change.”

The truly independent voting bloc, Dowd’s data showed, had dissolved from one-fourth of the electorate in 1984 to just 7 percent. That meant the years of work leading up to the 2000 campaign and hundreds of millions of campaign dollars during it had focused on just 7 percent of voters — fewer than 8 million people. Everything next time, Dowd told Rove in his second-floor office, would have to be different. Forget independents. Find the Republicans hidden among the Democrats. What Dowd wanted, he would say years later, was “Moneyball for politics.”

He got it. Paired with a blond-haired pollster, Alex Gage, they marshaled a campaign strategy for the re-elect entirely divergent from anything in 2000. They named it “microtargeting.” The goal: Unearth every available fact on individual voters — what they eat, drive, buy their kids, who they really are — and use that information to persuade them to vote for George W. Bush. Use it to make them angry. Because more than any other emotion, rage and fear propel people to the polls. It worked: Just as they predicted, Americans worried by the social implications of gay marriage turned out in droves in 2004.

Read More: Atlantic

alkemical
04-23-2012, 10:13 AM
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/04/marijuana-legalization-could-save-u-s-13-7-billion-per-year/

More than 300 economists, including three nobel laureates, have signed a petition calling attention to the findings of a paper by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, which suggests that if the government legalized marijuana it would save $7.7 billion annually by not having to enforce the current prohibition on the drug. The report added that legalization would save an additional $6 billion per year if the government taxed marijuana at rates similar to alcohol and tobacco.

That’s as much as $13.7 billion per year, but it’s still minimal when compared to the federal deficit, which hit $1.5 trillion last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

While the economists don’t directly call for pot legalization, the petition asks advocates on both sides to engage in an “open and honest debate” about the benefits of pot prohibition.

alkemical
05-01-2012, 06:54 AM
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/a-spanish-company-known-as-scytl-will-be-reporting-election-results-for-hundreds-of-u-s-jurisdictions-on-election-day?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campai

A Spanish Company Known As Scytl Will Be Reporting Election Results For Hundreds Of U.S. Jurisdictions On Election Day

Rohirrim
05-01-2012, 09:10 AM
A lot of media types have been hyping Marco Rubio of Florida as an obvious VP choice for Romney. Looks like that isn't going to happen now:

Rubio billed the party for more than $100,000 during the two years he served as House speaker, according to credit card statements obtained by the St. Petersburg Times and Miami Herald. The charges included repairs to the family minivan, grocery bills, plane tickets for his wife and purchases from retailers ranging from a wine store near his home to Apple's online store. Rubio also charged the party for dozens of meals during the annual lawmaking session in Tallahassee, even though he received taxpayer subsidies for his meals.
Rubio said the billings all related to party business-- the minivan, for example, was damaged by a valet at a political function -- and that he repaid the party for about $16,000 in personal expenses. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/marco-rubio-gop-credit_n_1467297.html

And to think, the guy's whole schpiel is about controlling spending. :rofl:

houghtam
05-01-2012, 09:37 AM
A lot of media types have been hyping Marco Rubio of Florida as an obvious VP choice for Romney. Looks like that isn't going to happen now:

Rubio billed the party for more than $100,000 during the two years he served as House speaker, according to credit card statements obtained by the St. Petersburg Times and Miami Herald. The charges included repairs to the family minivan, grocery bills, plane tickets for his wife and purchases from retailers ranging from a wine store near his home to Apple's online store. Rubio also charged the party for dozens of meals during the annual lawmaking session in Tallahassee, even though he received taxpayer subsidies for his meals.
Rubio said the billings all related to party business-- the minivan, for example, was damaged by a valet at a political function -- and that he repaid the party for about $16,000 in personal expenses. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/marco-rubio-gop-credit_n_1467297.html

And to think, the guy's whole schpiel is about controlling spending. :rofl:

Ha!

And I thought his flub in front of the teleprompter screwed him!

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/and-this-is-why-it-was-foolish-to-crack-those-teleprompter-jokes/256365/

"I left my last page of the speech, does anyone have my last page? Did I Ieave it with you?"

LOL

Kaylore
05-14-2012, 02:42 PM
Your boy is dropping out, Taco.

Ron Paul ends his hunt for votes

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said Monday he will not compete in primaries in any of the states that have not yet voted — essentially confirming Mitt Romney will win the Republican presidential nomination.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/14/ron-paul-ends-his-hunt-votes/

Cito Pelon
05-14-2012, 02:56 PM
Mitt, please save me from this fool. Dude has a suntan, a haircut, and money and that's about it. No substance at all.

Rohirrim
05-14-2012, 03:10 PM
Mitt, please save me from this fool. Dude has a suntan, a haircut, and money and that's about it. No substance at all.

But he promises to run America like one of Bain's businesses. I guess that means he'll load us up with more debt, lay us all off, cash out, sell what's left to China, and stash the profit in offshore accounts. ;D

alkemical
05-14-2012, 03:12 PM
black sabbath is bad ass.

Cito Pelon
05-14-2012, 03:21 PM
But he promises to run America like one of Bain's businesses. I guess that means he'll load us up with more debt, lay us all off, cash out, sell what's left to China, and stash the profit in offshore accounts. ;D

It's impossible for me to vote for a multimiillionare that pays less % taxes than me. And wants to keep that the same. Obama is willing to tax himself, Romney? No way. Obama will do fine with a second term.

Paladin
05-14-2012, 03:23 PM
Yep. Mittins is a powderpuff vulture capitalist who screwed people out of jobs, sent the jobs off to China, keeps his money in the Cayman Islands, had a swiss bank account to hide money, likes to fire people and doesn't care about the poor, Latinos, gays, or other minorities. He thinks the Ryan budget proposals are "marvelous", and doesn't think the wealthier Americans ought to pay their fair share. He blieves marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman (at least sequentially), thereby denying the historical and biblical facts, particularly in the practice of polygamy.

He is a douche nozzle on a swivel, a spinning weather vane and has no core beliefs other than "Capitalism is good."


I dislike him.





(This message was typed without the aid of Mrs. TOG's nipples.)

houghtam
05-14-2012, 04:22 PM
Mitt, please save me from this fool. Dude has a suntan, a haircut, and money and that's about it. No substance at all.

He is going to get destroyed in any debate.

Absolutely.

Destroyed.

Drek
05-14-2012, 06:24 PM
Nice to see after the new issues with JP Morgan that Romney still stands by his views that we not only need to repeal what little bit of Dodd-Frank that actually got put in place, but also still thinks we need to get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley.

For those not in the know, Dodd-Frank basically says that investments banks shouldn't take high risk gambles (even referred to by most banking people by that word - gambles) if they're going to be federally insured. Sarbanes-Oxley basically just requires that corporations don't blatantly cook the books.

Romney and most of the GOP thinks that is too damn restrictive for businesses. Not playing roulette with tax payer backed money and not outright lying to the world about your company is too damn restrictive for the "good guys" to do well according to Romney. I wonder just how bad his version of "bad guys" are.

Republican Party Platform 2012 - where picking "winners and losers" is wrong unless it's them picking the 1% of wealthiest Americans to keep winning and for the bottom 90% to keep losing.

BroncoBeavis
05-14-2012, 06:57 PM
Nice to see after the new issues with JP Morgan that Romney still stands by his views that we not only need to repeal what little bit of Dodd-Frank that actually got put in place, but also still thinks we need to get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley.

For those not in the know, Dodd-Frank basically says that investments banks shouldn't take high risk gambles (even referred to by most banking people by that word - gambles) if they're going to be federally insured. Sarbanes-Oxley basically just requires that corporations don't blatantly cook the books.

Romney and most of the GOP thinks that is too damn restrictive for businesses. Not playing roulette with tax payer backed money and not outright lying to the world about your company is too damn restrictive for the "good guys" to do well according to Romney. I wonder just how bad his version of "bad guys" are.

Republican Party Platform 2012 - where picking "winners and losers" is wrong unless it's them picking the 1% of wealthiest Americans to keep winning and for the bottom 90% to keep losing.

SOX and Dodd Fwank are both jokes. They needed to go back to the base of Glass Steagall (because we know it worked) and work from there. Unfortunately our politicians are more worried about putting their names on things then solving problems.

Drek
05-14-2012, 07:18 PM
SOX and Dodd Fwank are both jokes. They needed to go back to the base of Glass Steagall (because we know it worked) and work from there. Unfortunately our politicians are more worried about putting their names on things then solving problems.
Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd Frank are both better than what we had before them.

But yes, Glass Steagall needs to return.

I miss the days when our government actually had the balls to tell Standard Oil and AT&T that they needed to split up. We've let a handful of banks set up a similar monopoly, but instead of cornering the market on a legitimate product they've cornered the market on our financial securities system and hold it for ransom.

Banks, insurance companies, investment firms, etc. should all be independent companies. Until we get back to that we're going to have a broken economic system. But back Glass Steagall and go at BoA, JPM, etc. with a jackhammer, not a scalpel.

Rohirrim
05-14-2012, 08:06 PM
What we need is Teddy Roosevelt. Unfortunately, we don't make those anymore.

BroncoBeavis
05-14-2012, 08:19 PM
Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd Frank are both better than what we had before them.

But yes, Glass Steagall needs to return.

I miss the days when our government actually had the balls to tell Standard Oil and AT&T that they needed to split up. We've let a handful of banks set up a similar monopoly, but instead of cornering the market on a legitimate product they've cornered the market on our financial securities system and hold it for ransom.

Banks, insurance companies, investment firms, etc. should all be independent companies. Until we get back to that we're going to have a broken economic system. But back Glass Steagall and go at BoA, JPM, etc. with a jackhammer, not a scalpel.

Nah. Both Dodd Frank and Sarbanes Oxley rely on yet another layer of bureaucracy to protect against the fact that prior layers of bureaucracy failed to do their jobs.

And the problem is that the more byzantine you make this system the more stuff falls through the cracks.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/12522889-452/dodd-frank-law-too-big-to-succeed.html

That sounds a lot like a difference without a distinction. Dodd-Frank defenders blame nefarious lobbyists hired by wicked Wall Streeters for the confusion and failure to resolve the issue.

Curiously, this was not a problem under the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act separating commercial and investment banks, but it was repealed in 1999. After the 2008 meltdown, rather than go back to the clear language of that law, Congress seized on the crisis to meddle in banks small as well as large, credit card dealings, bank fees and anything it could sweep under the title of reform and consumer protection.

It was done in the name of ending too big to fail. But since 2008, big banks have gotten bigger. Richard W. Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, has upset the titans of big finance and the potentates of big government by stating the obvious — these institutions are so huge that Washington would have little choice but to come to their rescue in another crisis.

Bacchus
05-14-2012, 11:51 PM
I really hate what the Republican Party has become. I look at them now and they offer me nothing, nothing at all and that is sad. I do not hate blacks, Mexicans, gays or women. I do not want all the tax breaks to go to the top 1% all the while we are laying off teachers, refusing to invest money into our roads, bridges and sewers.

Why do they demand cutting social programs and also demand that not one cent is cut from the military or an increase in taxes?

Why are the Republicans against closing Oil subsides, against giving subsides for wind, solar, electric? And why are they against keeping the student loan rate from doubling? This is not Reagan's party anymore. I do not even recognize this party.

Are they doing all these things just to keep Obama from being elected? If so, if Romney does win the election can we expect the Republicans to move a little closer to the middle?

lolcopter
05-15-2012, 07:35 AM
Lol good one

Romney has no chance in hell at winning this election

Punisher
05-15-2012, 09:35 AM
Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd Frank are both better than what we had before them.

But yes, Glass Steagall needs to return.

I miss the days when our government actually had the balls to tell Standard Oil and AT&T that they needed to split up. We've let a handful of banks set up a similar monopoly, but instead of cornering the market on a legitimate product they've cornered the market on our financial securities system and hold it for ransom.

Banks, insurance companies, investment firms, etc. should all be independent companies. Until we get back to that we're going to have a broken economic system. But back Glass Steagall and go at BoA, JPM, etc. with a jackhammer, not a scalpel.

This

alkemical
05-15-2012, 09:36 AM
So it appears Ron Paul's game is to dictate the VP nomination....

TonyR
05-15-2012, 09:38 AM
Something Romney should consider doing: running against Wall St. and advocate breaking up the big banks.


Romney would undercut the charge that he’s a creature of Wall Street and the financial superelite. And given how many hedge fund managers and other investment pros dislike the mega-banks, Romney probably wouldn’t even take a fundraising hit. At the same time, he would outflank Obama on the financial reform issue by portraying Obama-Dodd-Frank as a sop to the big banks that failed to fix the problem. http://blog.american.com/2012/05/why-jpmorgans-trading-blunder-gives-romney-a-political-opportunity/

This would be a move supported by discerning liberals and conservatives–as I wrote yesterday, Jon Huntsman proposed it during the primary campaign; Paul Volcker favors it, too. And out in America, where Big Wall Street is about as popular as Big Government, this would be very popular with the independent voters who will decide this election. http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/13/jamie-dimons-worst-nightmare/


Probably doesn't have the balls to do it, and it would be risky, but it could also be a master stroke.

Punisher
05-15-2012, 09:39 AM
So it appears Ron Paul's game is to dictate the VP nomination....

SMH
It should be the other way around

alkemical
05-15-2012, 09:39 AM
SMH
It should be the other way around

It is what it is.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 10:01 AM
I really hate what the Republican Party has become. I look at them now and they offer me nothing, nothing at all and that is sad. I do not hate blacks, Mexicans, gays or women. I do not want all the tax breaks to go to the top 1% all the while we are laying off teachers, refusing to invest money into our roads, bridges and sewers.

Why do they demand cutting social programs and also demand that not one cent is cut from the military or an increase in taxes?

Why are the Republicans against closing Oil subsides, against giving subsides for wind, solar, electric? And why are they against keeping the student loan rate from doubling? This is not Reagan's party anymore. I do not even recognize this party.

Are they doing all these things just to keep Obama from being elected? If so, if Romney does win the election can we expect the Republicans to move a little closer to the middle?

Are you serious? You're complaining about Republicans moving away from the middle, with no complaint about the Democrats?

The Democratic Party has been hijacked by uber-left wing liberal nut jobs. Far removed are they from being the party of JFK. By today's standards, JFK would be a moderate Republican. Even HE understood the importance of tax cuts. Look it up.

Most of us would agree that the major problem facing us right now is fiscal responsibility. Greece, Spain, etc....Europe is in HUGE trouble. But their problems are small potatoes compared to what we're on the verge of becoming. If we go bankrupt, who the hell bails us out?

Liberals one and only solution to solving bugdet messes is always "raise taxes on the rich". It doesn't work.....raising tax rates is not the same thing as raising tax revenue. Capital is fungible, and people are mobile. I.e.....go ahead and slap the rich with an even heftier tax burden....you know what happens? THEY MOVE! Time and again....when taxes are raised....total tax revenue coming into the treasury GOES DOWN.

The only way to curb defecits effectively is to make tough spending cuts.....LARGE spending cuts. Unfortunately, the last 3 administrations have spent wildly out of control.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 10:05 AM
Lol good one

Romney has no chance in hell at winning this election

While I don't think Romney will win.....it's a bit premature to say he has no chance in hell, especially since he's leading in several polls.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 10:06 AM
Are you serious? You're complaining about Republicans moving away from the middle, with no complaint about the Democrats?

