2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 6983 posts, RR: 1 Posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3709 times:
It seemed that Republicans where quite surprised at the loss of the election in accordance to their pollsters. Mitt Romney was dealt a land slide electoral victory and yes a plurality of the votes and they lost 8 seats in the House and 2 seats in the Senate.
It seems like some conservative commentators around the block like Bill Kristol are saying raise taxes on the rich, David Frum talked about the "conservative entertainment machine", and Sean Hannity is talking about a "road to citizenship".
Do Republicans have to rethink the way the party is organized? How are they going to expand their base beyond the middle to older age white dude who watches Fox news, listens to Rush and thinks all liberals are the spawn of the Devil.
"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3713 times:
Well for one, I think the parts has to admit and recognize that the "Moderate Republican" does exist and is important. Then the party needs to actually start to pander to them instead of the more extreme elements of the party.
For me personally I wish the party would go and focus on the fiscal elements and leave the social elements alone (OK fine keep a few that really seem to define them - absolute gun freedom and abortion seem to be the biggest) but the others... review carefully and dump 'em if they don't absolutely have a fiscal element that demands them.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 2, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3713 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 1): Well for one, I think the parts has to admit and recognize that the "Moderate Republican" does exist and is important.
It's not so simple. May I remind you that twice in a row, the GOP put forth moderates for President, McCain and Romney, and both were beaten.
I honestly don't think we would've seen a President Bachmann or President Santorum. I don't think it's an issue of whether a candidate is moderate or conservative, I think it matters if they're seen as a strong leader, not whacky/extreme, and true to their values. Having traditional values can put a candidate into the "extreme" category depending on how much they campaign on them, so I don't think that is what the Republicans need.
When we hear the call for a "strong, conservative candidate" I think people are talking about a strong leader who has fiscal conservative views on the economy. When you hear "moderate" Republican, it seems like they either don't care too much about social issues or they aren't too strong on the fiscal beliefs... neither of which are going to generate the votes.
In 2016, I can see a variety of candidates winning... from a "conservative" like Christie to a "moderate" like Huntsman. You can see how these two differ from a Santorum (conservative) or a Romney (moderate.)
I guess what I'm trying to say is, there is a lot more to a candidate than the label "conservative" or "moderate," and the GOP doesn't NEED a conservative or moderate in 2016, they need a STRONG and effective leader. JMO
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 4, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3709 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): May I remind you that twice in a row, the GOP put forth moderates for President, McCain and Romney, and both were beaten.
McCain's chances went downhill once he attached Palin and her more right-wing ideology to his ticket (not that he had much of a chance anyway, since he had the stigma of being from Bush's party to overcome). And Romney was pretty much Bush incarnate.
Remember also that several tea party favorites who just made it into Congress in the last election were sent packing this time around. That's an indication that moving back to the right isn't the way to go for the GOP.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6088 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3709 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): May I remind you that twice in a row, the GOP put forth moderates for President, McCain and Romney, and both were beaten.
Neither were really moderates. Sure, they were moderate compared to Rick Santorum, but they weren't really moderate relative to most Americans. When your solution to illegal immigration is "self deportation" of 12 million people, you are not a moderate. When you call 47% of American's "victims", you are not a moderate.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 6, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3709 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): It's not so simple. May I remind you that twice in a row, the GOP put forth moderates for President, McCain and Romney, and both were beaten.
Yes. Very good point. So let me put this one to you: Do you know how many people I heard saying something like: "I might vote for Romney, but it's his party that scares the piss out of me."?
I heard it an awful lot. Seriously, the GOP scares a lot of people. I promise you that eliminating all the moderates and just keeping extremists aboard isn't going to win you anything. Do you honestly believe that ANY of the other candidates (leaving Mr. Huntsman aside) would have done better than Mr. Romney in the election? I'd love to have seen a Santorum/Obama election. I think Mr. Obama might have carried a full 80% of the popular vote. With Mrs. Bachmann, maybe 85-90. But even Mr. Gingrich (who is merely "loony" with his Moonbase, rather than stark raving insane) might have done as well as 35% or 40%.
Mr. Romney's loss was less about Mr. Romney and more about his party. I have to agree with the Republicans who say that they lost more than Mr. Obama won. On the other hand, the GOP had better pay careful attention in the House. The popular vote would have handed the Democrats the House. It is only gerrymandering (and something really needs to be done about that on a national level; it's out of hand on both sides) that kept them in the majority. They also lost two seats in the senate.
If you think that this has nothing to do with the Tea Party and their economically nonsenical, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist agenda (and let's skip the part where you claim it's not; it is and we all know it is), then I'd encourage the GOP to keep up doing what they're doing and see where that lands them in 2014 and 2016.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 7, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): "I might vote for Romney, but it's his party that scares the piss out of me."?
I had a hard time deciding this election, and a major strike against Romney was rewarding the GOP for what I believe was extremely bad behavior. I mean there is the crap which every politician/political party engages in, and then there is the GOP 2010-2012. I voted straight Republican in 2008 and I am ashamed of what they have become.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): I think Mr. Obama might have carried a full 80% of the popular vote. With Mrs. Bachmann, maybe 85-90. But even Mr. Gingrich (who is merely "loony" with his Moonbase, rather than stark raving insane) might have done as well as 35% or 40%.
I'd think they'd carry the ~30% of registered Republicans but yeah, I agree, it would have been a landslide. Rick Santorum scared the **** out of me
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): If you think that this has nothing to do with the Tea Party and their economically nonsenical, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist agenda (and let's skip the part where you claim it's not; it is and we all know it is), then I'd encourage the GOP to keep up doing what they're doing and see where that lands them in 2014 and 2016.
I think a lot of it lies in what the TP started out as and what they have become. I loved their overall message in the beginning... smaller government and fiscal responsibility. I'm sure almost everyone agrees with the fiscal responsibility part, and although many would disagree with smaller government, it as at least a rational, respectable position. But now, you are right, the TP is indeed far right and has a strong religious influence. I do see some people identify themselves as TP but could care less about social issues and are strong believers in the fiscal side...
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3): I honestly don't think we would've seen a President Bachmann or President Santorum. I don't think it's an issue of whether a candidate is moderate or conservative, I think it matters if they're seen as a strong leader, not whacky/extreme, and true to their values. Having traditional values can put a candidate into the "extreme" category depending on how much they campaign on them, so I don't think that is what the Republicans need.
When we hear the call for a "strong, conservative candidate" I think people are talking about a strong leader who has fiscal conservative views on the economy. When you hear "moderate" Republican, it seems like they either don't care too much about social issues or they aren't too strong on the fiscal beliefs... neither of which are going to generate the votes.
