What's wrong with the GOP?

[Rob's House]

Which statement should I defend?

 

Prove your point about taxes and the wealthy and hurting middle class

 

Sure, wealth and income not the same thing, but so what? What's your point?

 

 

 

But still lost jobs, jobs that paid salaries that supported small business and big, not to mention middle class families

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-firms-move-abroad-024200566.html

 

More big U.S. companies are reincorporating abroad despite a 2004 federal law that sought to curb the practice. One big reason: Taxes.

[3rdnlng]

Dodger is ducking, You, me and everyone else.

[DC Tom]

Which statement should I defend?

 

Start with all of them.

 

And do it empirically.

 

And look up "empirically" first.

 

Prove your point about taxes and the wealthy and hurting middle class

 

Wealth is held in investments. Investments earn capital gains. Raise the long-term capital gains tax rate or dividend tax rate (which is really what "tax the wealthy" means - taxing people who earn most of their income from LT capital gains, business owners and such) causes them to move their investments into more tax-friendly investments, causing the price of other investments to go down.

 

The middle class...well, they invest in those same investments. The wealthy move their money elsewhere, the middle class loses a significant chunk of net worth (particularly in retirement funds and real property).

 

So basically...you just want to declare economic warfare on the middle class.

 

Sure, wealth and income not the same thing, but so what? What's your point?

 

My point is that taxing people who HAVE money is not the same as taxing people who EARN money, you nitwit. "Taxing the wealthy" is bull **** - if I have thirty million dollars and I earn nothing this year, my income tax liability is zero for the year. Even though I'm wealthy. You !@#$ing morons can't even demonize the right demographic.

[Duck_dodgers007]

Wealth is held in investments. Investments earn capital gains. Raise the long-term capital gains tax rate or dividend tax rate (which is really what "tax the wealthy" means - taxing people who earn most of their income from LT capital gains, business owners and such) causes them to move their investments into more tax-friendly investments, causing the price of other investments to go down.

 

The middle class...well, they invest in those same investments. The wealthy move their money elsewhere, the middle class loses a significant chunk of net worth (particularly in retirement funds and real property) My point is that taxing people who HAVE money is not the same as taxing people who EARN money, you nitwit. "Taxing the wealthy" is bull **** - if I have thirty million dollars and I earn nothing this year, my income tax liability is zero for the year. Even though I'm wealthy. You !@#$ing morons can't even demonize the right demographic.

Nice try, but saying increasing capital gains tax will cause a massive move away from profitable investments is so stupid! Really? Are great investment opportunities in many fields just growing on trees? Taxes have been higher before and the world did not end. Are my apple stocks going to collapse if capital gains rise because hedge funds will suddenly buy real estate instead and dump apple? That's silly. Save the high ground argument like you understand something about wealth and income I can't understand for one of your Conservative bottom feeders, nothing so hard to understand there.

 

You need to breath into a paper bag a few times when think about an issue you are so emotionally driven on

 

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-firms-move-abroad-024200566.html

 

"Since 2009, at least 10 U.S. public companies have moved their incorporation address abroad or announced plans to do so, including six in the last year or so, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of company filings and statements."

 

What, to the Caymens? An address in a place with no taxes? There's always going to be tax dodges like this, I mean we are suppose to make our country a place into slowest common denominator country? That is economically unsustainable, Conservatives need to realize that Consumer need money in a consumer driven economy. <-------that last sentence will not be answered

[OCinBuffalo]

Start with all of them.

 

And do it empirically.

 

And look up "empirically" first.

 

Once again, we have to educate people who support the failed education system, but then have the temerity to ask us why we don't support the failed education system.

 

And...they don't see any irony in this.

 

Oops....I suppose we should have Duck look up irony too?

 

That...or they can just repeat "don't pay their fair share 1000 more times"....as if that is a defense for their lack of education.

Edited August 30, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Buftex]

The accusations of extremism are laughable at most. The only extremists are the straw men morons like Warwow build up to tear down.

 

I disagree...respectfully. The left and the right each have their extremists, which the other side uses to cancel out any possibility of a common ground. I don't think anyone on the left is necessarily opposed to fiscal restraint (to some degree) but we can never get to that practical discussion, because, the way things are now, things like Chick-Fil-A come to represent what divides us. And, our parties know this, so they use it to do their damnedest to get themselves elected. Neither party has clean hands. I know it is a different topic for another thread, but the super-pac issue is just killing us. The amounts of money spent to get attention, and to intentionally distort things are absurd, and, in my opinion, are in no way helping our nation get healthier.