The Democratic Party has been hijacked by uber-left wing liberal nut jobs. Far removed are they from being the party of JFK. By today's standards, JFK would be a moderate Republican. Even HE understood the importance of tax cuts. Look it up.

Most of us would agree that the major problem facing us right now is fiscal responsibility. Greece, Spain, etc....Europe is in HUGE trouble. But their problems are small potatoes compared to what we're on the verge of becoming. If we go bankrupt, who the hell bails us out?

Liberals one and only solution to solving bugdet messes is always "raise taxes on the rich". It doesn't work.....raising tax rates is not the same thing as raising tax revenue. Capital is fungible, and people are mobile. I.e.....go ahead and slap the rich with an even heftier tax burden....you know what happens? THEY MOVE! Time and again....when taxes are raised....total tax revenue coming into the treasury GOES DOWN.

The only way to curb defecits effectively is to make tough spending cuts.....LARGE spending cuts. Unfortunately, the last 3 administrations have spent wildly out of control.

you're projecting.

lolcopter
05-15-2012, 10:08 AM
While I don't think Romney will win.....it's a bit premature to say he has no chance in hell, especially since he's leading in several polls.

To be fair I probably said the same thing about Obama his first time around lol

peacepipe
05-15-2012, 10:10 AM
Are you serious? You're complaining about Republicans moving away from the middle, with no complaint about the Democrats?

The Democratic Party has been hijacked by uber-left wing liberal nut jobs. Far removed are they from being the party of JFK. By today's standards, JFK would be a moderate Republican. Even HE understood the importance of tax cuts. Look it up.

Most of us would agree that the major problem facing us right now is fiscal responsibility. Greece, Spain, etc....Europe is in HUGE trouble. But their problems are small potatoes compared to what we're on the verge of becoming. If we go bankrupt, who the hell bails us out?

Liberals one and only solution to solving bugdet messes is always "raise taxes on the rich". It doesn't work.....raising tax rates is not the same thing as raising tax revenue. Capital is fungible, and people are mobile. I.e.....go ahead and slap the rich with an even heftier tax burden....you know what happens? THEY MOVE! Time and again....when taxes are raised....total tax revenue coming into the treasury GOES DOWN.

The only way to curb defecits effectively is to make tough spending cuts.....LARGE spending cuts. Unfortunately, the last 3 administrations have spent wildly out of control.cutting taxes hasn't worked,as matter of FACT it has failed miserablely. your party has moved so far right that moderate republicans are now considered liberal.
you're only proving yourself to be a partisan hack.
BTW clinton raised taxes & 20+ million jobs were created. GWB cut taxes & we're still waiting for the jobs.

lolcopter
05-15-2012, 10:12 AM
Abolish the income tax (unconstitutional) and implement flat consumption tax IMO



lololololol yeah right

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 10:13 AM
cutting taxes hasn't worked,as matter of FACT it has failed miserablely. your party has moved so far right that moderate republicans are now considered liberal.
you're only proving yourself to be a partisan hack.
BTW clinton raised taxes & 20+ million jobs were created. GWB cut taxes & we're still waiting for the jobs.

Got news for you......Clinton raising taxes had nothing to do with job creation.

Please make the connection for me. Explain exactly how raising taxes creates real, private sector jobs.

peacepipe
05-15-2012, 10:15 AM
While I don't think Romney will win.....it's a bit premature to say he has no chance in hell, especially since he's leading in several polls.

willard is hardly ahead in several polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 10:17 AM
Abolish the income tax (unconstitutional) and implement flat consumption tax IMO



lololololol yeah right

You want job creation? Seriously? It will never happen, but would work....and I've heard it floated by lots of tax experts.

Cut CORPORATE income taxes all together. Yes. Eliminate corporate income taxes.

Why? Well, we know business set up shop where the cost of business is cheapeast. Taxes are a big part of that equation. Most importantly, tax revenue from corporations (vs. individuals) is actually a very small slice of the "total revenue pie" into the government.

As of a couple of years ago.....the United States was the 3rd highest corporate tax juridiction in the WORLD.....behind only Japan and, I think, the UAE.

houghtam
05-15-2012, 10:17 AM
Something Romney should consider doing: running against Wall St. and advocate breaking up the big banks.


Romney would undercut the charge that he’s a creature of Wall Street and the financial superelite. And given how many hedge fund managers and other investment pros dislike the mega-banks, Romney probably wouldn’t even take a fundraising hit. At the same time, he would outflank Obama on the financial reform issue by portraying Obama-Dodd-Frank as a sop to the big banks that failed to fix the problem. http://blog.american.com/2012/05/why-jpmorgans-trading-blunder-gives-romney-a-political-opportunity/

This would be a move supported by discerning liberals and conservatives–as I wrote yesterday, Jon Huntsman proposed it during the primary campaign; Paul Volcker favors it, too. And out in America, where Big Wall Street is about as popular as Big Government, this would be very popular with the independent voters who will decide this election. http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/13/jamie-dimons-worst-nightmare/


Probably doesn't have the balls to do it, and it would be risky, but it could also be a master stroke.

Thing is, Romney has no interest in throwing off that shroud, because that's exactly what he is. He feels like he has the answers financially, and just can't understand why the focus isn't on the issue that he feels he can win with. Just watch his reaction when asked anything not related to the financial and job markets.

Unfortunately for Romney though, the Obama campaign is schooling the GOP right now on controlling the what the issues are that are being talked about. It's almost not even fair. Romney and the GOP have walked into every trap that's been set, and it will continue to happen up through the election.

For those of you that were alive when Reagan got elected, the electoral map this year will look like that, except swinging the opposite way. The Republicans are going to eventually have to make the choice of going with the more moderate candidate (and you know, actually supporting him, not having him sabotaged by his own party and all of the little splinter cells that think they have actual real power) in order to have a chance to win.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 10:19 AM
willard is hardly ahead in several polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Ummmm.....three isn't several? Especially when your sample size included 8 polls?

I didn't say "most".

peacepipe
05-15-2012, 10:21 AM
Got news for you......Clinton raising taxes had nothing to do with job creation.

Please make the connection for me. Explain exactly how raising taxes creates real, private sector jobs.

apparently raising taxes hurts job growth,so how in the world were 20+ million jobs created with taxes being as high as they were during the clinton yrs? please tell me how were these companies were able to hire so many people & yet pay higher taxes.

peacepipe
05-15-2012, 10:23 AM
Ummmm.....three isn't several? Especially when your sample size included 8 polls?

I didn't say "most".

3 is a few. several would be 5 out of 8.

TonyR
05-15-2012, 10:26 AM
Liberals one and only solution to solving bugdet messes is always "raise taxes on the rich". It doesn't work.....raising tax rates is not the same thing as raising tax revenue. Capital is fungible, and people are mobile. I.e.....go ahead and slap the rich with an even heftier tax burden....you know what happens? THEY MOVE! Time and again....when taxes are raised....total tax revenue coming into the treasury GOES DOWN.


A few things...

Taxes are currently historically low.

GWB's temporary tax cuts are still in effect.

Where are these unfortunate, over-taxed rich going to go?

Agree that "taxing the rich" isn't going to solve our problems. But at the same time, this feeling sorry for the rich nonsense is just that: nonsense.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 10:30 AM
apparently raising taxes hurts job growth,so how in the world were 20+ million jobs created with taxes being as high as they were during the clinton yrs? please tell me how were these companies were able to hire so many people & yet pay higher taxes.

The highest marginal tax rate under Carter was 70% (yes 70%). How was the economy then? Reagan cut the top rate down to 28% and the economy took off in the mid 80's. Taxes were cut at many levels under Reagan, and the TOTAL REVENUE into the U.S. Treasury DOUBLED during his term.

Rates and revenue......different. Learn it.

Here's another real example.......sales taxes. Massachusetts has never taxed the sale of alcohol, until a couple of years ago. They implemented a sales tax on booze....and what happened? People ran across the border to buy their booze. So not only didn't Mass get the (sales tax) revenue they hoped for.....now liquor stores in Mass have lower revenues, in general.....and hence, they'd pay lower corporate taxes on their (lower) net income, too.

Less than 1 year after implementing the tax.....the state repealed it.

Rigs11
05-15-2012, 10:30 AM
You want job creation? Seriously? It will never happen, but would work....and I've heard it floated by lots of tax experts.

Cut CORPORATE income taxes all together. Yes. Eliminate corporate income taxes.

Why? Well, we know business set up shop where the cost of business is cheapeast. Taxes are a big part of that equation. Most importantly, tax revenue from corporations (vs. individuals) is actually a very small slice of the "total revenue pie" into the government.

As of a couple of years ago.....the United States was the 3rd highest corporate tax juridiction in the WORLD.....behind only Japan and, I think, the UAE.not this shet again.corps are still sitting on around 1.3 trillion worth of cash. Where are the jobs?quit with the high corporate tax bs, we all know they don't pay anywhere near the percentage that you guys keep crying about.you guys keep statingabout how bad the economy is and yet you wanna cut spending..now? It's moronic.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 10:32 AM
not this shet again.corps are still sitting on around 1.3 trillion worth of cash. Where are the jobs?quit with the high corporate tax bs, we all know they don't pay anywhere near the percentage that you guys keep crying about.you guys keep statingabout how bad the economy is and yet you wanna cut spending..now? It's moronic.

No **** Rigs. Yes, they are sitting on the cash. Because of the uncertainty of what the taxes are going to do!! Are you suggesting that corporations move TOWARD jurisdictions that offer HIGHER taxes??? Seriously?!?!

If so, please explain.

Yes....let's just tax and spend our way into prosperity. That always works!! Yes, let's follow the tried and true methods of Europe.

Oh wait.....socialism has NEVER worked.

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2012, 10:34 AM
3 is a few. several would be 5 out of 8.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/several

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 10:37 AM
A few things...

Taxes are currently historically low.

GWB's temporary tax cuts are still in effect.

Where are these unfortunate, over-taxed rich going to go?

Agree that "taxing the rich" isn't going to solve our problems. But at the same time, this feeling sorry for the rich nonsense is just that: nonsense.

Alright. We're making progress. You hit on 2 key points.

Yes, TEMPORARY tax cuts. From the corporate standpoint, we need to make cuts PERMANENT to eliminate uncertainty, and encourage business investment HERE, to in turn, create jobs.

Temporary tax cuts rarely do anything to stimulate much. For example....those BS tax rebate checks that Bush sent out. People SAVE those. People will only commence spending (private spending is what will drive growth) when they know they have PERMANENT (or long-term) increases in their incomes.

Taxing the rich does squat to remedy the budget deficits. First, they already pay the vast, vast majority of all income taxes. Second, if you tax them enough.....THEY WILL MOVE. What did Facebook's co-founder just do????

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2012, 10:38 AM
No **** Rigs. Yes, they are sitting on the cash. Because of the uncertainty of what the taxes are going to do!! Are you suggesting that corporations move TOWARD jurisdictions that offer HIGHER taxes??? Seriously?!?!

If so, please explain.

Yes....let's just tax and spend our way into prosperity. That always works!! Yes, let's follow the tried and true methods of Europe.

Oh wait.....socialism has NEVER worked.

Wasting your breath man. They want every piece of good or bad economic news to hinge on one master and commander in office. Whatever else happens in the global economy or technology doesn't matter one bit when it comes to jobs won or lost.

It's all about whether a D or R is sitting on the throne. To them, that's all that matters. Good things happen because of D's and in spite of R's. Bad things happen because of R's and in spite of D's.

There's no arguing with it.

peacepipe
05-15-2012, 10:38 AM
The highest marginal tax rate under Carter was 70% (yes 70%). How was the economy then? Reagan cut the top rate down to 28% and the economy took off in the mid 80's. Taxes were cut at many levels under Reagan, and the TOTAL REVENUE into the U.S. Treasury DOUBLED during his term.

Rates and revenue......different. Learn it.

Here's another real example.......sales taxes. Massachusetts has never taxed the sale of alcohol, until a couple of years ago. They implemented a sales tax on booze....and what happened? People ran across the border to buy their booze. So not only didn't Mass get the (sales tax) revenue they hoped for.....now liquor stores in Mass have lower revenues, in general.....and hence, they'd pay lower corporate taxes on their (lower) net income, too.

Less than 1 year after implementing the tax.....the state repealed it.

whos talking about going back to the tax code under carter?...that would nobody. I'm talking about simply letting taxes return to its normal levels.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 10:39 AM
whos talking about going back to the tax code under carter?...that would nobody. I'm talking about simply letting taxes return to its normal levels.

WTF is "normal" in your opinion? On the whole, we as citizens are already taxed far too much.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 10:44 AM
How many of you guys are willing to give up your middle class entitlements?

Mortgage write offs, etc..etc.

You're being socialists if you disagree BTW.

peacepipe
05-15-2012, 10:44 AM
WTF is "normal" in your opinion? On the whole, we as citizens are already taxed far too much.
BS

normal is what is already law. remember, the GWB tax cuts are not permanent. it's temporary,kind of like a holiday sale at a clothing store. when the GWB tax cuts expire Dec. 31st,we go back to the tax code we had under clinton. when a holiday sale ends everything goes back to its normal price.Unlike GWB tax cuts, clintons tax hikes were made permanent.

TonyR
05-15-2012, 10:45 AM
Yes....let's just tax and spend our way into prosperity. That always works!!

Well the problem is the guys you support take it one step further: they borrow and spend. All while reducing taxes.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 10:47 AM
How many of you guys are willing to give up your middle class entitlements?

Mortgage write offs, etc..etc.

You're being socialists if you disagree BTW.

Me.

I've always been a proponent of making the tax code simpler and fairer.

TonyR
05-15-2012, 10:48 AM
Yes, TEMPORARY tax cuts. From the corporate standpoint, we need to make cuts PERMANENT to eliminate uncertainty, and encourage business investment HERE, to in turn, create jobs.

I've read many good analyses that debunk the myth that the reason corporations are hoarding cash and/or not hiring is tied to tax uncertainties. If I come across any of them I'll pass them along, but it's actually common sensical when you stop and think about it.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 10:49 AM
Well the problem is the guys you support take it one step further: they borrow and spend. All while reducing taxes.

I'm not going to argue with that. Clinton, Bush, Obama.....all the same to me.

But don't sit there and rail on Bush for overspending, when you see what's happening today.

Rigs11
05-15-2012, 10:49 AM
No **** Rigs. Yes, they are sitting on the cash. Because of the uncertainty of what the taxes are going to do!! Are you suggesting that corporations move TOWARD jurisdictions that offer HIGHER taxes??? Seriously?!?!

If so, please explain.

Yes....let's just tax and spend our way into prosperity. That always works!! Yes, let's follow the tried and true methods of Europe.

Oh wait.....socialism has NEVER worked.

more bs, these tax cuts have been in place since gee dubya was in charge. What uncertainty exactly are you referring to?The corps alway come up with this bs excuse, and you always fall for it.oh no, the poor poor corporations. they're people right?

peacepipe
05-15-2012, 10:50 AM
their should be a flat tax of 30-35 % on all income. no deductions whatsoever if you make 100,000 or more. under 100,000 or less should should still be able to deduct for children & other things.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 10:51 AM
Me.