I agree. I don't like the more socially conservative wing of the GOP.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): If you think that this has nothing to do with the Tea Party and their economically nonsenical, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist agenda (and let's skip the part where you claim it's not; it is and we all know it is)
Oh, BS. The TP was a single-issue movement. Get government spending under control. Period. Look at the mission of the Tea Party Express, one of the biggest and oldest organizations: http://www.teapartyexpress.org/mission. Nothing about abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc. Just bringing government spending under control.
It is a powerful message, which, when unpolluted by a social agenda, could well lead to victory for conservatives, as Delta said. The left recognized that, and with their minions in the media, launched a concerted campaign to paint the TP as "extremists". They were helped also by much smaller movements which called themselves "Tea Parties" but who completely missed the point and included things like gay marriage into their platforms.
This propaganda campaign succeeded. Nowadays, when pollsters ask about it, the TP has only a 25% or so favorability rating. Part of that blame goes to people like Bachmann, who hijacked the TP banner and added her own social issues to it. I remember being at an early TP event where she was invited to speak, and people all around me were appalled at the fact that she was missing the point - The TP was not meant to be a platform for/against social issues. It was to demand that the federal government stop spending us into oblivion - that's it. I was in one of the very first organizational meetings for the TP, even before Obama became president, when the big issue was the Wall Street bailout. We hoped that many Democrats would join us. They're not all stupid. And I blame people like Bachmann for ruining the movement's message and momentum, as well as the media which pointed to her as being characteristic of the TP.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 9, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8): Part of that blame goes to people like Bachmann, who hijacked the TP banner and added her own social issues to it.
Apparently, who hijacked it to such an extent that the Tea Party Express invited her to deliver a national response to Obama's 2011 State of the Union address.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 10, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8): who hijacked the TP banner and added her own social issues to it.
This is the crux of the issue, right here everyone. This is why the TP has such a bad reputation today.
I'm with you Dreadnought, I really value the TP's call for fiscal responsibility. But I really do not care which banner it's under, and right or wrongly, the TP's name is tarnished. It just highlights the disconnect--you may indeed vote for a TP member, not because of the social issues, but you place more importance on the economy. Someone then labels you a Christian extremist because of the social issues tagged along... it ain't fair, but at the same time, you can at least see where they are coming from. It's a very sticky situation.
Well, since this is an aviation site, I'm sure this analogy works: Delta is the GOP and the Song is the TP. It was an interesting idea but it really didn't work out and ended up negative for Delta/the GOP. BUT, when Song was disbanded, parts of it went into the Delta system... maybe the TP will go away and the fiscal responsibility portion will be retained by the GOP.
lol, if that doesn't make sense, don't mind me, I'm very tired
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
Consider that the Republicans have control of the Congress, a substantial plurality in the Senate and Romney only lost by 2% of the National vote, they many only have to make a few minor changes to control all 3.
Support reasoned regulations as to the environment, businesses and corporations, especially 'wall street', but do ditch foolish and excessive ones.
Don't support men who have very sexist believes as to women, saying dumb things as to rape and are anti-abortion absolutists.
Moderate views as to Hispanics/Latinos, especially as to immigration, end support of 'papers please ID laws' and assure fair economic opportunity for them.
Stop trying to marginalize Blacks and the poor. Yes, insist on preventing abusive and wasteful spending, but don't go over the top, back off excessive voting ID laws, the gerryminding voting districts to marginalize them and eliminating moderate Affirmative Action rules..
Don't try to destroy public K-12 education. Don't take away or massively cut critical programs including as to collages as they need for survival to assure an advantage of the USA with a well and 'liberal' (open minded) educated workforce and citizenry. Move away from 'teach to the test' and excessive use of testing.
Accept moderately higher taxes on high income persons (at least returning to the pre-Bush 43 rates for those over $250K), higher short-term capital gains tax rates to discourage 'flipping' of stocks, real property, corporations.
Stop scaring Seniors and near future ones as to Social Security and Medicare but support moderate reforms to reduce waste, cut benefits to those getting high value pensions or have considerable cash retirement funds.
Work on problems with 'Obamacare' to improve it, perhaps limit penalties for not having health care coverage especially in using the IRS to enforce it and penalties on employers for not offering HC insurance.
Don't support the most radical loudmouth right-wing voices.
Consider cuts in overall Military spending, especially in costly equipment better designed for 'the last war', spend more on rebuilding our National Guard forces, who have lost huge amounts of equipment in deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and need at home when natural disasters strike (like Sandy). Support withdrawal from Afghanistan ASAP.
Moderate trade policies to bring back some jobs to the USA and prevent any more from leaving.
Knock off anti-union policies but do support pressure on all unions to clean up their internal corruptions and excessive support of bad members - workers.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 12, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7): I think a lot of it lies in what the TP started out as and what they have become. I loved their overall message in the beginning... smaller government and fiscal responsibility.
It's one thing to say "fiscal responsibility" and it's another thing to push to the brink of default. This is not anything that we have ever run into in the modern USA.
Fiscal responsibility means paying your bills, at the very least. So that does mean that if the taxes are the lowest they've ever been in history, maybe it's time to raise them on the people who are making more money than they ever have in history.
The Tea Party was about GOP rage at Obama and everything he stood for.
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 11):
Consider that the Republicans have control of the Congress, a substantial plurality in the Senate and Romney only lost by 2% of the National vote, they many only have to make a few minor changes to control all 3.
A plurality in the senate? They lost two seats.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8): Oh, BS. The TP was a single-issue movement. Get government spending under control. Period. Look at the mission of the Tea Party Express, one of the biggest and oldest organizations: http://www.teapartyexpress.org/mission. Nothing about abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc. Just bringing government spending under control.
Yeah, I knew you'd say that. So why is it that 100.0% of TPers that I ever met or interacted with (and there were a lot) were anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-abortion, and pro-gun? 100.0% No exceptions.
The Communists in China say that they are for liberation and the elimination of money and scarcity. That doesn't make it so. It's not what you SAY you're for; it's what you actually try to do.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3336 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3712 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10): maybe the TP will go away and the fiscal responsibility portion will be retained by the GOP.
The Tea Party came about under very dubious circumstances. Namely the beginnings of the great recession. A single platform item never forms a party. The Tea Party naturally was carved mostly from the GOP which was trying to reclaim some sense of spending control. However it basically had no platform to start with. Taxed Enough Already made no sense when it was the lack of taxes that ruined any sort of "rainy day" fund for weathering the recession.
The Tea Party's sole was already formed from the GOP as they realized after 6-7 years of Bush, that the policies were no closer to paying off the defict. It caught fire under Obama and the sudden siezure of a spending liberal as the ultimate issue. It payed off well in 2010, however in 2012 many saw the Tea Party for what it was. Loud folks whose biggest danger was to the very republic they wanted to uphold with their threats of not raising the debt ceiling. They wanted to cut spending so hard it would cripple the economy. The current fiscal cliff shows that no one wants to cut spending that much and that hard.