[OCinBuffalo]

Nice try, but saying increasing capital gains tax will cause a massive move away from profitable investments is so stupid! Really? Are great investment opportunities in many fields just growing on trees? Taxes have been higher before and the world did not end. Are my apple stocks going to collapse if capital gains rise because hedge funds will suddenly buy real estate instead and dump apple? That's silly. Save the high ground argument like you understand something about wealth and income I can't understand for one of your Conservative bottom feeders, nothing so hard to understand there.

 

You need to breath into a paper bag a few times when think about an issue you are so emotionally driven on

 

 

 

"Since 2009, at least 10 U.S. public companies have moved their incorporation address abroad or announced plans to do so, including six in the last year or so, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of company filings and statements."

 

What, to the Caymens? An address in a place with no taxes? There's always going to be tax dodges like this, I mean we are suppose to make our country a place into slowest common denominator country? That is economically unsustainable, Conservatives need to realize that Consumer need money in a consumer driven economy. <-------that last sentence will not be answered

Is it possible for you to conceive....of the USA....being one of your evil tax dodge nations?

 

Consider: what if all the rest of the world's evil people...dodged taxes in their countries...by investing it in the US?

 

Yes...that will kill economic growth. Yeah...we will surely be at the "bottom" then, and will have "raced" there.

 

This brand of idiocy should have its own genre.

[The Big Cat]

Things that are wrong with the GOP(and, this is not with EVERY person in the GOP...just the problem children):

 

1. Abortion nonsense. The courts have determined the difference between murder and manslaughter. There's no reason why they can't do the same here. Ice picking babies in the neck is disgusting, and MUST be illegal. We need some sort of biological standard applied(~3 months, etc), and be done with this. Rape, incest, health of the mother = exceptions...that should be exercised ONLY after options to adopt are offered. Think about it: would the adopting parents care how the baby got created? Nope. But with all of this, it's a personal decision...and the people involved have to accept the consequences of it. It's nobody else's business, provided we have sound laws in place, and they are being followed.

 

2. Unwillingness to focus on the military in terms of winning wars...and not just defense contracts for constituents = campaign contributions. We can cut lots of stuff. But too often we are giving the Navy destroyers they didn't ask for, don't want, and they don't want to have to put good sailors on bad boats, etc.

 

Hey clowns: that doesn't mean that we can cut and run from the responsibilities that ONLY the USA can perform....like what is happening with Syria...right now.

 

3. Choosing the political, and kitty's approach to immigration....rather than the practical, and strong approach. This doesn't mean give away the store. It does mean, have the process, but OWN the process. Instead, the GOP has people who are too dumb to figure out how to own a process that will work and/or they have people who are too chickenshit to go win votes among immigrants. If GOP ideas are better, then they are better. GOP candidates need to learn how to shoot these weapons, rather than complaining that they won't shoot by themselves. Example: I can't imagine why any immigrant would go through the hassle of coming here...just so they can end up dependent on the government. No. They come here because they want to improve their lives. Reasonable immigration policy, making a candidate lose an election, says more about the candidate than the policy.

 

4. Refusing to put forward a rational plan for gay marriage, that is respectful of tradition, but also makes sure there aren't any gaps in the rights of people who choose that lifestyle. Come now....it's not like the GOP isn't the best suited to determine how to do this properly. After all, the GOP are the ones actually concerned with how the families are doing. Again...OWN the process. Dictate the terms for how gay families will work. Hold gay parents to the same standards, and while we are at it make them high for ALL fathers and mothers. Nothing will fix so many of our problems faster than making the family, however constructed....work as well as it used to work. Should we make laws against the Brady Bunch, because they weren't married for life?

 

5. No all-out assault on single motherhood. The #s are clear on this. You are most likely to be arrested, drug addicted, stupid, uneducated, pregnant as a teen....if you come from a single mother family. If they want to get after something....forget porn...and get after this. Find a way to get these women sorted out. There has to be better ways than what we are doing. We can no longer accept "I have a right to raise my kids anyway I"...no B word, you don't, not when your kids are 80% more likely to be burden on society. You don't have to right to F the rest of us over. Chris Rock: "You can raise a kid on your own, so what? You can drive a car with your feet...it doesn't make it a good F'ing idea".

 

Of all the problems in the country...why isn't single motherhood the #1 target of the GOP? Every single program the GOP hates has single motherhood as a root cause...somewhere in it. Even if they were cynical about it, married women vote for the GOP 2/1.