I've always been a proponent of making the tax code simpler and fairer.

Uh huh.

Randall Flagg
05-15-2012, 10:54 AM
Alright. We're making progress. You hit on 2 key points.

Yes, TEMPORARY tax cuts. From the corporate standpoint, we need to make cuts PERMANENT to eliminate uncertainty, and encourage business investment HERE, to in turn, create jobs.

Temporary tax cuts rarely do anything to stimulate much. For example....those BS tax rebate checks that Bush sent out. People SAVE those. People will only commence spending (private spending is what will drive growth) when they know they have PERMANENT (or long-term) increases in their incomes.

Taxing the rich does squat to remedy the budget deficits. First, they already pay the vast, vast majority of all income taxes. Second, if you tax them enough.....THEY WILL MOVE. What did Facebook's co-founder just do????

As a new member here (literally just moved from SoCal to Colorado) and seeing what Governor "Moon Beam" Jerry Brown has in store for the good folks of Kalifornia, I couldn't agree more.

Kalifornia is a prime example of what happens when government runs amuck. There is an ad currently running on Television there about Pension reform for municipal union employees. A retired Librarian who was making $139,000 per year will RETIRE with a pension (for the rest of their life) of $234,000 annually.

Lifeguards retire with a pension of $190,000 per year for the rest of their lives. That's right. LIFEGUARDS.

"Moon Beam" is looking at raising taxes as "high as possible" and has stated that it won't even dent the 17 BILLION dollar deficit that Kalifornia faces and has stated that "the really bad thing about entitlements is that once you start given them out, it is nearly impossible to stop them".

Blame the "rich" all you want. However, 99% of major companies that once flourished in Kalifornia have either left the state for more "regulation free" states or are in the process of doing so. More people move OUT of Kalifornia everyday than move IN.

The CEO of "In N Out" burgers has recently stated that the last store has been built in Kalifornia - and immediately built 18 stores in Texas. Reason? Kalifornia stifles business and dealing with labor unions is no longer possible.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 10:55 AM
more bs, these tax cuts have been in place since gee dubya was in charge. What uncertainty exactly are you referring to?The corps alway come up with this bs excuse, and you always fall for it.oh no, the poor poor corporations. they're people right?

There IS tax uncertainty out there. I would hold off on major purchases if I wasn't sure what my tax liability would be at the end of the year. It makes sense.

So why are corporations holding onto cash? Just pure hatred of people? Just to make us suffer? Yeah, that's it! Cause all corporations are EEEEEEVILLLLLLLLLLLLLL !!!!!

Rigs, you're a worthless hack. Please post something of substance.....just once.

Once I bury you again, like I did months ago.....you'll run off for a while.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 10:59 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/middle-class-welfare-state-invisible-by-design-commentary-by-ezra-klein.html

According to Mettler’s survey, 60 percent of those who benefit from the home-mortgage interest deduction didn’t think they had ever used a government social program. Fifty-three percent of those with student loans didn’t think they had used one. Among Social Security beneficiaries, 44 percent thought themselves unsullied by the touch of government, and among Medicare beneficiaries, 39 percent said the same. Twenty-seven percent of those in public housing answered in the negative, as did 25 percent of those on food stamps.

The implication seemed to be that Americans are hypocrites, or at least woefully uninformed. But in forthcoming research, Mettler and co-author Julianna Koch dig deeper, and find the reality is more complicated.




Get rid of welfare...but not MINE!

That's Americans today.


If Americans who either rent or own their homes outright were asked to accept a tax increase of $150 billion in order to subsidize the mortgage payments of their indebted friends, it seems unlikely they would find that appealing. The same goes for asking Americans who don’t get health insurance through their work to spend $100 billion or so annually subsidizing the benefits for those who do. Of course, that’s exactly what’s happening right now, but it’s hidden in the tax code, so most Americans don’t know it and can’t protest it.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 11:02 AM
As a new member here (literally just moved from SoCal to Colorado) and seeing what Governor "Moon Beam" Jerry Brown has in store for the good folks of Kalifornia, I couldn't agree more.

Kalifornia is a prime example of what happens when government runs amuck. There is an ad currently running on Television there about Pension reform for municipal union employees. A retired Librarian who was making $139,000 per year will RETIRE with a pension (for the rest of their life) of $234,000 annually.

Lifeguards retire with a pension of $190,000 per year for the rest of their lives. That's right. LIFEGUARDS.

"Moon Beam" is looking at raising taxes as "high as possible" and has stated that it won't even dent the 17 BILLION dollar deficit that Kalifornia faces and has stated that "the really bad thing about entitlements is that once you start given them out, it is nearly impossible to stop them".

Blame the "rich" all you want. However, 99% of major companies that once flourished in Kalifornia have either left the state for more "regulation free" states or are in the process of doing so. More people move OUT of Kalifornia everyday than move IN.

The CEO of "In N Out" burgers has recently stated that the last store has been built in Kalifornia - and immediately built 18 stores in Texas. Reason? Kalifornia stifles business and dealing with labor unions is no longer possible.

Good post. Taxes have never encouraged economic growth....never.

And speaking of California's problems...here's a decent article I read today....

Sink with California

California is in desperate fiscal straits, facing a nearly unbridgeable deficit of $16 billion, the result of spending that continues to exceed estimates and tax revenue that fails to meet them. Those in better-governed states who are tempted to sniff at the Golden State’s comeuppance, however, should bear in mind that California’s position as a national trendsetter is still quite secure: What is happening in California is very likely to happen in other states — and possibly at the federal level — if action is not taken. There are lessons here for both the Left and the Right, and those who would not sink with California as it falls into a sea of red ink would do well to study them.

California’s present condition is the direct result of welfare-state governance in its full maturity. Intransigent public-employee unions use the collective-bargaining process to maintain their inflated compensation packages, while poorly administered programs for the elderly and indigent have produced a permanent dependent class with attendant expenses that are difficult or impossible to reduce: When Governor Jerry Brown attempted to impose co-pays on some recipients of medical benefits, the Obama administration blocked him. Governor Brown’s attempts to cut spending on health care by lowering some physicians’ reimbursements and subsidies for low-income Californians were blocked by the federal courts. Governor Brown has demonstrated very little that might be called fiscal responsibility, but such attempts as he has made at spending discipline have been blocked by federal authorities when they have not been blocked by Democrats in the state legislature. Those who suspect that Obamacare may turn out to be more expensive and less effective at controlling costs than its admirers have claimed should take a good long look at California to appreciate the difficulty of rationalizing out-of-control health-care spending in a single state. (And multiply by 50.)

California’s finances will not be meaningfully reformed until its public sector is reduced and disempowered, and its health-care spending is made sensible. There are significant legal roadblocks to achieving either end, which is why California’s debt-service costs are pulling away from those of the rest of the United States and heading in a distinctly Spanish direction.

Governor Brown has, in the conventional Democratic fashion, proposed raising taxes on certain high-income Californians to try to close that $16 billion deficit. California, like the nation at large, already relies disproportionately on the high-income for its tax revenue, a situation that produces inherent instability: When less than a tenth of taxpayers provide the great majority of tax income, receipts are likely to be volatile in the best of circumstances. Add to that the fact that the very wealthy — especially Silicon Valley’s cosmopolitan entrepreneurial class — have options about when, how, and where to get paid. California expects to raise $1.5 billion in taxes from a single firm, Facebook, as employees and investors realize capital gains from the company’s initial public offering of stock. But such expectations are far from assured: The Brazilian-born Eduardo Saverin, Facebook’s cofounder, has renounced his U.S. citizenship and taken up residence in Singapore, probably not for the city-state’s rich cultural milieu but because it does not tax capital gains. Others will not go so far as to cross the Pacific; for many, getting out of California will be sufficient. As California has just demonstrated, raising tax rates is not the same thing as raising tax revenue. Capital is fungible, and people are mobile (I used these last 2 sentences today...QFT).

In fact, California’s income-tax revenues are down by 21 percent, in no small part because of a decline in capital gains and other investment income. Raising tax rates and imposing new taxes, as Governor Brown proposes, would provide incentives for those gains to happen elsewhere — and, ultimately, for investment and jobs to follow them. That trend already is under way: A survey of CEOs in April ranked California dead last among the states as a place to do business.

For conservatives, the lesson to be learned from California is the danger of counting too much on economic growth. Many of California’s current fiscal problems were made worse by wishful thinking about growth and its effect on both the revenue and the expense sides of the balance sheet. During the primary campaign, the Republican presidential candidates were almost to a man heavily invested in irrationally optimistic expectations about economic growth. Mitt Romney’s tax plan, for example, in order to achieve revenue neutrality, must rely on growth assumptions that are more optimistic than current professional forecasts. Growth is of course a main goal, and its achievement is to be welcomed, but we must not use hypothetical future growth as an excuse to put off difficult taxing and spending decisions in the present.

California is one of our most beautiful states, and still one of our most enterprising and innovative. Its universities are a national treasure. That it has been reduced to this is a fearsome reminder that fiscal policy is not in the end about entries in the ledger but about the real quality of life for citizens. California has squandered its wealth, and the public-sector unions have looted the taxpayers. As goes California, so goes the nation — unless we act.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 11:04 AM
As a new member here (literally just moved from SoCal to Colorado) and seeing what Governor "Moon Beam" Jerry Brown has in store for the good folks of Kalifornia, I couldn't agree more.

Kalifornia is a prime example of what happens when government runs amuck. There is an ad currently running on Television there about Pension reform for municipal union employees. A retired Librarian who was making $139,000 per year will RETIRE with a pension (for the rest of their life) of $234,000 annually.

Lifeguards retire with a pension of $190,000 per year for the rest of their lives. That's right. LIFEGUARDS.

"Moon Beam" is looking at raising taxes as "high as possible" and has stated that it won't even dent the 17 BILLION dollar deficit that Kalifornia faces and has stated that "the really bad thing about entitlements is that once you start given them out, it is nearly impossible to stop them".

Blame the "rich" all you want. However, 99% of major companies that once flourished in Kalifornia have either left the state for more "regulation free" states or are in the process of doing so. More people move OUT of Kalifornia everyday than move IN.

The CEO of "In N Out" burgers has recently stated that the last store has been built in Kalifornia - and immediately built 18 stores in Texas. Reason? Kalifornia stifles business and dealing with labor unions is no longer possible.

Oh, and I had previously read the thing about lifeguards (6-figure salaries)......it's a crime.

Randall Flagg
05-15-2012, 11:14 AM
Oh, and I had previously read the thing about lifeguards (6-figure salaries)......it's a crime.

Indeed. So help me, it's the truth. I am not a native Kalifornian and had only lived there 2 years before my company decided to relocate to "greener" pastures but the things that I saw in those 2 years literally blew my mind.

I fully realize that those who have not lived in "Sunny Southern California" will think I'm out of my mind......:) .......But I (honest to God) could not wait to get the hell out of that strange place.........:~ohyah!:

Kaylore
05-15-2012, 11:38 AM
I find it funny that Obama came out in support of gay marriage and then Romney moved ahead in the polls. Hollyweird really wants to force acceptance and approval of other lifestyles on everyone despite them repeatedly getting voted down.

I am curious how this move will resonate with Roman Catholic Hispanics and Christian Black voters. There is going to be some backlash.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 11:41 AM
I find it funny that Obama came out in support of gay marriage and then Romney moved ahead in the polls. Hollyweird really wants to force acceptance and approval of other lifestyles on everyone despite them repeatedly getting voted down.

I am curious how this move will resonate with Roman Catholic Hispanics and Christian Black voters. There is going to be some backlash.

This. But I also find it funny that they are trying to make this a major campaign issue at all.

Could it be to deflect from the economy? Yeah....that's it.

socalorado
05-15-2012, 11:53 AM
This. But I also find it funny that they are trying to make this a major campaign issue at all.

Could it be to deflect from the economy? Yeah....that's it.

What did Manny Pacquiao say today?
I know this guy is looked upon as a god in the asian communities here in socal.

Rigs11
05-15-2012, 12:13 PM
There IS tax uncertainty out there. I would hold off on major purchases if I wasn't sure what my tax liability would be at the end of the year. It makes sense.

So why are corporations holding onto cash? Just pure hatred of people? Just to make us suffer? Yeah, that's it! Cause all corporations are EEEEEEVILLLLLLLLLLLLLL !!!!!

Rigs, you're a worthless hack. Please post something of substance.....just once.

Once I bury you again, like I did months ago.....you'll run off for a while.

don't flatter yourself. all you've shown is that you wanna keep going down the same road, you want to keep trying things that have failed before and somehow expect a different result.if you wanna keep ignoring the fact that corps have been hanging on to cash for years now, that is called burying you head in the sand.

Kaylore
05-15-2012, 12:14 PM
This. But I also find it funny that they are trying to make this a major campaign issue at all.

Could it be to deflect from the economy? Yeah....that's it.

It was also a money grab. The NYT ran a poll, a call back poll, where two out of three people surveyed felt the move was political. Most people still see the economy as the number one issue according to Gallup and Rassmussen.

Is it just me or does Obama seem like he doesn't truly believe in Gay Marriage? When he said it, it felt like something he wasn't %100 sure on. Maybe it was just that he shifted his stance and wasn't comfortable with that, but I wasn't buying it.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 12:15 PM
don't flatter yourself. all you've shown is that you wanna keep going down the same road, you want to keep trying things that have failed before and somehow expect a different result.if you wanna keep ignoring the fact that corps have been hanging on to cash for years now, that is called burying you head in the sand.

Going down the same road?!?! Like following in Europe's failed footsteps?

Take a look at Greece and Spain.

That's us in a few years....on a much larger scale.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 12:16 PM
Going down the same road?!?! Like following in Europe's failed footsteps?

Take a look at Greece and Spain.

That's us in a few years....on a much larger scale.

Don't worry - we're going to follow the latin america plan to prosperity.

We're going to default on debt - or ask the IMF & World Bank for help. They'll include about 120 conditions for the "loan" - then when we can't pay - we'll be stripped of our resources, wealth & health.

No matter what, it's coming. Welcome to feudalism. (see whats happening in the upcoming G20 & G8 summits - China getting a bank here is one of the few first shots).

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 12:17 PM
It was also a money grab. The NYT ran a poll, a call back poll, where two out of three people surveyed felt the move was political. Most people still see the economy as the number one issue according to Gallup and Rassmussen.

Is it just me or does Obama seem like he doesn't truly believe in Gay Marriage? When he said it, it felt like something he wasn't %100 sure on. Maybe it was just that he shifted his stance and wasn't comfortable with that, but I wasn't buying it.

Agreed. But I really don't give much thought on the issue.

I believe that MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman........but if 2 pickle-sniffers want to have a "civil union" so that they can save a few bucks on health insurance......so be it.

TonyR
05-15-2012, 12:21 PM
When it comes to foreign policy, Romney is a complete disaster.