From here , the GOP needs to get rid of some of it's very bad characteristics.
1. The Social Agenda (Some of the beliefs are great personal morals, they don't need to be in Government)
2. The Anti Intellectial Agenda (Global Warming, creationism) . Believe what you want to , but don't doubt science with quotes from a book written ages ago.
3. The anti-immigrant stances. There's a reason so many come to the US, and it isn't for the lack of jobs.
Not all of the above needs to be given up, but quite a few would be nice. The alternative is that the GOP goes away or splits up and becomes 2 parties.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 14, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3709 times:
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 11): Consider that the Republicans have control of the Congress, a substantial plurality in the Senate and Romney only lost by 2% of the National vote, they many only have to make a few minor changes to control all 3.
Another interesting thing to note is that the same electorate that voted for Obama voted for a majority GOP House. Millions voted for Obama, but for a GOP congressman. That blows my mind.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12): Yeah, I knew you'd say that. So why is it that 100.0% of TPers that I ever met or interacted with (and there were a lot) were anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-abortion, and pro-gun? 100.0% No exceptions.
And I can truthfully say that your description fits none of the TP'ers I know (and helped organize). One or two at a time, perhaps, but not the neandrathals you describe.
While we are speaking of it, Pelosi liked to call the TP "Astroturf", that it was not a grassroots movement. I can tell you first hand that it was. Our first meeting in 2008 was on a frosty night at Denny's. Only 8 people showed up at our first meeting. the following weeks those 8 people brought their friends, and their friends, and soon started to hook up with similar-minded groups in neighboring towns. It was pretty much all started on Facebook. A variety of names were discussed. Then someone got the idea of the Boston Tea Party and the rest is history.
mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6364 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 11):
Consider that the Republicans have control of the Congress, a substantial plurality in the Senate and Romney only lost by 2% of the National vote, they many only have to make a few minor changes to control all 3.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3336 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3709 times:
But it was astroturf. It was a substitute for the real thing that was supposed to make everyone OK with playing in a "Dome" away from the elements. However it wasn't the real thing, and it was tough and had maintenance issues, and albeit it was good for a storm, on a sunny day people didn't want to be in a Dome. Players didn't like the injuries. The tea party was never a grassroots movement , it was people looking for shelter from the storm the GOP rained down on them
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 17, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): Another interesting thing to note is that the same electorate that voted for Obama voted for a majority GOP House. Millions voted for Obama, but for a GOP congressman. That blows my mind.
Except that they didn't. This should really blow your mind: depending on how you want to look at the races, Democrats either won more votes for the House than Republicans by a small but not insignificant margine, or they tied. In other words, if you look at the nationwide vote, the country voted for both a Democratic president and a Democratic House of Representatives. And yet the House remains firmly in Republican control - that's gerrymandering for you.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 18, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): And I can truthfully say that your description fits none of the TP'ers I know (and helped organize).
Then maybe you live on an island somewhere in space.
You can dismiss facts as liberal propaganda, but this is what TPers have done and said. Remember, what you DO AND SAY is important, not what you SAY you do and say.
I guarantee that if a group of Muslim men in traditional garb show up to the next TP rally, they will not get a warm welcome.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): While we are speaking of it, Pelosi liked to call the TP "Astroturf", that it was not a grassroots movement. I can tell you first hand that it was. Our first meeting in 2008 was on a frosty night at Denny's. Only 8 people showed up at our first meeting. the following weeks those 8 people brought their friends, and their friends, and soon started to hook up with similar-minded groups in neighboring towns. It was pretty much all started on Facebook. A variety of names were discussed. Then someone got the idea of the Boston Tea Party and the rest is history.
Are you claiming you personally invented the Tea Party or took part in its invention?
Ron Paul first used the term in 2007.
And see, this divorce from reality that you exemplify, the inability to take an honest look at yourself and WHY the TP lost this election for the GOP is why you are going to continue to damage the GOP until it becomes irrelevant. I just hope another party shows up to counterbalance the DNC.
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1529 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 13): 2. The Anti Intellectial Agenda (Global Warming, creationism) . Believe what you want to , but don't doubt science with quotes from a book written ages ago.
But the book written ages ago is one of the biggest tools that the GOP use to spread fear among the voters.
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6088 posts, RR: 25 Reply 20, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): Another interesting thing to note is that the same electorate that voted for Obama voted for a majority GOP House. Millions voted for Obama, but for a GOP congressman. That blows my mind.
As Mir points out, this is purely because of gerrymandering of districts. You'll notice in the Senate, where there is no gerrymandering, the Democrats are in the majority.
jet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3711 times:
The Republicans have, I think, two problems. The first and most important is that their positions on social issues are increasingly out of whack with the population and electorate at large. The second is that their fiscal policy doesn't seem to work as advertised - debt increased greatly under reagan/bush and then again under dubya while income inequality rose. I think these are the two main problems they face.
Add the fact that the cold war is over and nothing catastrophic happened from a terrorist stand point the past four years, they've shown themselves to be obstructionist to anything at odds with their dogma, and they'll take positions on scientific matters at odds with the facts. . . Then at the 'national' . . . .their reason to lead Is not sufficiently compelling, maybe worrying, and possibly frightening (see above posts).
If and when the debt gets under control and greatly reduced then I think their call of 'cut taxes to balance the budget' may once again entice enough votes and gain them the presidential office.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3234 posts, RR: 9 Reply 22, posted (7 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): Yes. Very good point. So let me put this one to you: Do you know how many people I heard saying something like: "I might vote for Romney, but it's his party that scares the piss out of me."?
Agreed, I think most Americans understood that electing Romney meant actually President Eric Cantor as he would have been a rubber stamp for congress and wouldn't stand up to the GOP.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): Do you honestly believe that ANY of the other candidates (leaving Mr. Huntsman aside) would have done better than Mr. Romney in the election?
I think Gingrich would have done better (or a colossal failure) depending on how he ran his mouth during the campaign. Basically we know his baggage, he has more of a backbone than Romney did and wouldn't have gone with the "Just Trust me" attitude towards the American people that they didn't buy.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8): Oh, BS. The TP was a single-issue movement. Get government spending under control. Period. Look at the mission of the Tea Party Express, one of the biggest and oldest organizations: http://www.teapartyexpress.org/mission. Nothing about abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc. Just bringing government spending under control.
I call on that.
If that were the case where the hell were they when Obama's predecessor started two wars while cutting taxes, while starting a prescription drug program that was unfunded.
If Romney would have won and decided to stay the course of short term deficit spending to assist getting this economy back on its feet I bet you would not hear a peep about fiscal discipline from the tea party.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 23, posted (7 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 22): If that were the case where the hell were they when Obama's predecessor started two wars while cutting taxes, while starting a prescription drug program that was unfunded.