 

6. For people that love free markets....they sure don't go out of their way to make sure those markets are free. Where is the GOP competition machine...when it comes to things like the Walmart/China revolving door? I am not arguing for protectionism...that is the mark of union foulness. No. I am saying: markets must be completely free. Unfortunately, far too many GOP elected people get far too much money from those who benefit from the rackets that is China/Defense/Insurance. The same can be said on defense, and other things. The answer isn't create a "Small Business has to be included in every bid law". No. The answer is: "Don't let the big guys use undue influence to create the project that requires the bid in the first place

 

Now, in response we have the Democrats benefiting from the rackets that are Wall Street/Unions/Green Nonsense/Shovel Ready...and Insurance(no competition across state lines = no competition for union-owned health insurance companies) . There's a lot of work to do in this area for everybody.

 

That's just off the top of my head.

 

Now....show me a liberal who has the intellectual capacity to be critical of the Democrats...and can actually back up those criticisms with fact, not emotional nonsense or anecdotal evidence....or more retarded socialism.

 

You rarely see that on this board.

 

I agree with just about everything you said except the part about adopters not caring how the baby was made...I think I would want to know if the father of the kid I'm raising was a rapist/into fiddling his daughter.

 

But much of what you highlight makes up the bedrock of their platform...yet you have fundamental issues with it.

 

That seems to be a recurring theme which leads me to believe you and others are third party guys, is that fair?

[OCinBuffalo]

I disagree...respectfully. The left and the right each have their extremists, which the other side uses to cancel out any possibility of a common ground. I don't think anyone on the left is necessarily opposed to fiscal restraint (to some degree) but we can never get to that practical discussion, because, the way things are now, things like Chick-Fil-A come to represent what divides us. And, our parties know this, so they use it to do their damnedest to get themselves elected. Neither party has clean hands. I know it is a different topic for another thread, but the super-pac issue is just killing us. The amounts of money spent to get attention, and to intentionally distort things are absurd, and, in my opinion, are in no way helping our nation get healthier.

This is true.

 

However, I'd rather look at content: what are Obama's PACs putting out? Cancer and Bain? VS. What is Karl Rove doing? Medicare, fiscal policy and substance.

 

Now, if we want to have a debate on real issues, Dems must curtail using wedge issues like gay marriage.....because it can't win on the big stuff. It's time for some introspection(been telling you guys this for years), and to refocus on what will work...just as Carville has said 100 times.

 

Look at the Walker Recall. I told you all when it started that the unions were much better off negotiating....rather than scorched earth.....because the only thing that was going to get scorched...was them.

 

The writing is clearly on the wall once again. It's time to start acting like adults...otherwise, the beating you will take will be much worse than it would have been had you negotiated. NO BS: doing the same old thing could be the end of the party.

 

I understand your concerns, but I assure you the TEA party '= the looney left. The TEA party can defend it's positions, and people are listening. In contrast: Where's Micheal Moore? George Soros? Ralph Nader? Paul F'ing Krugman and ALGORE, inc?...and how relevant are any of them today?

 

Listening to these people and allowing the Democratic party to go so far to the left, that it would nominate a clown like Obama? That's what CREATED the TEA party. In fact it made the TEA party a necessity. It's what makes people listen to Ron Paul. Don't you get that?

 

If things are to go as you say: Democrats have to do a lot more standing up to their extremists...or just kick them out....than Republicans. I mean honestly, most of these people are patently NOT Democrats. They are socialists. Get rid of them...and get back to really representing the working man. As I've said many times: if my 30-year elected official grandfather was alive....he and his friends would be cracking heads all over the Democratic party today.

 

Today's Democrats have seen fit to ruin most of his work = 30 pts down...with white working class males? WTF? That WAS the Democratic party.

[OCinBuffalo]

I agree with just about everything you said except the part about adopters not caring how the baby was made...I think I would want to know if the father of the kid I'm raising was a rapist/into fiddling his daughter.

 

But much of what you highlight makes up the bedrock of their platform...yet you have fundamental issues with it.

 

That seems to be a recurring theme which leads me to believe you and others are third party guys, is that fair?

Of course you are right about incest....but...I don't know about rape.

 

 

I don't know about "bedrock". Mitt Romney strikes me as the kind of guy who is a lot more pragmatic than anybody wants to admit. The Republicans have to know that he's not going to be there on the nonsense.

 

But...ask yourself: If they know, and all these things were really "bedrock", and were more important than repealing Obamacare*, or doing the rest of the things that will fix the country...why'd they nominate him?