Beneath the fratricide in the Romney foreign-policy camp lies the deeper problem that, at least since Sept. 11, GOP foreign policy has largely assumed that limitations of public money and public will should not constrain American foreign policy. And during the primaries, when Romney advocated bombing Iran and rejected negotiations with the Taliban, he embraced those assumptions, too. But now, forced to lay out their candidate’s views in greater detail for a more attentive press corps and a more skeptical general-election audience, the Romney camp is struggling. And they’re going to continue to struggle because ultimately, the problem isn’t Romney. The problem is a Republican foreign-policy narrative that pretends that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the financial crisis have not imposed serious new limitations on American foreign policy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/14/mitt-romney-s-foreign-policy-disarray-reflects-gop-disconnect.html


Here's another good read on the subject: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/romneys-foreign-policy-blunders-are-beginning-to-take-a-toll-on-his-campaign/

TonyR
05-15-2012, 12:24 PM
I believe that MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman........but if 2 pickle-sniffers want to have a "civil union" so that they can save a few bucks on health insurance......so be it.

I will concede that it is possible to treat someone as a lesser human being without knowing you’re doing it, or without believing you’re doing it, but that doesn’t absolve you of your bigotry. If you like gay people just fine, but have some religious/cultural/philosophical reason for denying their right to marry each other, you are still denying their right to marry each other. In fact, the inability to tell that you’re a bigot is exactly the kind of ignorance that propels the bigotry.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/opposition-to-marriage-equality-does-equal-bigotry/

Randall Flagg
05-15-2012, 12:24 PM
Agreed. But I really don't give much thought on the issue.

I believe that MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman........but if 2 pickle-sniffers want to have a "civil union" so that they can save a few bucks on health insurance......so be it.

I absolutely agree. However, I ALSO believe that what people do in their bedrooms (as long as it's with consenting adults) is none of my business. I DO NOT need to hear about it, though.

Lately, however, it seems as though Hollywood has made it their "business" to make sure that America-at-large be indoctrinated into the "counterculture" by including the "gay lifestyle" on nearly every network and cable show on the air.

I mean, I don't have a clue as to the percentage of "gays" versus "straight" in American society, but to watch most television shows currently on the air, I would say that it appears as though "straights" are quickly becoming the minority......:~ohyah!:

alkemical
05-15-2012, 12:25 PM
I absolutely agree. However, I ALSO believe that what people do in their bedrooms (as long as it's with consenting adults) is none of my business. I DO NOT need to hear about it, though.

Lately, however, it seems as though Hollywood has made it their "business" to make sure that America-at-large be indoctrinated into the "counterculture" by including the "gay lifestyle" on nearly every network and cable show on the air.

I mean, I don't have a clue as to the percentage of "gays" versus "straight" in American society, but to watch most television shows currently on the air, I would say that it appears as though "straights" are quickly becoming the minority......:~ohyah!:

Think about it this way:

Anal sex makes everyone equal.

Rigs11
05-15-2012, 12:32 PM
Going down the same road?!?! Like following in Europe's failed footsteps?

Take a look at Greece and Spain.

That's us in a few years....on a much larger scale.

no, like tax cuts for everyone, while at the same time crying about the debt.

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2012, 12:33 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/middle-class-welfare-state-invisible-by-design-commentary-by-ezra-klein.html




Get rid of welfare...but not MINE!

That's Americans today.

Pretty funny to equate a tax deduction with welfare. That only works if you're of the mindset that all wealth belongs to government which then decides who keeps what and why.

Regardless... Get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. We need to stop punishing saving and encouraging debt. Although that feeling has more to do with our ridiculous interest rates.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 12:34 PM
I will concede that it is possible to treat someone as a lesser human being without knowing you’re doing it, or without believing you’re doing it, but that doesn’t absolve you of your bigotry. If you like gay people just fine, but have some religious/cultural/philosophical reason for denying their right to marry each other, you are still denying their right to marry each other. In fact, the inability to tell that you’re a bigot is exactly the kind of ignorance that propels the bigotry.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/opposition-to-marriage-equality-does-equal-bigotry/

Seriously, Tony. You can dispense with the name-slinging. It's what liberals are good at.....and I'd like to continue to hold you in higher regard than most of the mush-brains.

For the record.....I have a cousin who's gay, as well as a co-worker who I hang out with (no, I REALLY do). Great guys, btw. I have nothing against people's sexuality or sexual preference. I don't like it when they feel the need to advertise it to the world, and shove it in my face. Keep your personal business, your personal business. Period. Nor do I want the public schools to "educate" our 2nd graders about homosexual sex....when they shouldn't even know what STRAIGHT sex is yet!

alkemical
05-15-2012, 12:35 PM
Pretty funny to equate a tax deduction with welfare. That only works if you're of the mindset that all wealth belongs to government which then decides who keeps what and why.

Regardless... Get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. We need to stop punishing saving and encouraging debt. Although that feeling has more to do with ridiculous interes rates.

it's the way the system works - subsidies & expenditures are "welfare". For people that own homes, you're "taking $ from me". that's socialism.

I just want people to be honest so when they scream "welfare" - they look at the ENTIRE picture. You have welfare extending to each segment of society...until we get "honest" about it - there won't be any "real answers" or solutions.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 12:35 PM
no, like tax cuts for everyone, while at the same time crying about the debt.

Cutting taxes doesn't create deficits.......overspending does.

A concept that you apparently will never learn.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 12:36 PM
Pretty funny to equate a tax deduction with welfare. That only works if you're of the mindset that all wealth belongs to government which then decides who keeps what and why.

This.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 12:38 PM
This.

Not really, but ok...I laid out all the claims and evidence but ya'll just ignore it when you don't like the answer.


http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3589195&postcount=41

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3589201&postcount=42

Rigs11
05-15-2012, 12:40 PM
Cutting taxes doesn't create deficits.......overspending does.

A concept that you apparently will never learn.

really so we can start wars and cut taxes at the same time? and we already have a deficit, will it magically go away through spending cuts?this should be interesting.oh and please tell me where those cuts will come from. Not the military of course.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 12:42 PM
Not really, but ok...I laid out all the claims and evidence but ya'll just ignore it when you don't like the answer.

It's how you choose to view it. I simply don't view a tax deduction as "welfare". In order to aviod the connection, you'd have to assume we were already in a "flat tax" environment. We're not.

As I said.....if the government chose to get rid of all tax deductions, and replace that with a lower flat tax....in your mind, I'd no longer be "receiving welfare", even though my total tax liability could be the same under both scenarios?!?!

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2012, 12:43 PM
it's the way the system works - subsidies & expenditures are "welfare". For people that own homes, you're "taking $ from me". that's socialism.

Using this logic, everyone who pays anything less than the highest marginal rate is receiving "welfare"

And considering the heights to which some people want to take that rate, your definition of "welfare" would basically expand to virtually anyone who exists (or pays taxes)

Or in other words, your definition has no practical limit.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 12:43 PM
It's how you choose to view it. I simply don't view a tax deduction as "welfare". In order to aviod the connection, you'd have to assume we were already in a "flat tax" environment. We're not.

As I said.....if the government chose to get rid of all tax deductions, and replace that with a lower flat tax....in your mind, I'd no longer be "receiving welfare", even though my total tax liability could be the same under both scenarios?!?!

Doesn't matter if you "view" it that way or not....it is what it is. Enjoy it.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 12:44 PM
Using this logic, everyone who pays anything less than the highest marginal rate is receiving "welfare"

And considering the heights to which some people want to take that rate, your definition of "welfare" would basically expand to virtually anyone who exists (or pays taxes)

Or in other words, your definition has no practical limit.

America is a welfare state. Why can't the middle class understand they get welfare*?

Why do renters have to subsidize your home mortgage tax write offs?

Seriously -

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3589195&postcount=41

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3589201&postcount=42

Before you even bother to reply - READ.

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2012, 12:48 PM
America is a welfare state. Why can't the middle class understand they get welfare*?

Why do renters have to subsidize your home mortgage tax write offs?

Seriously -

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3589195&postcount=41

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3589201&postcount=42

Before you even bother to reply - READ.

Why? You didn't even address my point.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 12:50 PM
and we already have a deficit, will it magically go away through spending cuts?this should be interesting.oh and please tell me where those cuts will come from. Not the military of course.

Yes!!!!! Jesus. If we cut spending enough, you can eliminate the deficit.

A = revenue
B = expenditures

A minus B can't go negative. Reduce B enough, so that A minus B is still a positive number. First grade math, Rigs.

We need to cut public sector pensions as well as welfare, first.....34% of the federal budget. Out of control.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 12:52 PM
America is a welfare state. Why can't the middle class understand they get welfare*?

Why do renters have to subsidize your home mortgage tax write offs?

Seriously -

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3589195&postcount=41

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3589201&postcount=42

Before you even bother to reply - READ.

Actually, in regards to Massachusetts income taxes.....it's the RENTER who gets tax deductions....not the homeowner. Still not welfare, though.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 12:52 PM
Why? You didn't even address my point.

Sure I did, you don't like the answers, that's all.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 12:53 PM
Actually, in regards to Massachusetts income taxes.....it's the RENTER who gets tax deductions....not the homeowner. Still not welfare, though.

I don't live in MA - so that doesn't apply. It also doesn't change the fact the mgt deduction is welfare. You're taking from people whom don't own homes.

Do you not read the ****ing links man?


All the stats back it up, whether you like the answer or not - the middle class gets welfare.

Rigs11
05-15-2012, 01:02 PM
Yes!!!!! Jesus. If we cut spending enough, you can eliminate the deficit.

A = revenue
B = expenditures

A minus B can't go negative. Reduce B enough, so that A minus B is still a positive number. First grade math, Rigs.

We need to cut public sector pensions as well as welfare, first.....34% of the federal budget. Out of control.

Ok so you think we bring enough revenue right now to support our expenditures after we cut spending?even with the bush tax cuts in place?how will cuts in welfare affect consumer spending and demand for goods?are you ready to take a hit on unemployment?

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 01:06 PM
I don't live in MA - so that doesn't apply. It also doesn't change the fact the mgt deduction is welfare. You're taking from people whom don't own homes.

Do you not read the ****ing links man?


All the stats back it up, whether you like the answer or not - the middle class gets welfare.

Nope....I'm not taking from anyone. I pay into the system, net. Not like people who "net receive". Beavis's point is correct. The only way you view me taking a tax deduction as "receiving welfare" is if you believe that it all belongs to the government....i.e. you belive in socialism, communism, you name it.

According to you, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet "receive welfare", too??

Ummmm....ok. Most rationally thinking people would disagree with that.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 01:08 PM
Nope....I'm not taking from anyone. I pay into the system, net. Not like people who "net receive". Beavis's point is correct. The only way you view me taking a tax deduction as "receiving welfare" is if you believe that it all belongs to the government....i.e. you belive in socialism, communism, you name it.

So Bill Gates and Warren Buffet "receive welfare", too??

Ummmm....ok.

Yes they do.

I'm not arguing any "ism" - i'm discussing how the system operates NOW.

Oh, and you do - your mortgage tax deduction takes from people whom don't own homes.

Again, did you read the links on how the programs work? (no)

I'll repost the links again since you keep "forgetting" to read them:

If Americans who either rent or own their homes outright were asked to accept a tax increase of $150 billion in order to subsidize the mortgage payments of their indebted friends, it seems unlikely they would find that appealing. The same goes for asking Americans who don’t get health insurance through their work to spend $100 billion or so annually subsidizing the benefits for those who do. Of course, that’s exactly what’s happening right now, but it’s hidden in the tax code, so most Americans don’t know it and can’t protest it. (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3589195&postcount=41)

TonyR
05-15-2012, 01:10 PM
Nope....I'm not taking from anyone. I pay into the system, net...

But, as an example, why get a deduction for mortgage interest? This benefits homeowners but not renters. In other words, not everyone benefits. Much like other forms of "welfare". It really depends on how you define it.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 01:12 PM
Ok so you think we bring enough revenue right now to support our expenditures after we cut spending?

YES!! If you cut spending drastically....which is exactly what needs to happen. The federal government takes in around $2.5 TRILLION in revenue each year. Balance the ****ing budget, already.

Balanced budget amendment needs to happen.....as well as a line-item veto.

They've been floated in the past......always shot down by the left.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 01:14 PM
But, as an example, why get a deduction for mortgage interest? This benefits homeowners but not renters. In other words, not everyone benefits. Much like other forms of "welfare". It really depends on how you define it.

Exactly my point. You want to call it "welfare", so be it. You want to lump me in with people who receive welfare checks, i.e "true" welfare recipients.....nope. Not the same. And as I said.....most rationally thinking people would agree with me.

Again, by the former argument.....Bill Gates and Warren Buffet also "receive welfare". Puh-lease.

55CrushEm
05-15-2012, 01:17 PM
Yes they do.

I'm not arguing any "ism" - i'm discussing how the system operates NOW.

Oh, and you do - your mortgage tax deduction takes from people whom don't own homes.

Again, did you read the links on how the programs work? (no)

I'll repost the links again since you keep "forgetting" to read them:

If Americans who either rent or own their homes outright were asked to accept a tax increase of $150 billion in order to subsidize the mortgage payments of their indebted friends, it seems unlikely they would find that appealing. The same goes for asking Americans who don’t get health insurance through their work to spend $100 billion or so annually subsidizing the benefits for those who do. Of course, that’s exactly what’s happening right now, but it’s hidden in the tax code, so most Americans don’t know it and can’t protest it. (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3589195&postcount=41)

And you keep forgetting to comment on this....

If all deductions were eliminated.....and a flat tax were implemented.....by your argument I would no longer "receive welfare"....EVEN THOUGH THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT I PAY AT THE END OF THE YEAR REMAINED UNCHANGED!!!

That is non-sensical. It's piles of sand, man. And at the end of the day....I pay (a lot) into the system. Other receive. We are NOT all the same in those regards. Yet, you want to insist that we wear the same hat.

And it's absurd.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 01:18 PM
Exactly my point. You want to call it "welfare", so be it. You want to lump me in with people who receive welfare checks, i.e "true" welfare recipients.....nope. Not the same. And as I said.....most rationally thinking people would agree with me.

Again, by the former argument.....Bill Gates and Warren Buffet also "receive welfare". Puh-lease.

They do....

Their corporations also get welfare also.

You get subsidized to donate to charity also.

Are subsidies welfare?

Yes.

It's just what it is man. Enjoy it. We all get it to some degree.

TonyR
05-15-2012, 01:18 PM
Lately, however, it seems as though Hollywood has made it their "business" to make sure that America-at-large be indoctrinated into the "counterculture" by including the "gay lifestyle" on nearly every network and cable show on the air.

Just curious how anyone is being "indocrinated" by anything "Hollywood" is doing with respect to this issue. Who's being "hurt", and how? What's the downside, if any? This has long been a Christianist talking point, that somehow this is "harming the children". I'm asking how. How are children being harmed? What's happening to them? And where's the evidence? I also find it funny how people seem to be so hung up on sexual issues but seem to almost give violence a free pass. As if sexuality is bad but violence somehow isn't. Sigh.

alkemical
05-15-2012, 01:19 PM
And you keep forgetting to comment on this....

If all deductions were eliminated.....and a flat tax were implemented.....by your argument I would no longer "receive welfare"....EVEN THOUGH THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT I PAY AT THE END OF THE YEAR REMAINED UNCHANGED!!!