People were indeed upset, but not to the same level. GW Bush's deficits do not compare to Obama's. Also, if you will recall back to September and October of 2008, there were a lot of angry voices from the right protesting against the bailouts - which was the impotus behind the TP.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 22): If Romney would have won and decided to stay the course of short term deficit spending to assist getting this economy back on its feet I bet you would not hear a peep about fiscal discipline from the tea party.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3336 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (7 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3710 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23): People were indeed upset, but not to the same level. GW Bush's deficits do not compare to Obama's. Also, if you will recall back to September and October of 2008, there were a lot of angry voices from the right protesting against the bailouts - which was the impotus behind the TP.
GW's policies caused the Obama deficits. That is where the logical falacy of the tea party is, they can't do basic finance and accounting.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3336 posts, RR: 1 Reply 26, posted (7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3768 times:
[quote=Dreadnought,reply=25]GW created all the Federal welfare, unemployment benefits, AIFDC? Federal backing of mortgages, student loans, FICA, Solyndra? Obamaphones?
ObamaPHONES???? how about BUSH PHONES. Go look at the act date that created them. FICA, student loans ,and federal backing of mortgages did not cause the deficits. Unemployment Benefits and Welfare were policies created for events that cause undo hardship on citizens, and done prior to Obama. You are basically backing up my argument that the Tea Party is nothing buy a collective of foilks that have no clue how government and finance really work.
.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
NBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 603 posts, RR: 1 Reply 27, posted (7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3789 times:
The problem with the GOP is religion, not just nationally, but in the state/local governments as well. So many of the GOP candidates and agendas are based around religious ideals. Many of these ideals are extreme in their nature, including the numerous anti-gay legislation that have passes in various states.
While I understand that many of the GOP base is from the Religious Right, using religious views as a basis for legal legislation really skirts the First Amendment to the Constitution regarding not establishing a state religion.
The GOP needs to get away from religion as a base for its policies, and return to a party that is more focused on fiscal and defense issues rather than social/religious issues.
"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 28, posted (7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3792 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23): People were indeed upset, but not to the same level. GW Bush's deficits do not compare to Obama's.
Except they do. And they are directly responsible for Mr. Obama's deficits. As it happens, the deficit is shrinking rapidly. It will shrink more rapidly if the Bush tax cuts on the top earners (who are earning way more than they ever have before) are allowed to expire.
It will expand if the tax cuts expire on the middle class because that will lead to a recession.
Now this article right here sums the GOP's problems very nicely:
I won't provide a quote because it involves some strong language, but it's written from the perspective of a 38yo Son of the American Revolution, Heterosexual Caucasian male who is educated and makes money and pays taxes.
In other words, while the upper eschelons of the GOP may be interested in protecting the wealthy's right to "their money" from businesses that "they built all by themselves," the GOP has turned to a base that seems to be made of a bunch of ignorant hicks and religious wackjobs by spewing rhetoric that is frankly psychopathological in nature. And when I say "psychopathological," I mean DSM-IV criteria. The sort of thing that I used to only hear from paranoid-delusional schizophrenic bums on the subway. Conspiracy theories, scientific denialism, scapegoating gays for destroying America, and the list goes on.
And this was the result. The next result if you continue the same tactic will be worse for you.
You may learn to accept reality and work with it, or you may continue denying its existence and continue to get punched in the face by it every two years.
Oh, and Paul Ryan also made a dead-on home-run. He said that the GOP lost because Obama got the urban and suburban vote. Yup. The reach he didn't quite make, though, is that the reason that urban and suburban people overwhelmingly vote for Democrats is because people living in cities actually know Muslims and gays and Mexicans. Many have traveled abroad and have discovered that, say, France isn't a communist bloc country. And so when over half of your party platform is based on trashing these folks who you live and work with every day, this is what you get.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 29, posted (7 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3793 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): I can tell you first hand that it was. Our first meeting in 2008 was on a frosty night at Denny's. Only 8 people showed up at our first meeting. the following weeks those 8 people brought their friends, and their friends, and soon started to hook up with similar-minded groups in neighboring towns. It was pretty much all started on Facebook. A variety of names were discussed. Then someone got the idea of the Boston Tea Party and the rest is history.
Did you really just claim to be the founder of the Tea Party?
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 30, posted (7 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3784 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): Our first meeting in 2008 was on a frosty night at Denny's. Only 8 people showed up at our first meeting. the following weeks those 8 people brought their friends, and their friends, and soon started to hook up with similar-minded groups in neighboring towns. It was pretty much all started on Facebook. A variety of names were discussed. Then someone got the idea of the Boston Tea Party and the rest is history
...so this is your fault.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): He said that the GOP lost because Obama got the urban and suburban vote.
The Republicans need a brown guy for next time. Or even better a brown lady. Exactly what they are isn't so important as long as they aren't white.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): is that the reason that urban and suburban people overwhelmingly vote for Democrats is because people living in cities actually know Muslims and gays and Mexicans.
I'm not sure that's the case necessarily. Many Hispanic people are Catholics, at various levels of activity, and many blacks actually lean to the right socially.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 31, posted (7 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3784 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): It's not so simple. May I remind you that twice in a row, the GOP put forth moderates for President, McCain and Romney, and both were beaten.
They may have put forward "moderates" but they then spent a significant amount of time pandering to their more extreme elements trying to convince them that they were not that moderate. And when say "moderate" I am not meaning "fiscally loose", I think fiscal constraint and rationalism is (or should be) the core of the party. I'm talking about the party, the party is the people, the people of the Republican party had better discover that winning will be with the "moderates" (and yes they can be fiscally conservative with the ability to compromise when required, in other words no more Grover forcing people to sign pledges).
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8): Oh, BS. The TP was a single-issue movement. Get government spending under control. Period. Look at the mission of the Tea Party Express, one of the biggest and oldest organizations: http://www.teapartyexpress.org/mission. Nothing about abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc. Just bringing government spending under control.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12): Fiscal responsibility means paying your bills, at the very least.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
Yeah, I knew you'd say that. So why is it that 100.0% of TPers that I ever met or interacted with (and there were a lot) were anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-abortion, and pro-gun? 100.0% No exceptions.
And I can truthfully say that your description fits none of the TP'ers I know (and helped organize). One or two at a time, perhaps, but not the neandrathals you describe.
My guess is it has to do with you each interacting with just a small population of the group. I am sure each of you is honest in what you are saying but neither has enough breadth of experience to have an accurate assessment from just personal experiences.
Quoting jet-lagged (Reply 21): The Republicans have, I think, two problems. The first and most important is that their positions on social issues are increasingly out of whack with the population and electorate at large. The second is that their fiscal policy doesn't seem to work as advertised - debt increased greatly under reagan/bush and then again under dubya while income inequality rose. I think these are the two main problems they face.