 

See? The state of any party...is reflected best by who is leading it right now. How comfortable are you with the leader of your party? Don't you wish you had a Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan? Instead of Mr. TMZ....and Captain F up?

 

I learned politics from my grandfather...and from the union guys standing around the fire barrel on election day.

 

They were fond of saying:

"The first thing: support the best man for the job. Republican, Democrat, doesn't matter.

The second thing: make damn sure that the best man running...is a F'ing Democrat."

 

Thus...before anything, I am interested in the person that will be doing the job.

 

Democrats broke rule #2.

 

*(BTW...if you want to have a rational discussion about Obamacare sometime...I work in it right now...I will start you off with something simple...like "meaningful use". Your defense of Obamacare will melt away shortly thereafter, I assure you)

[The Big Cat]

Of course you are right about incest....but...I don't know about rape.

 

 

I don't know about "bedrock". Mitt Romney strikes me as the kind of guy who is a lot more pragmatic than anybody wants to admit. The Republicans have to know that he's not going to be there on the nonsense.

 

But...ask yourself: If they know, and all these things were really "bedrock", and were more important than repealing Obamacare*, or doing the rest of the things that will fix the country...why'd they nominate him?

 

See? The state of any party...is reflected best by who is leading it right now. How comfortable are you with the leader of your party? Don't you wish you had a Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan? Instead of Mr. TMZ....and Captain F up?

 

I learned politics from my grandfather...and from the union guys standing around the fire barrel on election day.

 

They were fond of saying:

"The first thing: support the best man for the job. Republican, Democrat, doesn't matter.

The second thing: make damn sure that the best man running...is a F'ing Democrat."

 

Thus...before anything, I am interested in the person that will be doing the job.

 

Democrats broke rule #2.

 

*(BTW...if you want to have a rational discussion about Obamacare sometime...I work in it right now...I will start you off with something simple...like "meaningful use". Your defense of Obamacare will melt away shortly thereafter, I assure you)

 

Honestly, I don't see how the direction of the country will be noticeably different under Obama OR Romney, that's why I'm not voting for either one of them.

 

RE: Obamacare, I think there were slaps on the wrist that the insurance companies had coming their way (pre-existing conditions comes to mind), but with the mandate, they came out much further in the black--not that health care reform should have been punitive toward the insurance companies, but I truly believe a great deal of their practices had to be reeled in, significantly.

 

I don't think Obamacare does enough, I don't think it addresses any real problems.

 

I get the reputation as an Obama lover around here because I consistently bash the GOP. I take it from your invitation to discuss Obamacare that the assumption was I'm a huge supporter of the policy. That's far from the case.

[TheMadCap]

This is true.

 

However, I'd rather look at content: what are Obama's PACs putting out? Cancer and Bain? VS. What is Karl Rove doing? Medicare, fiscal policy and substance.

 

Now, if we want to have a debate on real issues, Dems must curtail using wedge issues like gay marriage.....because it can't win on the big stuff. It's time for some introspection(been telling you guys this for years), and to refocus on what will work...just as Carville has said 100 times.

 

Look at the Walker Recall. I told you all when it started that the unions were much better off negotiating....rather than scorched earth.....because the only thing that was going to get scorched...was them.

 

The writing is clearly on the wall once again. It's time to start acting like adults...otherwise, the beating you will take will be much worse than it would have been had you negotiated. NO BS: doing the same old thing could be the end of the party.

 

I understand your concerns, but I assure you the TEA party '= the looney left. The TEA party can defend it's positions, and people are listening. In contrast: Where's Micheal Moore? George Soros? Ralph Nader? Paul F'ing Krugman and ALGORE, inc?...and how relevant are any of them today?

 

Listening to these people and allowing the Democratic party to go so far to the left, that it would nominate a clown like Obama? That's what CREATED the TEA party. In fact it made the TEA party a necessity. It's what makes people listen to Ron Paul. Don't you get that?

 

If things are to go as you say: Democrats have to do a lot more standing up to their extremists...or just kick them out....than Republicans. I mean honestly, most of these people are patently NOT Democrats. They are socialists. Get rid of them...and get back to really representing the working man. As I've said many times: if my 30-year elected official grandfather was alive....he and his friends would be cracking heads all over the Democratic party today.

 

Today's Democrats have seen fit to ruin most of his work = 30 pts down...with white working class males? WTF? That WAS the Democratic party.

 

Good post man...