That is non-sensical. It's piles of sand, man. And at the end of the day....I pay (a lot) into the system. Other receive. We are NOT all the same in those regards. Yet, you want to insist that we wear the same hat.

And it's absurd.


That's where the difference is. You equate welfare with only poor people. I equate welfare with transfer of wealth (period).

You also have a limited scope of how the tax system operates, and how taxes are used to dictate "wealth".

peacepipe
05-15-2012, 01:19 PM
YES!! If you cut spending drastically....which is exactly what needs to happen. The federal government takes in around $2.5 TRILLION in revenue each year. Balance the ****ing budget, already.

Balanced budget amendment needs to happen.....as well as a line-item veto.

They've been floated in the past......always shot down by the left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States

bill clinton had line item veto but will never happen again.
BTW,it was someone on the right that got it knocked down.

However, United States District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court in the case Clinton v. City of New York. The case was brought by the then New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

TonyR
05-15-2012, 01:21 PM
Exactly my point. You want to call it "welfare", so be it. You want to lump me in with people who receive welfare checks, i.e "true" welfare recipients.....nope. Not the same. And as I said.....most rationally thinking people would agree with me.

I'm not trying to lump you anywhere. I get the same tax break. But when you really think about it it's almost a form of public assistance, just like "welfare". That tax deduction is reducing tax revenue, just as welfare is coming from tax revenue. It's a different hand dipping into a different pocket, but it's the same pair of pants.

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2012, 01:21 PM
Sure I did, you don't like the answers, that's all.

No, because by your definition anything other than a true flat tax equals welfare for everyone.

I'm saying that the government taking LESS from you than from someone (anyone) else is not welfare.

If the government took 98% of your earnings would you consider it welfare because there's one guy somewhere who paid 99%? You didn't address this. You only said something about middle class welfare without getting specific.

If you pay more than you receive, there is no welfare.

Drek
05-15-2012, 01:22 PM
I'm not going to argue with that. Clinton, Bush, Obama.....all the same to me.

But don't sit there and rail on Bush for overspending, when you see what's happening today.
Great. Name me a realistic candidate who is actually for real deficit reduction based on intelligent cut backs.

Because it sure as **** isn't Romney. He's made it quite clear he only wants defense spending to go up for example. In fact, his entire political record has been one of big government built on the back of current economic prosperity with no regard to any potential recessions or down turns.

He spends like a drunken sailor and cares nothing about revenue.

Anyone who wants real fiscal responsibility out of Washington should be voting for Obama as his plan to balance the deficit (raising taxes on top earners coupled with defense cut backs) would actually work. The alternative is Romney's fair dust of "lower taxes = infinite money for ever!"



And speaking of California's problems...here's a decent article I read today....


You do realize that California as a state is basically the GOP party platform since Reagan right?

Lower taxes, increase spending, assume the economic boom times that follow will never end.

Then when a recession hits just pray you aren't the one caught holding the bag. Reagan dodged the bullet but H.W. Bush didn't. W. Bush barely did and now Obama is picking up his mess.

I find it funny that Obama came out in support of gay marriage and then Romney moved ahead in the polls. Hollyweird really wants to force acceptance and approval of other lifestyles on everyone despite them repeatedly getting voted down.

I am curious how this move will resonate with Roman Catholic Hispanics and Christian Black voters. There is going to be some backlash.
In what polls? CBS' most recent poll is within the margin of error and Romney's number didn't move, the number of unsure just increased. This while Obama's approval ratings haven't dropped. That is a dead ringer for "survey inaccuracy".

What really matters though? All swing state polling hasn't been impacted by it and Obama still leads in the mid-west swing states by more than the margin of error, almost all the mountain west swing states by similarly solid leads, and the southeast (VA, NC, and FL) are statistical dead heats. The already solidly locked up states have Obama at 253 electoral votes and Romney at 191. That means Romney needs to come just one state short of running the table on swing states to win. When his ground game is weak and he relies on PACs to be competitive, battling in states where the democratic party has never left since 2008 (Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc.)

Romney will win the die hard red states by 20 points. Obama will win the blue states by 10-15. Then Obama will win most of the swing states by about 5 points and in the end he'll only beat Romney by a point or two nation wide but run him off the court by electoral college count.

Also, christian hispanics and blacks care a lot more about a party who treats them like criminals or 3/5ths of a person than a guy who thinks we should stop dictating to homosexuals how they can live their lives. Hell, Obama supporting homosexual rights probably just moved the national black support number up by double digits.

Rigs11
05-15-2012, 01:22 PM
YES!! If you cut spending drastically....which is exactly what needs to happen. The federal government takes in around $2.5 TRILLION in revenue each year. Balance the ****ing budget, already.

Balanced budget amendment needs to happen.....as well as a line-item veto.

They've been floated in the past......always shot down by the left.

ok so, you want to eliminate corp taxes which bring in around 180 billion a year, so do we not need that revenue or does it get passed on to individuals to make up for it?what about the other questions in my previous post?we will take a hit on employment, are you ok with this?and what will happen to those on welfare?

TonyR
05-15-2012, 01:23 PM
You equate welfare with only poor people.

^ Yup, this is pretty much it. "Welfare" is a word with a stigma. "Tax deduction" isn't. Much as the rightist propaganda has given the word "liberal" a negative connotation they've done the same with welfare.

TonyR
05-15-2012, 01:25 PM
ok so, you want to eliminate corp taxes...

All while corporations are earning record profits, outsourcing jobs, and hoarding cash.

DomCasual
05-15-2012, 01:27 PM
I don't live in MA - so that doesn't apply. It also doesn't change the fact the mgt deduction is welfare. You're taking from people whom don't own homes.

Do you not read the ****ing links man?


All the stats back it up, whether you like the answer or not - the middle class gets welfare.

I understand what you're saying. I just perused the last few pages of the thread, so maybe I'm bringing up objections that have already been covered.

I do own my own home; so, I suppose an am a recipient of "hidden welfare." I am also a bigger benefactor than someone who owns a home with a smaller mortgage.

That said, to qualify for my mortgage, I had to be earning an income that puts me in a much higher tax bracket. So, even with my deduction for mortgage interest, I am paying a considerably higher real tax rate than someone earning an hourly wage (or a small salary).

So, maybe instead of paying 35%, I end up paying 31% (after deducting my mortgage interest). I will gladly trade my tax rate with the guy paying, say, 18%.

Give me a flat tax, and I'll give you my deductions.

TonyR
05-15-2012, 01:32 PM
Because it sure as **** isn't Romney. He's made it quite clear he only wants defense spending to go up for example. In fact, his entire political record has been one of big government built on the back of current economic prosperity with no regard to any potential recessions or down turns.

He spends like a drunken sailor and cares nothing about revenue.

^ Exactly. Romney intends to massively increase defense spending, while voters overwhelming support reducing the defense budget, and he wants to do this while also lowering taxes. Borrow, spend. Borrow, spend. But Obama is the bad guy. Sigh.

Drek
05-15-2012, 01:33 PM
Nope....I'm not taking from anyone. I pay into the system, net. Not like people who "net receive". Beavis's point is correct. The only way you view me taking a tax deduction as "receiving welfare" is if you believe that it all belongs to the government....i.e. you belive in socialism, communism, you name it.

According to you, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet "receive welfare", too??

Ummmm....ok. Most rationally thinking people would disagree with that.

Warren Buffet pays less of his income as a percentage than I do. So does Mitt Romney. They both receive greater government assistance than I do (me = college loans, them = small municipal airports for their private jets, foreign embassies to make travel more streamlined, a global military to make their international financial choices safer, subsidizing unemployment, health care, welfare, etc. for the workers they make their money off of, etc.)

Kinda bull**** isn't it that the richest people in the world pay less as a percentage of income than us upper middle class "achievers" who use far fewer services than they do.

Also, when you argue for cuts to welfare you're arguing for doing damage to the economy. So that makes your entire "we need to lower taxes to stimulate the economy" argument hypocritical. Of all the ways the government can spend money what they spend on welfare and unemployment insurance has BY FAR the highest return on investment. Every penny goes back into the economy making economic demand for services. Meanwhile tax cuts for major corporations and the wealthy has only pennies on the dollar getting circulated back into the economy.

This is economics 101. In a situation like this we'd be better off if we raised taxes across the board and rolled out another stimulus bill, this time with zero tax cuts and instead large dollar sums to help states up educational staffing and make major infrastructure overhauls while keeping welfare, unemployment, etc. fully funded.

TonyR
05-15-2012, 01:34 PM
So, maybe instead of paying 35%, I end up paying 31% (after deducting my mortgage interest). I will gladly trade my tax rate with the guy paying, say, 18%.


Agree. But I bet you're also glad to be in the tax bracket you are as opposed to being in the 0% bracket. And further, I bet you'd trade your current tax bracket for a higher one.

DomCasual
05-15-2012, 01:42 PM
Agree. But I bet you're also glad to be in the tax bracket you are as opposed to being in the 0% bracket. And further, I bet you'd trade your current tax bracket for a higher one.

Well, let's be real, though. I've EARNED my way into my tax bracket. It isn't as if I won some lottery - and the difference between me and someone in a lower tax bracket is just luck.

There truly seems to be a disconnect in our country. I just don't get it. You make a statement like this so matter-of-factly. We are parties to the same economic system. I am not ashamed of having earned my way to my current place in the system. I shouldn't have to get penalized for my efforts. I came from a home where the household income was, in today's terms, about $30K/year. To date, I have received zero in inheritance. My parents contributed zero to my education. Everything I have, I have had to earn. So, why should I pay proportionately more to the system than those who have, let's say, "utilized the economic system less effectively" than I?

Drek
05-15-2012, 01:42 PM
^ Exactly. Romney intends to massively increase defense spending, while voters overwhelming support reducing the defense budget, and he wants to do this while also lowering taxes. Borrow, spend. Borrow, spend. But Obama is the bad guy. Sigh.

The budget hawks amongst us really can't see the forest for the trees on this. I've supported cleaning up the budget for a long time. But you do that by either A. cutting spending while maintaining current revenue, B. maintaining spending while increasing revenue or C. a combination of lesser cuts to spending and lesser increases to revenue.

History has shown us that in tough economic times cutting spending only leads to further economic recession. So A is a dumb move at this point and C is playing with fire you don't aim those cuts well. Despite that Obama actually wants to try C and thinks he can aim those cuts well (at discretionary defense spending and the like). Its a hell of a lot better than Romney who thinks B is outright socialism and C is surrendering the White House to the Taliban.

What the federal government needs to do is increase taxes on the top 1% and strip away corporate subsidies not tied to providing U.S. jobs.

Use the recouped subsidy money to add MORE corporate subsidies for any company that sponsors a jobs program at trade schools, community colleges, etc. or employs veterans.

Use the 1%'s increased taxes to shore up state budget shortfalls specifically on education and infrastructure.

Then when the economy is back in good shape a few years from now and the government is looking at a real surplus we shift it hard towards deficit reduction and pull back from the states who will be able to sustain at their current state level incomes now.

Then in 15-20 years when the next recession hits the federal government is in a position to incur some additional debt to shore up the states and ride out the tough times, knowing that when things turn around they can return to deficit reduction. The federal government should never run a balanced budget, it should constantly be one of surplus and deficit, in tandem with what the states' need. But the fiscal responsibility to never have your cake and eat it too (not paying down the debt in good times) is vital for this to work. It is the only way you can have a union of independent states within a capitalist society remain solvent.

DomCasual
05-15-2012, 01:47 PM
Agree. But I bet you're also glad to be in the tax bracket you are as opposed to being in the 0% bracket. And further, I bet you'd trade your current tax bracket for a higher one.

As for the comment I bolded - sure, I would always like to make more money. But I can honestly say that I don't begrudge those that do. I will make more money if I figure out a way to earn more money. I can tell you that right now, it's easier for me to earn, say, $100 than it was twenty years ago. I am a more effective earner than I was then. Like anything, the more you practice and learn, the better you get. I have always been in business for myself. I would like to think that in ten years, I will be a more effective earner than I am today - from experience, better contacts, etc.

WolfpackGuy
05-15-2012, 01:49 PM
I like my mortgage interest deduction, but I think there should be a limit.

If you're buying a million dollar home, you don't need the damn deduction.

razorwire77
05-15-2012, 01:53 PM
The budget hawks amongst us really can't see the forest for the trees on this. I've supported cleaning up the budget for a long time. But you do that by either A. cutting spending while maintaining current revenue, B. maintaining spending while increasing revenue or C. a combination of lesser cuts to spending and lesser increases to revenue.

History has shown us that in tough economic times cutting spending only leads to further economic recession. So A is a dumb move at this point and C is playing with fire you don't aim those cuts well. Despite that Obama actually wants to try C and thinks he can aim those cuts well (at discretionary defense spending and the like). Its a hell of a lot better than Romney who thinks B is outright socialism and C is surrendering the White House to the Taliban.

What the federal government needs to do is increase taxes on the top 1% and strip away corporate subsidies not tied to providing U.S. jobs.

Use the recouped subsidy money to add MORE corporate subsidies for any company that sponsors a jobs program at trade schools, community colleges, etc. or employs veterans.

Use the 1%'s increased taxes to shore up state budget shortfalls specifically on education and infrastructure.

Then when the economy is back in good shape a few years from now and the government is looking at a real surplus we shift it hard towards deficit reduction and pull back from the states who will be able to sustain at their current state level incomes now.

Then in 15-20 years when the next recession hits the federal government is in a position to incur some additional debt to shore up the states and ride out the tough times, knowing that when things turn around they can return to deficit reduction. The federal government should never run a balanced budget, it should constantly be one of surplus and deficit, in tandem with what the states' need. But the fiscal responsibility to never have your cake and eat it too (not paying down the debt in good times) is vital for this to work. It is the only way you can have a union of independent states within a capitalist society remain solvent.

Way too much common sense for a partisan pissing contest paradigm.

Drek
05-15-2012, 01:56 PM
So, maybe instead of paying 35%, I end up paying 31% (after deducting my mortgage interest). I will gladly trade my tax rate with the guy paying, say, 18%.

You already do.

lets say your example makes 20K a year and pays 18% on that.

Lets say you make 100K a year and pay 35% on that.

Well for your first 20K you paid the same 18% as the other guy. Its a progressive tax system. The more you earn the higher percentage you have to pay. Hence why no matter what your tax rate is you will always make more money than someone who makes less than you, even if they fall into a lower tax threshold.

The higher tax rate is a product of several factors, as follows:

1. Those who make more money generally make greater use of the non-necessary services the government provides. Such as airport subsidies, home mortgage subsidies, etc.. You are more likely to receive discretionary dollars from the government than someone who makes less than you.

2. Welfare, unemployment, etc. are not discretionary spending. You can't get rid of it. If you do you create mass poverty which destroys value in real estate, greatly shrinks demand for basic commercial services, and greatly increases crime. Welfare and unemployment are key stabilizing factors that allow for the most successful to climb the ladder to prosperity without the threat of poverty waiting under us or social anarchy from destroying what we've earned.