This is a problem, if something doesn't work the first time... lets do it more! The Republican's are supposed to be fiscally smart and conservative, that doesn't JUST mean cutting taxes, it primarily means getting a keeping the budget under control and meeting the nations obligations in a smart and manageable way. Or at least it SHOULD mean that.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23): GW Bush's deficits do not compare to Obama's.
Actually they compare a lot actually, especially when you consider the "invested" portion of the debt (the $2-$3trillion from the Fed's "quantitative easing" programs the vast majority of which will be paid back and not counting any profits)
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 25): And before you go off on the wars, their cost was only a small fraction of the deficit problem.
It may "only" be about a trillion of the added debt but the wars were pretty big part of the problem because the shenanigan of "off-budget" funding that occurred. That should not be possible. There were quite a few ancillary elements that went along with the wars (increases to military budgets, military benefits, increased foreign obligations) that also made them a good part of the debt problem here.
Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 27): The problem with the GOP is religion, not just nationally, but in the state/local governments as well. So many of the GOP candidates and agendas are based around religious ideals. Many of these ideals are extreme in their nature, including the numerous anti-gay legislation that have passes in various states.
While I understand that many of the GOP base is from the Religious Right, using religious views as a basis for legal legislation really skirts the First Amendment to the Constitution regarding not establishing a state religion.
The GOP needs to get away from religion as a base for its policies, and return to a party that is more focused on fiscal and defense issues rather than social/religious issues.
I think many people see the Republican party as the "Christian party" (oh OK they like to say "Judeo-Christian"), and that needs to end.
Quoting D L X (Reply 29): Did you really just claim to be the founder of the Tea Party?
I honestly do not think he saying that at all. I think he is relating how it started in a grassroots way, and how he participated in that, because of a widespread disillusionment by many fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately the religious right saw its power suddenly being usurped and so jumped into it and destroyed its essence.
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 32, posted (7 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3788 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 26): ObamaPHONES???? how about BUSH PHONES. Go look at the act date that created them. FICA, student loans ,and federal backing of mortgages did not cause the deficits. Unemployment Benefits and Welfare were policies created for events that cause undo hardship on citizens, and done prior to Obama. You are basically backing up my argument that the Tea Party is nothing buy a collective of foilks that have no clue how government and finance really work.
You missed the point entirely, and made my point at the same time. The point was that most of the policies (if not all) that led to the huge deficits were in place long before either GWB or Obama.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): Except they do. And they are directly responsible for Mr. Obama's deficits. As it happens, the deficit is shrinking rapidly. It will shrink more rapidly if the Bush tax cuts on the top earners (who are earning way more than they ever have before) are allowed to expire.
It will expand if the tax cuts expire on the middle class because that will lead to a recession.
But wait - I thought the Bush tax cuts were just "tax cuts for the rich" that gave nothing significant to people lower down?
Could it be that you are admitting that the Dems lied about that?
Quoting D L X (Reply 29): Did you really just claim to be the founder of the Tea Party?
Certainly not. I simply claim to be one of the early thousands who got together locally, and that the get-togethers grew over just a few months into a nation-wide movement. No one person started the TP movement. It popped up independently in thousands of places before starting to get organized.
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6088 posts, RR: 25 Reply 33, posted (7 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3779 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32): The point was that most of the policies (if not all) that led to the huge deficits were in place long before either GWB or Obama.
Very true, but then why do conservatives blame Obama for the deficits and make him out to be the primary cause?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32): But wait - I thought the Bush tax cuts were just "tax cuts for the rich" that gave nothing significant to people lower down?
Certainly everybody benefited from the Bush tax cuts, though obviously the wealthy saw the biggest gains. The difference is simply this. If you are super wealthy, having to pay ten thousand more in taxes would be barely noticeable to you and have no significant impact on how you spend or behave. If you are poor/middle class and struggling to make ends meet, even an annual increase of $500 could be quite damaging.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3336 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3784 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32): You missed the point entirely, and made my point at the same time. The point was that most of the policies (if not all) that led to the huge deficits were in place long before either GWB or Obama.
You countered your own Claim, I nissed no point. I landed square on the incompetance of the GOP and Tea Party in laying blame for the fiscall mess.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23): GW Bush's deficits do not compare to Obama's.
GW's deficits do compare to Obama's as all GW did was heap more burden on the deficit.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 35, posted (7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3792 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30): The Republicans need a brown guy for next time. Or even better a brown lady. Exactly what they are isn't so important as long as they aren't white.
Sure... because no one would ever see through that.
Oh, it's a BROWN guy now... I guess they're not extreme anymore.
You need numbers, not just one.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32): Certainly not. I simply claim to be one of the early thousands who got together locally, and that the get-togethers grew over just a few months into a nation-wide movement. No one person started the TP movement. It popped up independently in thousands of places before starting to get organized.
Wait, is it thousands, or is it 8 that were with you first hand at the Denny's?
And you just so happened to pick the same name as Dick Armey's group, without organization?
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 36, posted (7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3782 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 35): Oh, it's a BROWN guy now... I guess they're not extreme anymore.
Just find someone who isn't white and they'll get more votes than they did before. All they have to do then is appeal to the middle and ignore social issues.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6364 posts, RR: 7 Reply 37, posted (7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3787 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30): The Republicans need a brown guy for next time. Or even better a brown lady. Exactly what they are isn't so important as long as they aren't white.
Bobby Jindal is brown. You think he would have faired any better?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36): All they have to do then is appeal to the middle and ignore social issues.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 38, posted (7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3790 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 35): Wait, is it thousands, or is it 8 that were with you first hand at the Denny's?
Eight.
Quoting D L X (Reply 35): And you just so happened to pick the same name as Dick Armey's group, without organization?
I did not mention what we called ourselves. Frankly I can't remember, because it kept changing. What was Dick Armey's group's name and why does it matter?
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 44, posted (7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3791 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 4): McCain's chances went downhill once he attached Palin and her more right-wing ideology to his ticket
I strongly disagree. Palin gave McCain a shot at winning. Before Palin, McCain was getting crowds of around 10K afterwards he was getting crowds of 50-60K. She ignited the conservative base. The word avalanche would have lost its meaning.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 16): The tea party was never a grassroots movement , it was people looking for shelter from the storm the GOP rained down on them
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): the Tea Party and their economically nonsenical, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist agenda (and let's skip the part where you claim it's not; it is and we all know it is),
"Ridicule is your greatest weapon" ---Saul Alinsky
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3336 posts, RR: 1 Reply 45, posted (7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3790 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 44):
So Bush had a gun to Obama's head while saying spend that $5 Trillion or els
Go back and show me the Obama policies that caused 5 trillion.