[jjamie12]

My contention with the party is social issues. I don't like Abortion, but I believe it is a woman's choice to make that decision. I believe if two homersexuals want to get married, that is their business. I believe that drugs should be legalized, and that this drug war is wasteful and unproductive.

 

My last contention is the party, in general being a Government expander... while there are some true small government stalwarts in the GOP, they are just as guilty of a !@#$ed up Fed that the Democrats..... the parties both expand power and scope, they just do it in different ways....

 

As a huge Mitt Romney supporter, I agree with most of this -- not totally sure about the complete legalization of drugs, but see absolutely no reason to put people in jail for smoking pot.

 

Another thing I'd add to this: It drives me nuts to hear Republicans talking about wanting "equal opportunity" for everyone while hand-waving away all of the reasons why there isn't "equal opportunity" in this country while, at the same time, attempting to gut some (or maybe even most) of the programs that attempt to level out the playing field into a more "equal opportunity" for everyone.

 

I'm a grown-up, I realize that there will never be "equal opportunity" in the general sense -- I'm not desiring that. However, I'd like for Republicans to take a good look around, recognize what is egregiously unfair and try to do something about it other than say: "You had your chance and you blew it."

Edited August 30, 2012 by jjamie12

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

_{smug 's}

 

 

_{here's one for the whiners - taken at the GOP convention}

 

[Chef Jim]

Nice try, but saying increasing capital gains tax will cause a massive move away from profitable investments is so stupid! Really? Are great investment opportunities in many fields just growing on trees? Taxes have been higher before and the world did not end. Are my apple stocks going to collapse if capital gains rise because hedge funds will suddenly buy real estate instead and dump apple? That's silly. Save the high ground argument like you understand something about wealth and income I can't understand for one of your Conservative bottom feeders, nothing so hard to understand there.

 

 

Profitable investments aren't always profitable. There is always risk involved. Now add to the market risk, higher taxation that other less risky investments who is going to want to continue to invest in divident paying growth stocks? There are a lot of smart people out there when it comes to investing for the highest total return including net of taxation and if all these things happen the highest total return is probably not going to come from divendend paying growth stocks. Take a look at your 401k mutual funds and see how many dividend paying growth stocks you hold. We're already working with our wealthy clients on where to move in 2013 and it ain't into dividend paying gowth stocks. It's not going to be a pretty sight.

[DC Tom]

_{smug 's}

 

 

_{here's one for the whiners - taken at the GOP convention}

 

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jwBXTkZfCUc/TcsuUNKFLCI/AAAAAAAAAW0/sHH563cz5_Q/s1600/CK-Images-SmugObama.jpg

http://supportyourlocalgunfighter.com/wp-content/uploads/Smug-Obama1.jpg

http://sayanythingblog.com/files/2011/04/obama-smug.jpg

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/smug-obama1.jpg

 

 

People who live in glass whorehouses shouldn't throw stones.

[Chef Jim]

_{smug 's}

 

 

_{here's one for the whiners - taken at the GOP convention}

 

 

 

Dude, you do realize that is the CLASSIC Obama pose don't you? Talk about smug and I live in the Bay Area so I know a thing or two about smug.

[Doc]

Unreal. A Barry supporter calling someone else smug.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Honestly, I don't see how the direction of the country will be noticeably different under Obama OR Romney, that's why I'm not voting for either one of them.

 

I get the reputation as an Obama lover around here because I consistently bash the GOP. I take it from your invitation to discuss Obamacare that the assumption was I'm a huge supporter of the policy. That's far from the case.

 

Ron Paul for President!!

 

That's becasue they can't thing straight. Imagine having to vote and support the guy who is exactly like the other guy they despise.

 

Both parties need to compromise to improve America. I have seen Obama compromise, I haven't seen Congress compromise!

 

 

The abortion issue was settled 40 years ago. Why do they keep fighting a losing battle?

 

What's that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome?

 

 

Dude, you do realize that is the CLASSIC Obama pose don't you?

No schit Chef, Tom and Doc. I did it on purpose!

 

 

Once again to you conservatives , thanks for proving my point. You can and (I'm pretty sure) have shown smug Obama pics, and now you're getting pissy when I do it!!! again

 

 

Do you have one of Obama throwing the finger?

Edited August 30, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[DC Tom]

Once again to you conservatives , thanks for proving my point. You can and (I'm pretty sure) have shown smug Obama pics, and now you're getting pissy when I do it!!! again

 

Actually, I never bothered thinking about it before you and your unbelievable hypocrisy showed up here.

 

And I wanted to give MSNBC a change to suggest that "smug" is racist.