3. The wealthiest among us have bought their way into a high enough position of power so that despite being the greatest consumers of government discretionary spending they pay an aberrantly low percentage of their income in taxes.

Consider your example in the light of capital gains tax. Someone paying 18% of their income pisses you off while you pay 35%. Well how about someone who only pays 15% on 100x the earnings you'll make in your lifetime in a given year? Isn't that far more sickening? How does it make you feel to know that most of those people paying 15% benefit from zero interest short term government loans to make all their money, never dipping into their own wealth as anything more than collateral while they horse trade commodities day after day? Or that after they pay their 15% they off-shore that money and it never goes back into the U.S. economy again?

Pretty ****ed up huh? The guy who pays 18% spends every last nickel he's got back into the U.S. economy to make ends meet. The guy who pays 15% banks 90% or more of his. So as a person obviously in the upper middle of the economic strata, who do you think is doing more damage to this nation and receiving a great form of government assistance?

Randall Flagg
05-15-2012, 01:59 PM
Just curious how anyone is being "indocrinated" by anything "Hollywood" is doing with respect to this issue. Who's being "hurt", and how? What's the downside, if any? This has long been a Christianist talking point, that somehow this is "harming the children". I'm asking how. How are children being harmed? What's happening to them? And where's the evidence? I also find it funny how people seem to be so hung up on sexual issues but seem to almost give violence a free pass. As if sexuality is bad but violence somehow isn't. Sigh.

(1) Who typed a word about someone being "hurt"?

(2) What is a "Christianist" talking point?

(3) Who here stated that "sexuality is bad but violence somehow isn't?

The problem that I see with it is this: Children need to be left alone to be children. They have enough crap that they already have to deal with WITHOUT throwing sexuality into the mix at an early age. Let them be KIDS. Hell, there's enough time to figure all that other crap out later.

Drek
05-15-2012, 02:02 PM
I like my mortgage interest deduction, but I think there should be a limit.

If you're buying a million dollar home, you don't need the damn deduction.

Suggested by Obama. Attacked by the GOP as "class warfare".

FYI, for those who don't understand the full history of this country, class warfare has been a VERY REAL part of the U.S. since shortly after we won independence.

Most of your ethnic stereotypes were born out of the wealthiest social elites intentionally pushing a social divide between the masses to ensure too much social dissension for an uprising. Initially it was anti-Italian and anti-Irish propoganda. Then it was anti-Jew. After the civil war it was full court anti-black and currently it is anti-hispanic and anti-homosexual. The longer people keep fighting battles based on what we think others "should" believe and "should" do in their private lives we miss the complete lack of financial freedom the feudal corporate fiefdoms can push on us.

So next time you claim gay marriage makes your hetero marriage somehow less valid ask yourself "how?" and "why should I care about this?" Then ask yourself why it, the war on drugs, etc. keeps being such a big damn deal.

Bacchus
05-15-2012, 02:02 PM
I find it funny that Obama came out in support of gay marriage and then Romney moved ahead in the polls. Hollyweird really wants to force acceptance and approval of other lifestyles on everyone despite them repeatedly getting voted down.

I am curious how this move will resonate with Roman Catholic Hispanics and Christian Black voters. There is going to be some backlash.

There is going to be a blacklash, but unlike Romney Obama does things based on his principles and beliefs. Obama believes in Gay marriage and that will probably hurt him at the polls. Do you want to know a secret? Romney also believes in Gay Marriage but he switched his beliefs along with every other conviction he had when he moved so far to the right. Obama will take a hit on this and it could cost him the election but he is on the right side of history. In 20-30 years every state will have gay marriage and history will look back kindly on this President.

Conservatives, were for slavery, were against women and blacks getting the right to vote, they were for segregation at schools. Conservatives are always on the wrong side of history when it comes social issues. Could that hurt Obama in 2012? Sure it could.

Garcia Bronco
05-15-2012, 02:05 PM
Conservatives, were for slavery, were against women and blacks getting the right to vote, they were for segregation at schools. Conservatives are always on the wrong side of history when it comes social issues could that hurt Obama in 2012? Sure it could.

ah no

Drek
05-15-2012, 02:06 PM
Lately, however, it seems as though Hollywood has made it their "business" to make sure that America-at-large be indoctrinated into the "counterculture" by including the "jewish lifestyle" on nearly every network and cable show on the air.

I mean, I don't have a clue as to the percentage of "jews" versus "christians" in American society, but to watch most television shows currently on the air, I would say that it appears as though "christians" are quickly becoming the minority......:~ohyah!:

Just changing a couple nouns makes this sound pretty ****ing bad doesn't it?

lolcopter
05-15-2012, 02:07 PM
Drek for president imo

Kaylore
05-15-2012, 02:08 PM
There is going to be a blacklash, but unlike Romney Obama does thing based on his principles and beliefs. Obama believes in Gay marriage and that will probably hurt him at the polls. Do you want to know a secret? Romney also believes in Gay Marriage but he switched his beliefs along with every other conviction he had when he moved so far to the right. Obama will take a hit on this and it could cost him the election but he is on the right side of history. In 20-30 years every state will have gay marriage and history will look back kindly on this President.

Conservatives, were for slavery, were against women and blacks getting the right to vote, they were for segregation at schools. Conservatives are always on the wrong side of history when it comes social issues could that hurt Obama in 2012? Sure it could.

::) Yup. We're just a bunch of evil, women and minority-hating racists. You're skewing the issue because a conservative in the 1800's wants different things than the conservative today.


And I guarantee you in 30 years most states will not have gay marriage. Some will have civil unions, but not have "marriage" for same sex couples. This is an issue that didn't pass in California, for crying out loud. Almost every time it's brought to a vote, it is rejected by the populace at large. It's advocates are forced to rely on rogue judges to legislate from the bench to get it passed.

Drek
05-15-2012, 02:09 PM
ah no

Uh, yeah.

He didn't say "democrat" or "republican". He said conservative. The opposite of which is progressive or liberal.

The very meaning of conservatism is someone opposed to change. The meaning of progressive is someone welcoming of change. Those were all progressive social movements.

The GOP was once a fairly progressive party. Then the "southern strategy" took hold.

Kaylore
05-15-2012, 02:11 PM
Uh, yeah.

He didn't say "democrat" or "republican". He said conservative. The opposite of which is progressive or liberal.

The very meaning of conservatism is someone opposed to change. The meaning of progressive is someone welcoming of change. Those were all progressive social movements.

The GOP was once a fairly progressive party. Then the "southern strategy" took hold.

That's like saying Republicans support a monarchy because that movement was conservative in 17th century. It's a crap argument.

Drek
05-15-2012, 02:12 PM
::) Yup. We're just a bunch of evil, women and minority-hating racists. You're skewing the issue because a conservative in the 1800's wants different things than the conservative today.


And I guarantee you in 30 years most states will not have gay marriage. Some will have civil unions, but not have "marriage" for same sex couples. This is an issue that didn't pass in California, for crying out loud. Almost every time it's brought to a vote, it is rejected by the populace at large. It's advocates are forced to rely on rogue judges to legislate from the bench to get it passed.

Sorry man, this country is a progressive one at it's core. Every generation is more forward thinking and accepting than the last. If you had said back in 1940 that within 30 years we'd have an end to segregation you would have heard the exact same argument as the rebuttal.

I'd bet that within 30 years we'll have no gender boundaries attached to marriage between two consenting adults. Pot will be legal. Single payer universal healthcare will be in place. Our military will be about 15% less of our federal budget. And America will still be the shining city on a hill for the rest of the world.

BroncoInferno
05-15-2012, 02:13 PM
That's like saying Republicans support a monarchy because that movement was conservative in 17th century. It's a crap argument.

Well, no, it isn't. For example, Teddy Roosevelt would not be a Republican in 2012 based on how the parties define themselves these days. He was a progressive through and through. Hell, he literally ran for President in 1912 with the so-called "Bull Moose" party. How is that distinction not relevant?

BroncoInferno
05-15-2012, 02:16 PM
::) Yup. We're just a bunch of evil, women and minority-hating racists. You're skewing the issue because a conservative in the 1800's wants different things than the conservative today.


And I guarantee you in 30 years most states will not have gay marriage. Some will have civil unions, but not have "marriage" for same sex couples. This is an issue that didn't pass in California, for crying out loud. Almost every time it's brought to a vote, it is rejected by the populace at large. It's advocates are forced to rely on rogue judges to legislate from the bench to get it passed.

Why the hell do you think you have the right to prevent gay couples from marrying anyway? It's not something that should be left up to the ballot anymore than any other civil liberty. The act does nothing to harm you. You don't have to participate in a gay marriage, or even acknowledge them as valid under your personal religious guidlelines. It's laughable for you to claim that it's "Hollyweird" that's trying to ram their morals down your throat....that is precisely what YOU are doing by trying to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, something that does not effect you in any meaningful way.

Randall Flagg
05-15-2012, 02:23 PM
Conservatives, were for slavery, were against women and blacks getting the right to vote, they were for segregation at schools. Conservatives are always on the wrong side of history when it comes social issues. Could that hurt Obama in 2012? Sure it could.

Unfortunately, you are wrong on these accounts.

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

Let's move forward a little:

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order

August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law


And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….

Drek
05-15-2012, 02:29 PM
That's like saying Republicans support a monarchy because that movement was conservative in 17th century. It's a crap argument.

Really?

I know you don't have this hard a time understanding the written word when it doesn't involve politics. Try to keep that same open mind here.

The republican party is not an inherently conservative party. It has been overrun by conservatives.

The republican/democrat divide is supposed to hinge on the balance of state versus federal power. Not social issues.

I SHOULD be a registered, card carrying, caucusing, knocking on doors republican. But instead they want to spend all their time telling people that religious freedom in the constitution only applies to Christians. That racial equality is fine but ignore the built in financial divide we've already put in place during less progressive times. That emigration was the "founding of a nation" when their ancestors did it but now it's a crime and we need to deport all these interlopers.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. The GOP needs to get back on message - that the federal government needs to support state independence and let the states' find their own optimal ways to implement progressive social programs. Like healthcare and civil union/marriage reform. Giving citizens MORE rights.

Kaylore
05-15-2012, 02:43 PM
Why the hell do you think you have the right to prevent gay couples from marrying anyway? It's not something that should be left up to the ballot anymore than any other civil liberty. The act does nothing to harm you. You don't have to participate in a gay marriage, or even acknowledge them as valid under your personal religious guidlelines. It's laughable for you to claim that it's "Hollyweird" that's trying to ram their morals down your throat....that is precisely what YOU are doing by trying to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, something that does not effect you in any meaningful way.

Ok, I'll answer. But first confirm something for me. You're reasons to allow same sex couples to wed are as follows


It doesn't harm anyone.
The government shouldn't decide what consenting adults do with their personal life.
It's not fair or right to push someone else's morals onto a society.


Did I miss any?

Kaylore
05-15-2012, 02:49 PM
Really?

I know you don't have this hard a time understanding the written word when it doesn't involve politics. Try to keep that same open mind here.

The republican party is not an inherently conservative party. It has been overrun by conservatives.

The republican/democrat divide is supposed to hinge on the balance of state versus federal power. Not social issues.

I SHOULD be a registered, card carrying, caucusing, knocking on doors republican. But instead they want to spend all their time telling people that religious freedom in the constitution only applies to Christians. That racial equality is fine but ignore the built in financial divide we've already put in place during less progressive times. That emigration was the "founding of a nation" when their ancestors did it but now it's a crime and we need to deport all these interlopers.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. The GOP needs to get back on message - that the federal government needs to support state independence and let the states' find their own optimal ways to implement progressive social programs. Like healthcare and civil union/marriage reform. Giving citizens MORE rights.

I totally disagree with you. I don't think there's any difference between the Democrats and Republicans, personally. I think they get up on the podium and beat the drum about abortion, gay-rights, gun control, etc. and none of it matters a lick when it comes to actual governing. I firmly believe the guy in the suit goes to Washington with the best of intentions, and then after taking money from anyone and everyone his values fly out the window. Republicans aren't any more conservative than the next guy. People keep saying they have "gone extreme." How? What have they done? Insert typical Hitler simile with hyperbolic bumper-sticker statement.

Bacchus
05-15-2012, 02:58 PM
::) Yup. We're just a bunch of evil, women and minority-hating racists. You're skewing the issue because a conservative in the 1800's wants different things than the conservative today.


And I guarantee you in 30 years most states will not have gay marriage. Some will have civil unions, but not have "marriage" for same sex couples. This is an issue that didn't pass in California, for crying out loud. Almost every time it's brought to a vote, it is rejected by the populace at large. It's advocates are forced to rely on rogue judges to legislate from the bench to get it passed.

Approval for civil unions and gay marriage has gone up dramatically since 2004. It is only a matter of time. Gay people have gotten married in the U.S. and you know what? It hasn't weakened my marriage any. It has only strengthened their commitment to each other. I like how you said it was voted down. So tell me what would have the vote been in 1964 if the right for blacks to vote came up on a ballot? Do you think ANY states would have passed it? No of course not. You cannot put Civil Rights on a ballot.

Sometime in the next 30 years the Supreme Court will rule that Gay Marriage is ok just like they did with women and blacks and you know what? It is the right thing to do and it will not hurt any hetrosexual marraige. I promise.

Don't be so hateful, what would gay marriage do to you?

BroncoInferno
05-15-2012, 02:59 PM
Ok, I'll answer. But first confirm something for me. You're reasons to allow same sex couples to wed are as follows


It doesn't harm anyone.
The government shouldn't decide what consenting adults do with their personal life.
It's not fair or right to push someone else's morals onto a society.


Did I miss any?

The first two are good, although number three is a bit tricky. Obviously, if you are going to promote a society that champions individual liberties above all else, you have to accept that certain things that go against your personal moral code may be allowed. For instance, I don't think it wise or morally nourishing to use drugs, but that's my opinion. If others wish to abuse their body, that's their priviledge...provided, of course, that their drug use does not put others at danger (i.e. driving while impaired).

Kaylore
05-15-2012, 03:04 PM
The first two are good, although number three is a bit tricky. Obviously, if you are going to promote a society that champions individual liberties above all else, you have to accept that certain things that go against your personal moral code may be allowed. For instance, I don't think it wise or morally nourishing to use drugs, but that's my opinion. If others wish to abuse their body, that's their priviledge...provided, of course, that their drug use does not put others at danger (i.e. driving while impaired).

Then are you opposed to Polygamy? Incest?

Bacchus
05-15-2012, 03:07 PM
Unfortunately, you are wrong on these accounts.

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

Let's move forward a little:

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order

August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law


And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….

All of your arguements are wrong. I did not say Republican I said conservative. Abrham Lincoln was not a conservative. Back in the 60's Republicans used to be the liberals until they decided against black rights. That is when the big switch came about. Besides I did not mention Republican or Democrat I said conservatives as a whole. I did not single any one person out. Sure you can go and find single incidents where Ronald Reagan did something. Anyone can find individual instances.

Conservatives do not like change, always have always will. They will always struggle with change they fear they will lose their power or their standing in the community or any other number of excuses. Don't be scared of Gay Marriage. HELL, there ain't nothing there scary just two people that love each other. Marriage was started as a document showing a man's ownership of a woman he purchased. That is your sanctity of marriage.