While you are at it, explain how Bush Left a Deficit of 1.2 trillion for the 2009 fiscal year, and then Obama now has a 1.1 Trillion Deficit for 2012.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 44): Ask Harry Reid why he hasn't passed a budget in FOUR years?
Because congress won't raise any taxes for new revenue for new spending. So passing a new budget makes no sense when congress can't come up with the revenue.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 46, posted (7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3798 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 44): Palin gave McCain a shot at winning. Before Palin, McCain was getting crowds of around 10K afterwards he was getting crowds of 50-60K. She ignited the conservative base.
And alienated everyone else. That's the GOP's problem.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 47, posted (7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3802 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 44): I strongly disagree. Palin gave McCain a shot at winning. Before Palin, McCain was getting crowds of around 10K afterwards he was getting crowds of 50-60K. She ignited the conservative base. The word avalanche would have lost its meaning.
It's "the base" that the Republicans are playing to that needs to change. "Firing up" the fringe, the hardcore religious and socially conservative is what is distancing them from the true core of the party which is more up of moderates and those that identify as "independent" and Libertarian.
I think Palin got a lot of people "excited" and especially those in the talk show world because that is their business. And the more fodder you give them to talk about and rile people up with (on both sides of the fence) the happier they are. It's funny, a lot of people here claim "the main stream media" is in the pocket of Democrats and "Lib'ruhls" but I tend to think the Republican party and many conservatives are under the control of the conservative talk-media machine. Just look at what happened when several Republican's spoke against Rush a few years ago, they were practically ejected from the party. Fortunately I have been happy to recently see a few Republican's stepping out and speaking their minds and not allowing the blowhards to control them (Chris Christie and Jeb Bush spring to mind).
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 44): "Ridicule is your greatest weapon" ---Saul Alinsky
So you apparently follow him do you? Actually Saul Alinsky had some very powerful ideas that are used by many organizations. If you do not know and understand and practice some of his ideas you are not very smart.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 44): Ask Harry Reid why he hasn't passed a budget in FOUR years?
Because certain people were not willing to compromise? That is certainly part of it.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
NBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 603 posts, RR: 1 Reply 48, posted (7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3797 times:
Clearly the GOP is at a crossroads. Recently many of the hardliners have changed their tones and are now focusing more on moderate ideals rather than pandering to the extreamists.
An example of this is Sean Hanity looking at the amnisty policy as a possible solution the imigration issue.
If the GOP can get back to a more centerist position and away from the screaming extreamists then maybe they will have a chance in the future. So rather than blaming everyone else for their failings as a party, they need to look inside.
If the GOP could begin to look more like the party of semi-inteligent beings, rather than a bunch of crazed screaming religous zelouts (like the same ones they wish to wipe out in the Middle East), I think they will be able to expand their base and attract more of the independent voters that they lost in the last few elections.
"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
I read it as he first met with people at Denny's. BREAK. Initial movements were on FB, that's where the name came from. I can see how it ran together
Back on topic, I'm kinda liking the way the things seem to be going in the GOP right now. They see their flaws and know they have to do something about it... I hope they fix their problems for the country's sake (in regards to the gridlock.) The more bad ideas they remove that the Democrats don't have, the less likely these bad ideas have at seeing the light of day. I hope they can focus on their good ideas and keep the Democrats honest (as opposed to flat out opposing most that they do.)
And I have a question... what is the difference between a TP candidate and a Republican candidate? The only differences I've really seen are TP candidates call themselves TP candidates and they seem to be more enraged at the situation, but they don't seem to act much differently than other Republicans
blrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1228 posts, RR: 3 Reply 50, posted (7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3791 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30): The Republicans need a brown guy for next time. Or even better a brown lady. Exactly what they are isn't so important as long as they aren't white.
Bobby Jindal & Haley won in the south because they gave up the religions they were born into and embraced Christianity. I remember reading somewhere that Bobby jindal took part in some exorcism event somewhere too.
Does a non-chrisitian really have any chance of winning in the south?? I seriously doubt that!
Um... the CBO? The 2009 deficit was about $1.3T It's now about 1.1 That's $200Bn in deficit reduction in three years. Even WITH the GOP refusing to actually raise any revenue. Imagine if they had actually played along.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 44): "Ridicule is your greatest weapon" ---Saul Alinsky
No. That's just it. I wish it were ridicule. I wish it were just name-calling. Everything I've said I believe (and have substantial evidence) to be absolutely accurate. And the American electorate agrees with me. That's why they VOTED the GOP out of the House, the Senate, and the White House. The fact that the GOP is still in control of the house is due to gerrymandering, not to the popular vote.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 49): And I have a question... what is the difference between a TP candidate and a Republican candidate?
The difference is that a regular Republican candidate is willing to compromise on certain issues. The TP says: "We're not compromising. It's our way or we default/don't have a budget/etc."
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32): But wait - I thought the Bush tax cuts were just "tax cuts for the rich" that gave nothing significant to people lower down?
Could it be that you are admitting that the Dems lied about that?
They would lie only if they had said that. They did not. They said that the Bush tax cuts were PRIMARILY weighted towards taxing the wealthy less. And that is quite true.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30): The Republicans need a brown guy for next time. Or even better a brown lady. Exactly what they are isn't so important as long as they aren't white.
You really don't get it, do you? You have plenty of skin colors. Let me give you two names: Allen West and Herman Cain. Leaving Mr. Cain's womanizing history out of the picture, his policies were nonsensical. Every economist who analyzed his 9-9-9 plan said that it would leave the country insolvent within a decade. And then there is Allen West, who just lost his bid for re-election.
I'm not denying that Mr. Obama's skin color motivated African Americans to go out and vote, but I promise that if you painted Mr. Romney Black, he still would have lost the election.
Your policies have to jive with reality. Your party does reflect upon you. When you have politicians and party representatives who openly say racist things (Mr. Sununu's reaction to Gen. Powell was stunning), that just isn't going to work.
If you think that people voted for Mr. Obama JUST because he's Black, you don't get it. They agreed with his policies and positions to start with. His skin color just got them out of the house.
Quoting tugger (Reply 31): My guess is it has to do with you each interacting with just a small population of the group.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 52, posted (7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3795 times:
Quoting blrsea (Reply 50): Does a non-chrisitian really have any chance of winning in the south?? I seriously doubt that!
The Republicans won't help themselves by finding a non-Christian, but they can pick up a ton of votes if they find someone who isn't white.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 51): If you think that people voted for Mr. Obama JUST because he's Black, you don't get it. They agreed with his policies and positions to start with. His skin color just got them out of the house
Blacks and latinos are not especially liberal on social issues.