BroncoInferno
05-15-2012, 03:10 PM
Then are you opposed to Polygamy? Incest?

Morally? Yes on both counts. Legally? If all parties involved are consenting adults, then I do think it should be allowed. I don't buy into "slippery slope" arguments, so I don't think allowing either would result in a pandemic where those practices would suddenly became popular and wide spread. Similarly, I don't think anyone is going to "turn gay" if same-sex marriages are allowed.

Randall Flagg
05-15-2012, 03:16 PM
All of your arguements are wrong. I did not say Republican I said conservative. Abrham Lincoln was not a conservative. Back in the 60's Republicans used to be the liberals until they decided against black rights. That is when the big switch came about. Besides I did not mention Republican or Democrat I said conservatives as a whole. I did not single any one person out. Sure you can go and find single incidents where Ronald Reagan did something. Anyone can find individual instances.



Oh my God....

You sir, are the epitome of the saying "There is none so blind as he who will not see".

I came to the conclusion, some 30 years ago, when I received my PhD in Political Science that there comes a point in time where conversation is pointless and a waste of time.

"Republicans used to be the liberals"

Frankly, that statement will, no doubt, become a talking point around the office for many years to come.

You have a nice day!

BroncoInferno
05-15-2012, 03:24 PM
Oh my God....

You sir, are the epitome of the saying "There is none so blind as he who will not see".

I came to the conclusion, some 30 years ago, when I received my PhD in Political Science that there comes a point in time where conversation is pointless and a waste of time.

"Republicans used to be the liberals"

Frankly, that statement will, no doubt, become a talking point around the office for many years to come.

You have a nice day!

If you truly have a poly sci PhD from somewhere other than Liberty or Bob Jones, then you should have no trouble understanding that Republican=conservative and Democrat=liberal/progressive are not all-time truisms.

Randall Flagg
05-15-2012, 03:31 PM
If you truly have a poly sci PhD from somewhere other than Liberty or Bob Jones, then you should have no trouble understanding that Republican=conservative and Democrat=liberal/progressive are not all-time truisms.

So if I am to understand your philosophy, if my education came from a "Christian" University, then it not be worthy of merit and would preclude my discussion of those things "political"?

Rather narrow-minded of you, don't you think? Yet you seem to have no trouble whatsoever in belittling those with whom you disagree. Telling, don't you think?

My credentials come from the University of Louisville. Progressive enough for you?

And yours are from where?

BroncoInferno
05-15-2012, 03:33 PM
So if I am to understand your philosophy, if my education came from a "Christian" University, then it not be worthy of merit and would preclude my discussion of those things "political"?

Rather narrow-minded of you, don't you think? Yet you seem to have no trouble whatsoever in belittling those with whom you disagree. Telling, don't you think?

My credentials come from the University of Louisville. Progressive enough for you?

Whatever. If you think that Republican=conservative and Democrat=liberal/progressive represent equations that have ALWAYS been true, then I think it's fair to question your credentials.

Drek
05-15-2012, 03:47 PM
So if I am to understand your philosophy, if my education came from a "Christian" University, then it not be worthy of merit and would preclude my discussion of those things "political"?

Rather narrow-minded of you, don't you think? Yet you seem to have no trouble whatsoever in belittling those with whom you disagree. Telling, don't you think?

My credentials come from the University of Louisville. Progressive enough for you?

And yours are from where?

You're propping up a bull**** statement, therefore your "credentials" mean ****.

"liberal" and "conservative" do not directly mean "democrat" or "republican" in a universal 1:1 fashion. If you really think that and really have a poly sci degree then you need to go ask for a refund, because they dun ****ed up in learnin' you.

I totally disagree with you. I don't think there's any difference between the Democrats and Republicans, personally. I think they get up on the podium and beat the drum about abortion, gay-rights, gun control, etc. and none of it matters a lick when it comes to actual governing. I firmly believe the guy in the suit goes to Washington with the best of intentions, and then after taking money from anyone and everyone his values fly out the window. Republicans aren't any more conservative than the next guy. People keep saying they have "gone extreme." How? What have they done? Insert typical Hitler simile with hyperbolic bumper-sticker statement.
Sorry, this is a false equality argument.

Democrats are supposed to push what their agendas on the federal level. Republicans are supposed to refute that with a mandate that we allow states to make their own choices.

So when democrats say they want to allow abortion, gay marriage, etc. the GOP's argument isn't supposed to be "you're all going to HELL!" It should instead be "why does the federal government need to be involved with what states view as acceptable topics for a woman and her doctor to discuss/what domestic partnerships to recognize/etc."

The democratic party is doing it's job, pushing for greater federal influence with progressive reforms that grant greater civil liberty. The republican party should be the de-isolation of power alternative pushing for a small, efficient federal government that helps states DECIDE what civil liberties they wish they grant.

That is the ideal party balance. This will only allow federal mandates on things that the majority of the nation believes is necessary and will allow states to create new nationally controversial policy. When those policies work the rest of the states will follow suit to adopt them and when they fail it is a comparatively small mistake that the rest of the union is there to buffer the impact of.

Kaylore
05-15-2012, 03:55 PM
Drek since when does a party have to adhere to your ideas of what they are supposed to be about? The Republicans weren't even for State rights during the Civil war. Parties are not tied to an ideology. CLEARLY.

Kaylore
05-15-2012, 04:00 PM
Morally? Yes on both counts. Legally? If all parties involved are consenting adults, then I do think it should be allowed. I don't buy into "slippery slope" arguments, so I don't think allowing either would result in a pandemic where those practices would suddenly became popular and wide spread. Similarly, I don't think anyone is going to "turn gay" if same-sex marriages are allowed.

No. And gay people will continue to have "gay sex" whether it is legal for them to be married or not. I don't think allowing gay marriage will create more gayness. lol.

I do think it sets a precedent. If we decided as a society that we cannot have a say in who someone wants to marry, that opens a can of worms. If you're going to allow that, you are morally obligated, in my honest opinion, to allow everything that fits under that umbrella. I also do have personal beliefs on what marriage should be. It's an institution that by and large, even in societies that embraced homosexual behavior, not very many people messed with. I am for homosexual couples adopting, civil unions and allowing a partner to be included on insurance. But I think a Marriage should be between one man and one woman.

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2012, 05:45 PM
Morally? Yes on both counts. Legally? If all parties involved are consenting adults, then I do think it should be allowed. I don't buy into "slippery slope" arguments, so I don't think allowing either would result in a pandemic where those practices would suddenly became popular and wide spread. Similarly, I don't think anyone is going to "turn gay" if same-sex marriages are allowed.

I don't think you see how fundamentally this changes marriage from ideally the foundation of a family to a simple contract between two people for no necessary purpose other than mutual benefit.

Bronco Boy
05-15-2012, 08:57 PM
No. And gay people will continue to have "gay sex" whether it is legal for them to be married or not. I don't think allowing gay marriage will create more gayness. lol.

I do think it sets a precedent. If we decided as a society that we cannot have a say in who someone wants to marry, that opens a can of worms. If you're going to allow that, you are morally obligated, in my honest opinion, to allow everything that fits under that umbrella. I also do have personal beliefs on what marriage should be. It's an institution that by and large, even in societies that embraced homosexual behavior, not very many people messed with. I am for homosexual couples adopting, civil unions and allowing a partner to be included on insurance. But I think a Marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Yeah. Especially 1 white man and 1 white woman, amirite?

bowtown
05-15-2012, 09:03 PM
I don't think you see how fundamentally this changes marriage from ideally the foundation of a family to a simple contract between two people for no necessary purpose other than mutual benefit.

So then should a man and a woman who don't want or can't have children also not be allowed to be married?

Bacchus
05-15-2012, 09:05 PM
Oh my God....

You sir, are the epitome of the saying "There is none so blind as he who will not see".

I came to the conclusion, some 30 years ago, when I received my PhD in Political Science that there comes a point in time where conversation is pointless and a waste of time.

"Republicans used to be the liberals"
[quote]
Frankly, that statement will, no doubt, become a talking point around the office for many years to come.

You have a nice day!

Obviously you need to go back to school and learn something about political history.

Liberal Republicans

The Republican Party had a liberal element, typified in the early 20th century by Theodore Roosevelt in the 1907-1912 period (Roosevelt was more conservative at other points), Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr. and his sons in Wisconsin (from about 1900 to 1946), and western leaders such as Senator Hiram Johnson in California, Senator George W. Norris in Nebraska, Senator Bronson M. Cutting in New Mexico, Congresswoman Jeanette Rankin in Montana, and Senator William Borah in Idaho. They were generally liberal in domestic policy, supported unions,[19] and supported much of the New Deal, but were isolationist in foreign policy.[20] This element died out by the 1940s.

Starting in the 1930s a number of Northeastern Republicans took liberal positions regarding labor unions, spending and New Deal policies. They included Mayor Fiorello La Guardia in New York City, Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York,[21] Governor Earl Warren of California, Senator Clifford P. Case of New Jersey, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. of Massachusetts, Senator Prescott Bush of Connecticut (father and grandfather of the two Bush presidents), Senator Jacob K. Javits of New York, Governor William Scranton of Pennsylvania, and Governor George W. Romney of Michigan.[22] The most notable of them all was Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York.[23]

While the media sometimes called them Rockefeller Republicans, the liberal Republicans never formed an organized movement or caucus, and lacked a recognized leader. They promoted economic growth and high state and federal spending, while accepting high taxes and much liberal legislation, with the proviso they could administer it more efficiently. They opposed the Democratic big city machines while welcoming support from labor unions and big business alike. Religion and social issues were not high on their agenda. In foreign policy they were internationalists, throwing their support to Dwight D. Eisenhower over the conservative leader Robert A. Taft in 1952. They were often called the "Eastern Establishment" by conservatives such as Barry Goldwater.[24]

In 1964 due to blacks striving for equal rights and the end of segregation the Goldwater Republicans took over the party and the "Liberal Republicans" were run out of office. Really, you should know this.

EDIT
I re-read my post and I probably worded it not the best. The Republicans actually used to be more liberal than the Democrats. That is what I should have stated and yes that is true until 1964 that is.

BroncoBeavis
05-15-2012, 09:49 PM
So then should a man and a woman who don't want or can't have children also not be allowed to be married?

On what grounds are family members currently denied the ability to marry?

Drek
05-16-2012, 02:57 AM
Drek since when does a party have to adhere to your ideas of what they are supposed to be about? The Republicans weren't even for State rights during the Civil war. Parties are not tied to an ideology. CLEARLY.

State v. federal power has always been the dividing line our two party system is supposed to split on. The democratic party was formed in opposition to the federalists, they were the original anti-federal gov't party. But since about the election of 1912 when Wilson made a strong progressive push from a financial regulation standpoint, followed several terms later by FDR's New Deal. Since then they used a divided party hierarchy (northern dems v. southern dems) to let the northern dems push the party left of the republican party while the southern dems preached conservatism while not practicing it. This was incredibly effective for the democratic party until Nixon/Goldwater used the southern strategy to take away the southern democrats base, which leaves us with the political landscape of today.

The democratic party pulled themselves so far to the left during the 20th century that they've wound up in the trappings of the party they were founded to oppose, the federalists. Meanwhile the post-southern strategy GOP has moved counter to that further and further to the right. Party platform migration is to be expected, so while it is incredibly ironic that the former 'anti-federalist' party is now the party of big government it is where we've ended up.

That puts the onus on the opposition to support a true state's rights platform however. The democratic party wanting to legislate social/civil rights and financial regulations from the federal level DOWN to the states is a very federalist agenda and conforms with what they have been moving further and further towards since Wilson and FDR. The GOP on the other hand should be pushing for limited federal regulation into anything but the most needed situations. DOMA is an excellent example of how the GOP has lost it's way. No statist should feel the need to regulate what does and doesn't define marriage on a federal level when the states are more than capable of doing it themselves.

The real problem we have here is what we're seeing in the current political landscape. The nation is being polarized by a culture war where the GOP has the WRONG stance on most issues. By wrong I don't mean that everyone should support gay marriage or abortion though. By wrong I mean you need to build the argument around state rights and individual rights. Not religion. The constitution specifically addresses this. We aren't supposed to have legislation built on religious values. We're supposed to legislate based on common sense logic.

Ultimately this will destroy the GOP as you know it because America has and will always be a nation of progressives. Americans inherently believe in moving forward, change for the better, and a unrestricted socio-economic ladder for all to climb with their best efforts. As a result progressive movements are gaining steam generation after generation. The retirees of today are far more progressive than their grandparents were, and today's youth will be far more progressive still. You can't win a political argument for the long term in America based on a fear of change. You win it based on what direction the always necessary change should take us in.

The GOP pays lip service to this to some degree and does preach state rights. But they refuse to practice it. Instead they're the party of moral conservatism and big government spending on corporate entitlements and the military. They're just another federalist party who occasionally parade out an anti-federalist agenda when the other party is in office, but even then only on a handful of issues they haven't been able to legislate at the federal level YET.

The democratic party sucks but they run an honest political platform. The GOP sucks BECAUSE they run a false political platform they fail to act on when in office and because they refuse to move this nation forward away from the land of white christian privileged that put most of them into power.

Drek
05-16-2012, 03:04 AM
I don't think you see how fundamentally this changes marriage from ideally the foundation of a family to a simple contract between two people for no necessary purpose other than mutual benefit.

Except our government only recognizes marriage as a simple contract between two people for mutual benefit.

There are no obligations held by our federal government whereby a married couple must produce off-spring, so the "foundation of a family" argument holds no water. It is nothing more than a social contract.

And yes, if poly marriage or incest was to be desired by all parties who were of sound mind and body, of legal consenting age, there should be nothing to oppose them. The morality of it is irrelevant as morality is subjective within the framework of our constitution right up until you infringe on another person's rights.

This is also why most narcotics should be legal. If someone gets high and infringes on another citizen's rights you punish them for that infringement, not the altered state they were in. Otherwise we'd need to outlaw alcohol too if we were to be logically consistent.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 04:46 AM
Except our government only recognizes marriage as a simple contract between two people for mutual benefit.

There are no obligations held by our federal government whereby a married couple must produce off-spring, so the "foundation of a family" argument holds no water. It is nothing more than a social contract.

I'm not really trying to get into what the government should or shouldn't allow contractually speaking. I'm just trying to point out that coopting "marriage" and turning it into a utilitarian mechanism for things like sharing health benefits and tax-free and less-hassle inheritances is a fundamental shift from many people's traditional understanding of (and long standing definition of) "marriage"

Use a differerent word for it and much of the opposition melts away.

Kaylore
05-16-2012, 05:14 AM
Parties don't have to be about state rights versus federal rights. Parties represent whatever they want, usually whatever they think will get them elected. The idea that it one has to be for state rights and the other for federal power is untrue. The no-name party was purely anti-catholic.

peacepipe
05-16-2012, 07:33 AM
I'm not really trying to get into what the government should or shouldn't allow contractually speaking. I'm just trying to point out that coopting "marriage" and turning it into a utilitarian mechanism for things like sharing health benefits and tax-free and less-hassle inheritances is a fundamental shift from many people's traditional understanding of (and long standing definition of) "marriage"

Use a differerent word for it and much of the opposition melts away.the seperate but equal arguement has never worked & never will work.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 07:39 AM
the seperate but equal arguement has never worked & never will work.

Then I'll assume you're opposed to any government denotation of race.

After all, they can't be equal if the government calls some people Caucasian and others Hispanic.

peacepipe
05-16-2012, 07:41 AM
Then I'll assume you're opposed to any government denotation of race.

After all, they can't be equal if the government calls some people Caucasian and others Hispanic.

bogus response.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 07:42 AM
bogus response.

ditto

alkemical
05-16-2012, 07:46 AM
This is from the late great Robert Anton Wilson - find the definitions to be pretty pretty apt.


DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS

FREE MARKET: That condition of society in which all economic transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion.

THE STATE: That institution which interferes with the Free Market through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges (backed by coercion).

TAX: That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which the State collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in defense of privilege, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, experiments, "reforms," etc., as it pleases, not at its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects.

PRIVILEGE: From the Latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.

USURY: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions.

LANDLORDISM: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group "owns" the land and thereby takes tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land.

TARIFF: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which commodities produced outside the State are not allowed to compete equally with those produced inside the State.

CAPITALISM: That organization of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it.

CONSERVATISM: That school of capitalist philosophy which claims allegiance to the Free Market while actually supporting usury, landlordism, tariff, and sometimes taxation.

LIBERALISM: That school of capitalist philosophy which attempts to correct the injustices of capitalism by adding new laws to the existing laws. Each time conservatives pass a law creating privilege, liberals pass another law modifying privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until "everything not forbidden is compulsory" and "everything not compulsory is forbidden."

SOCIALISM: The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black.

ANARCHISM: That organization of society in which the Free Market operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms of coercion or privilege.

RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate.

LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to cooperate more often than to compete.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 08:07 AM
If the government offers a benefit to straight people calling it "straight person tax reduction" and another called "gay person tax reduction", these would be either both removed or both renamed to include both groups. Separate but equal is unconstitutional. Similarly, offering marriage and civil union, separately but equally, is also wrong. It is only a matter of time before those "rogue judges" Kaylore is referring overturn this nationwide.

IMO the state has no business sanctioning marriage. If you want shared property, tax benefits and power of attorney, any two consenting adults should be able to go down to the DMV, fill out some forms, pay $100 and get a civil union. If you want God to shine down on your contract, you go to the church, get dressed up, pay thousands of dollars and get married.

gyldenlove
05-16-2012, 08:14 AM
No. And gay people will continue to have "gay sex" whether it is legal for them to be married or not. I don't think allowing gay marriage will create more gayness. lol.

I do think it sets a precedent. If we decided as a society that we cannot have a say in who someone wants to marry, that opens a can of worms. If you're going to allow that, you are morally obligated, in my honest opinion, to allow everything that fits under that umbrella. I also do have personal beliefs on what marriage should be. It's an institution that by and large, even in societies that embraced homosexual behavior, not very many people messed with. I am for homosexual couples adopting, civil unions and allowing a partner to be included on insurance. But I think a Marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Please remember this is not the first time the institution of marriage has been legislated on, you can now marry natives and black people and you can no longer marry many people at the same time - none of those changes seem to have brought about the mayhem of people marrying donkeys, lamp-posts, the undead or anyone else.

There is one big difference - we as a society in allowing gay marriage state that any 2 consenting adults can in fact consent to marry. It is not the slippery slope it is being made out to be by some members of the media and political sphere - we simply affirm that any combination of two consenting adults are as good as any other combination - you know the whole equality thing.

If people believe marriage should be between a man and a woman they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex and/or gender - even if that person is black/hispanic/jewish/muslim/democrat/neo-conservative/tall/skinny/a criminal/politician/hairy or any other persuasion - you won't be forced to marry someone of the same sex.

gyldenlove
05-16-2012, 08:19 AM
I'm not really trying to get into what the government should or shouldn't allow contractually speaking. I'm just trying to point out that coopting "marriage" and turning it into a utilitarian mechanism for things like sharing health benefits and tax-free and less-hassle inheritances is a fundamental shift from many people's traditional understanding of (and long standing definition of) "marriage"

Use a differerent word for it and much of the opposition melts away.

Yes, the easy solution would be for the government to no longer use religious marriage ceremonies, and instead use a strictly legal definition based on signing a marriage contract with witnesses or a notary present to attest the validity. That would put everyone on equal footing, anyone who can legally constent to enter a contract can achieve full legal recognition as being married by entering and submitting a notified contract. If people still want to have a minister or imam or shaman or Elvis impersonator do a ceremony they can feel free to pay for it, but it will not be legally binding and will bestow on them no special rights.

peacepipe
05-16-2012, 08:22 AM
Then I'll assume you're opposed to any government denotation of race.

After all, they can't be equal if the government calls some people Caucasian and others Hispanic.wether a person is considered white,black,hispanic,asian aren't relevant to what rights a U.S. citizen has. to say to one U.S. citizen that they don't have the same right of marriage that the next U.S. citizen has is unconstitutional.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 08:24 AM
It is not the slippery slope it is being made out to be by some members of the media and political sphere - we simply affirm that any combination of two consenting adults are as good as any other combination - you know the whole equality thing.

Right. And when a billionaire wants to "Marry" his daughter to pass everything down scot-free, we should still call it "Marriage" because that's totally in line with the historic and literal defnition of the word.

But in "equal protection" terms, his right to do so is undeniable,

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 08:26 AM
wether a person is considered white,black,hispanic,asian aren't relevant to what rights a U.S. citizen has. to say to one U.S. citizen that they don't have the same right of marriage that the next U.S. citizen has is unconstitutional.

We're not talking about rights. We're talking about terminology.

But from what I'm getting, you're saying it's ok to call people something different based on who their great grandparents were, but not based on who they are.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 08:27 AM
Yes, the easy solution would be for the government to no longer use religious marriage ceremonies, and instead use a strictly legal definition based on signing a marriage contract with witnesses or a notary present to attest the validity. That would put everyone on equal footing, anyone who can legally constent to enter a contract can achieve full legal recognition as being married by entering and submitting a notified contract. If people still want to have a minister or imam or shaman or Elvis impersonator do a ceremony they can feel free to pay for it, but it will not be legally binding and will bestow on them no special rights.

Totally agree. This is pretty much where it has to go from here.

Requiem
05-16-2012, 08:29 AM
So if I am to understand your philosophy, if my education came from a "Christian" University, then it not be worthy of merit and would preclude my discussion of those things "political"?

Rather narrow-minded of you, don't you think? Yet you seem to have no trouble whatsoever in belittling those with whom you disagree. Telling, don't you think?

My credentials come from the University of Louisville. Progressive enough for you?

And yours are from where?

PhD. 30 years ago in an evolving discipline = probably high school diploma and 5 courses in civics now.

gyldenlove
05-16-2012, 08:31 AM
Right. And when a billionaire wants to "Marry" his daughter to pass everything down scot-free, we should still call it "Marriage" because that's totally in line with the historic and literal defnition of the word.

But in "equal protection" terms, his right to do so is undeniable,

If they are consenting adults he should be, historically there is a presedent of marrying family members in all social spheres. But since he would have had to divorce his wife and hope his daughter would agree to it (how likely do you think that is?) it is not really a big issue is it?

peacepipe
05-16-2012, 08:33 AM
We're not talking about rights. We're talking about terminology.

But from what I'm getting, you're saying it's ok to call people something different based on who their great grandparents were, but not based on who they are.be it terminology or rights its one in the same in this case. If a U.S. citizen wants there union to be considered a marriage,they should have that right.

.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 08:35 AM
If they are consenting adults he should be, historically there is a presedent of marrying family members in all social spheres. But since he would have had to divorce his wife and hope his daughter would agree to it (how likely do you think that is?) it is not really a big issue is it?

That's it right there. That's the big issue. People need to decide whether a union between two consenting adults is a civil institution, in which case it needs to be regulated under the already established Civil Liberties Act. Or they can decide that it is a religious institution, in which case there can be no state benefits as a result.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 08:43 AM
If they are consenting adults he should be, historically there is a presedent of marrying family members in all social spheres. But since he would have had to divorce his wife and hope his daughter would agree to it (how likely do you think that is?) it is not really a big issue is it?

A big issue because inheritances are usually only an issue in the case of a single surviving spouse (or partner or whathaveyou)

Now, with "equal protection" they'll all have a cheap and easy way for assets to skip through the generations untouched by the state. :)

houghtam
05-16-2012, 08:45 AM
A big issue because inheritances are usually only an issue in the case of a single surviving spouse (or partner or whathaveyou)

Now, with "equal protection" they'll all have a cheap and easy way for assets to skip through the generations untouched by the state. :)

Well yeah, if you guys have your way in eliminating the estate tax. :)

gyldenlove
05-16-2012, 08:49 AM
A big issue because inheritances are usually only an issue in the case of a single surviving spouse (or partner or whathaveyou)

Now, with "equal protection" they'll all have a cheap and easy way for assets to skip through the generations untouched by the state. :)

Also only an issue in the case of a single person to inherit, where the fortune is not locked up in a fund or holding company - I don't know of any such situations.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 08:49 AM
Well yeah, if you guys have your way in eliminating the estate tax. :)

Allowing family members to "marry" will have exactly that effect regardless of whether it's eliminated or not.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 08:53 AM
Also only an issue in the case of a single person to inherit, where the fortune is not locked up in a fund or holding company - I don't know of any such situations.

Give them an easy way out of the state taking half, and they'll restructure it however needed. Look at all the effort that goes into trusts and cushy endowment jobs and the like.

That vs a 5 minute meeting with a JP with guaranteed result... "Marriage" becomes a very valuable economic tool when you take the societal connotations out.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 09:03 AM
Give them an easy way out of the state taking half, and they'll restructure it however needed. Look at all the effort that goes into trusts and cushy endowment jobs and the like.

That vs a 5 minute meeting with a JP with guaranteed result... "Marriage" becomes a very valuable economic tool when you take the societal connotations out.

So your argument is that gays should not be allowed to have the same civil liberties as straights because some guy might want to marry his daughter so he can pass on his inheritance?

Got it. That makes one of you. Anyone else?

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 09:08 AM
So your argument is that gays should not be allowed to have the same civil liberties as straights because some guy might want to marry his daughter so he can pass on his inheritance?

Got it. That makes one of you. Anyone else?

No I'm trying to highlight the impossibility of of applying a purely "equal protection" rationale to marriage. Especially if you want to go so far as to splitting hairs so fine as what words are used to describe it.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 09:15 AM
No I'm trying to highlight the impossibility of of applying a purely "equal protection" rationale to marriage. Especially if you want to go so far as to splitting hairs so fine as what words are used to describe it.

At the bottom line there remains this question:

Is "marriage" a right? If the answer is yes, then it is a right sanctioned by the government, and therefore subject to equality laws. If the answer is no, then it is a privilege sanctioned by government only given to people that fit a certain demographic, and therefore unconstitutional.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 09:22 AM
At the bottom line there remains this question:

Is "marriage" a right? If the answer is yes, then it is a right sanctioned by the government, and therefore subject to equality laws. If the answer is no, then it is a privilege sanctioned by government only given to people that fit a certain demographic, and therefore unconstitutional.

There's no arguing that up until this point, Marriage has never been a "right"

Like many things the government has concerned itself with, it has always been subject to terms and preconditions.

houghtam
05-16-2012, 09:29 AM
There's no arguing that up until this point, Marriage has never been a "right"

Like many things the government has concerned itself with, it has always been subject to terms and preconditions.

Then it is a privilege. And you're right, the government should have never gotten involved. But since we can't change history, we need to fall on the side of providing the government-sanctioned privilege of marriage to everyone, or to get government entirely out of the picture. And since no one who ran on a platform of "all marriages from this point on will be performed in churches and not recognized by the state" would ever get elected, marriage now becomes something that must be offered equally.

Edit: For the record, I disagree with your contention that marriage wasn't considered a "right" until this point. If that were the case, states would still be allowed to deny people to marry based on their race. How the state can deny something to people based on their sexual orientation but NOT their race is beyond my comprehension.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 09:40 AM
Then it is a privilege. And you're right, the government should have never gotten involved. But since we can't change history, we need to fall on the side of providing the government-sanctioned privilege of marriage to everyone, or to get government entirely out of the picture. And since no one who ran on a platform of "all marriages from this point on will be performed in churches and not recognized by the state" would ever get elected, marriage now becomes something that must be offered equally.

But that's where "equality" gets tricky from state to state. Especially in terms of simple terminology. Or what about polygamous forms of marriage? If one state sanctions that, are all states bound?

Some states tax married couples more than others. Is that "equal" Should that be banished?

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 09:47 AM
For the record, I disagree with your contention that marriage wasn't considered a "right" until this point. If that were the case, states would still be allowed to deny people to marry based on their race. How the state can deny something to people based on their sexual orientation but NOT their race is beyond my comprehension.

I think you're reading too much into this. The problem is with federalizing one person (or group of people's) concept of things and trying to institutionalize it across all 50 states in the name of treating everyone equally.

But state to state, people are never treated equally. What if one state banishes the word Marriage from it's books. If a married couple moves in from another state, is that lack of terminology discrimination in and of itself?

TonyR
05-16-2012, 09:55 AM
Shifting gears here.......


...If the election were held today, Obama would win the veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in the general population...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/13/us-usa-poll-military-idUSBRE84C02120120513

TonyR
05-16-2012, 09:57 AM
The causes of the deficit:

[T]he main drivers of projected deficits over the next decade are the wars of the oughts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts and the so-called “automatic stabilizers” — unemployment insurance spending, lower tax burdens — built into existing policy to combat economic downturns. Recovery measures by Bush and Obama caused a short-term spike in deficits but have mostly phased out and thus represent only modest fractions of the national debt.

More here, including a good chart: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/obama-romney-deficit-debt-chart.php

houghtam
05-16-2012, 09:58 AM
But that's where "equality" gets tricky from state to state. Especially in terms of simple terminology. Or what about polygamous forms of marriage? If one state sanctions that, are all states bound?

Some states tax married couples more than others. Is that "equal" Should that be banished?

That's not separate but equal. If the State were to say "people who get married before age 25 pay X tax rate and people who get married after 25 pay Y tax rate", THAT would be unconstitutional. Whether a state wants to tax married couples at a higher rate or not at all is entirely up to that state, but if they offer benefits to one type of people, they need to offer it to all.

In terms of your statement about polygamy, I'm sure the question was asked at some point during the discussion of the wording the 15th Amendment "will this Amendment lead to women being able to vote?" That didn't stop people from attempting to include black men in the national discussion.

The fact that someone might want to marry their daughter or three or more people might want to get married has no bearing on whether or not two people of the same sex should be able to marry.

BroncoBeavis
05-16-2012, 10:18 AM
I see what you're saying when it comes to taxes. There was a logical flaw in my line of thinking.

The fact that someone might want to marry their daughter or three or more people might want to get married has no bearing on whether or not two people of the same sex should be able to marry.

In other words, it's ok to carve out another 'special' niche, exclude others, and then still call it equal protection.