The Republicans need to ignore social issues other than simply being somewhere slightly more conservative then Democrats. The voters are becoming less and less white and the candidates will have to follow. There is a perception, right or wrong, of the Republican party being only for white people so consequently they need to find themselves a lot of black friends and put them out in front. Fiscal conservatism is smart, but it won't matter if you think the people pushing it are racists. I'm not saying they need to put their guy in a Rick Ross music video, but the party needs to be more inclusive and make darn sure everyone sees it.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
I see what you mean about getting a few "free" votes for not having a WASP, but honestly, the GOP has so many other issues I doubt having a black lesbian woman vs a WASP would tip the majority in their favor
Huge problem from the outside looking in, that is from a European perspective.
There is the world.
...then there is the world as Rupert Murdoch, Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers think they can foist onto a large percentage of the populous.
Unfortunately newspaper readers and TV-news watching voters are old white men so Murdoch loses, everyone else gets their news from the internet. Murdoch ideas like "the polls are skewed towards Democrats" or that Benghazi matters to anyone were repeated endlessly without any independent thought even though the claims were obviously at minimum QUESTIONABLE.
and only the election ever convinced the Republicans I see here that they were wrong about polls and the value of Benghazi (or other Fox talking points)....this while the mainstream media was correct.
RUNNING ON JOBS AND THE ECONOMY mean the Republicans may have won
But
Running on Benghazi, the "threat" of Iran, and the culture war against gays and Mexicans cost them.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): "I might vote for Romney, but it's his party that scares the piss out of me.
Romney is a smart man and valuable part of America!
Its a shame he can't contribute in some strong way to the government.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): Millions voted for Obama, but for a GOP congressman. That blows my mind.
I think it sums up rational thinking perfectly.
Obama's ideas are more appealing.
....but they want Republican's having strong say on the purse strings to keep the Democrats from going too far.
Quoting jet-lagged (Reply 21): their fiscal policy doesn't seem to work as advertised
I think that is more true today than ever.
Freeing up capital DOES produces jobs, if the capital is forced to invest in your country. Today it all goes to China; helping the "job creators" just helps China. Look at Apple, the pride of American business and where all their jobs go.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 49): I'm kinda liking the way the things seem to be going in the GOP right now.
Defeats that don't kill you can make you stronger.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 5 Reply 55, posted (7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3786 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): It's not so simple. May I remind you that twice in a row, the GOP put forth moderates for President, McCain and Romney, and both were beaten.
McCain lost to the Great Recession (as did Romney to a degree) and Palin was sort of a cheerleader who was very killed at handling conservative crowds.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3): I don't think it's an issue of whether a candidate is moderate or conservative, I think it matters if they're seen as a strong leader, not whacky/extreme, and true to their values.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): Do you know how many people I heard saying something like: "I might vote for Romney, but it's his party that scares the piss out of me."?
That is, I believe, the result of the GOP's desire to move Medicare and Social Security to private companies. That is enough to scare the hell out of any reasonable person. As is the cuts to other programs like Medicaid.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): Another interesting thing to note is that the same electorate that voted for Obama voted for a majority GOP House. Millions voted for Obama, but for a GOP congressman. That blows my mind.
I seem to recall that the Democrats collected more votes for the House, but there is some gerrymandering that protected the GOP. Don't be smug or assume that this is permanent. The growth of minorities over time will cause problems for current gerrymandering and it is going to be a while before there can be changes,
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 49): And I have a question... what is the difference between a TP candidate and a Republican candidate?
There is a chance that the Republican Candidate will put the country over cash from time to time.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3234 posts, RR: 9 Reply 56, posted (7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3779 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 39): Only if he says the right things.
The Republicans need to abandon everything to pander to the middle. Tell them what they want to hear.
There is some merit to a lot of their positions and while at the present time
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 44): I strongly disagree. Palin gave McCain a shot at winning. Before Palin, McCain was getting crowds of around 10K afterwards he was getting crowds of 50-60K. She ignited the conservative base. The word avalanche would have lost its meaning.
Palin gave McCain a shot at winning until she opened her mouth and couldn't explain anything especially regarding foreign policy.
She was rejected not because she is a woman but because she didn't know anything.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 51): You really don't get it, do you? You have plenty of skin colors. Let me give you two names: Allen West and Herman Cain. Leaving Mr. Cain's womanizing history out of the picture, his policies were nonsensical. Every economist who analyzed his 9-9-9 plan said that it would leave the country insolvent within a decade. And then there is Allen West, who just lost his bid for re-election.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 52): The Republicans won't help themselves by finding a non-Christian, but they can pick up a ton of votes if they find someone who isn't white.
No where near enough to swing an election. If they run a latino or a black person who has views that 47% of the Americans are takers and victims and opposes gay marriage and the right to choose then the same thing is going to happen.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 55): McCain lost to the Great Recession (as did Romney to a degree) and Palin was sort of a cheerleader who was very killed at handling conservative crowds.
I agree that McCain lost because of the 2008 crash and the fact that the GOP was blamed. Romney lost because he didn't give any direct points about a damn thing and Obama successfully convinced the electorate that he would going to try the same policies of the 1980's, also the whole war on women thing didn't help either.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 57, posted (7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3783 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 52): Blacks and latinos are not especially liberal on social issues.
No they aren't. They're liberal on economic and policy issues, including foreign policy. Guess who makes up the grunt troops on the ground? Yeah, they don't really like war.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 55): That is, I believe, the result of the GOP's desire to move Medicare and Social Security to private companies. That is enough to scare the hell out of any reasonable person. As is the cuts to other programs like Medicaid.
Throw in not one, but TWO "rape guys" and some ranting about throwing gays and Muslims in concentration camps and you've just scared the living bujeezus out of a lot of people who might otherwise have voted GOP.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 53): I doubt having a black lesbian woman vs a WASP would tip the majority in their favor
Condi Rice (who is probably Lesbian and certainly Black) vs. Bill Clinton. Who do you think would take that one? OK, now, Condi Rice in the current GOP who wouldn't be able to win the nomination without singing the NOM pledge and Mr. Norquists's pledge and a few other absurd pledges vs. Bill Clinton.
Suddenly, it doesn't look so good for Condi.
Every single candidate for the GOP except Mr. Cain was White and non-Protestant this year (assuming you don't count LDS as Protestant). Mr. Cain is protestant (I believe Baptist?) and Black, of course.
When it did wind up being Mr. Romney, did the Obama campaign make a deal out of his religion? Nope, they never brought it up once. Oh, they went for blood, but they stuck to his policies. And let's face it, Mr. Romney's policies are like a suit of armor made of tissue paper. He reminds me of Katy Perry's "Hot and Cold."
Who brought up Mr. Romney's minority religious status? The GOP.
NBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 603 posts, RR: 1 Reply 58, posted (7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3780 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 57):
Throw in not one, but TWO "rape guys" and some ranting about throwing gays and Muslims in concentration camps and you've just scared the living bujeezus out of a lot of people who might otherwise have voted GOP.
This
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 56): I agree that McCain lost because of the 2008 crash and the fact that the GOP was blamed. Romney lost because he didn't give any direct points about a damn thing and Obama successfully convinced the electorate that he would going to try the same policies of the 1980's, also the whole war on women thing didn't help either.
McCain lost in 2008 in a large part because people were tired of George W. Bush and the rich white GOP. Obama offered something completely different from either party's establishment and he appealed to many young people. This is the same reason he won again this time, people are tired of the rich white man telling the middle class and poor how they should live.
If the GOP can run a candidate whom the general population can relate to, and this candidate can relate to them, then they will have a fighting chance next election. If they continue to run candidates who are out of touch or out of reach then they will slowly die out.
"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 59, posted (7 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3779 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 47): Because certain people were not willing to compromise? That is certainly part of it.
...and who would that be since Harry has had a majority for all those four years? Nancy Pelosi had a majority for two of those years too.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 51): Um... the CBO? The 2009 deficit was about $1.3T It's now about 1.1 That's $200Bn in deficit reduction in three years. Even WITH the GOP refusing to actually raise any revenue. Imagine if they had actually played along.
NBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 603 posts, RR: 1 Reply 60, posted (7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3772 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 59): But of course, you'll just blame the Republicans when its the Ptresident is the who submits the budget.
This is true, however, it's up to Congress to approve and amend the budget as they see fit, and that is where it all falls down. Neither side could agree on an appropriate budget because of all of the addons that were put into the original budget plan. The anti-union clauses from the GOP side and the social reforms from the Dem side. Neither was willing to yield and so a suitable budget was not formed.
"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 61, posted (7 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 3772 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 45): Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 44):
Ask Harry Reid why he hasn't passed a budget in FOUR years?
Because congress won't raise any taxes for new revenue for new spending. So passing a new budget makes no sense when congress can't come up with the revenue.
And.... explain to me why they couldn't simply say, "OK, no new taxes, let's budget with what we have"?
You are telling me that because my boss refuses to give me a raise, I should resolutely insist on living as if I earned 30% more than I do?
That's just a joke.
Quoting pu (Reply 54): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14):
Millions voted for Obama, but for a GOP congressman. That blows my mind.
I think it sums up rational thinking perfectly.
Obama's ideas are more appealing.
Chocolate is more appealing than vegetables. That doesn't mean it's good for you.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3336 posts, RR: 1 Reply 62, posted (7 months 1 week ago) and read 3767 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61): And.... explain to me why they couldn't simply say, "OK, no new taxes, let's budget with what we have"?
You are telling me that because my boss refuses to give me a raise, I should resolutely insist on living as if I earned 30% more than I do?
That's just a joke.
It's not a joke. It is the responsibility of Government to continue operating even when Congress can't do it's job. The fact that the GOP is held hostage by Grover Norquist and the Fake News network makes negotiating very difficult.
Spending cuts need to correspond with Tax increases to close the deficit and pay off the national debt while still have an operating government. Tax increases should happen while the economy is recovering, because if we wait till it is shrinking , we are toast.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 64, posted (7 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3765 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 59): Quoting tugger (Reply 47):
Because certain people were not willing to compromise? That is certainly part of it.
...and who would that be since Harry has had a majority for all those four years? Nancy Pelosi had a majority for two of those years too.
Why do you pretend to not understand how Congress works? (I know you actually do and suspect you are just throwing out things to confuse things). A "majority" isn't as important when it is not enough of a majority to drive legislation through regardless of the opposing parties desires. I know you understand the tools the minority party has and uses to block legislation. In other words, because of the pledges and the no compromise attitude that has been explicitly expressed by the Republicans these last few year, no amount of working on the issue could happen. Only one thing was "driven though" and the was the healthcare legislation and that resulted in a "never again" mind set with Republican's.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61): And.... explain to me why they couldn't simply say, "OK, no new taxes, let's budget with what we have"?
You are telling me that because my boss refuses to give me a raise, I should resolutely insist on living as if I earned 30% more than I do?
That's just a joke.
Now you are the one joking. What you suggest would not work, would not have worked. We are spending over ONE TRILLION dollars more than we take in each year. Tell us exactly where do we cut that amount without destroying the economy, cutting defense budgets (which "no comprise" Republican's have pledged to increase even though the military is asking for less), and impacting a dozen other aspects of the nation. There has to be balance and compromise on both sides, you can not just work from one side.
And regarding you example, its ridiculous on its face. It is more like you are in business with a partner and you say you need more money and your partner so "No, and I won't negotiate it". Your business partnership would not last very long with a partner that is not willing to discuss the issue and work with you ("I can bring in more money if we go after and land these accounts..."). That is what we have had in Congress recently.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
In the Senate, Ted Cruz (Texas) and Jeff Flake (Arizona) will join a growing bloc of fiscal conservatives, including Marco Rubio (Florida), Mike Lee (Utah), Pat Toomey (Pennslyvania) and Rand Paul (Kentucky).
In the House of Representatives, a long list of fiscal conservatives will qualitatively improve the composition of the Republican majority.
Note: Listing of candidate victors are in the web-link.
The Election Day losers were not the so-called “tea partiers,” they were the candidates embraced by (and some hand-picked by) the Republican establishment who failed to run on the winning message of economic freedom.
...
Missouri Senate candidate and notorious earmarker Todd Akin was opposed by every tea party group in the Republican primary, yet somehow the media labeled him a “tea party” candidate. Sen. Claire McCaskill defeated Akin, declaring that is was “time to end earmarks once and for all.” Establishment Senate candidates like Akin, Denny Rehberg (Montana), Heather Wilson (New Mexico), and Tommy Thompson (Wisconsin) all failed to offer voters a clear choice on economic freedom.
...
The nomination of Mitt Romney is no better. Obamacare? He can’t thoughtfully attack a government system identical to the one he enacted in Massachusetts.
The upshoot (according to the commentator): the RINOs took most of the GOP hit.
[Edited 2012-11-14 10:14:45]
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
Will you stop calling it Fake News, you're making yourself look like a name calling, bankrupt, knee jerk liberal. Stay classy. oh wait...
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 65): the RINOs took most of the GOP hit
Good. Now they can run as Democrats next time. I prefer the term DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only) it's far more descriptive. Rhinos are such noble animals.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 67, posted (7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3755 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 62): It's not a joke. It is the responsibility of Government to continue operating even when Congress can't do it's job.
Quoting tugger (Reply 64): Now you are the one joking. What you suggest would not work, would not have worked. We are spending over ONE TRILLION dollars more than we take in each year. Tell us exactly where do we cut that amount without destroying the economy, cutting defense budgets (which "no comprise" Republican's have pledged to increase even though the military is asking for less), and impacting a dozen other aspects of the nation. There has to be balance and compromise on both sides, you can not just work from one side.
It is the responsibility of the government (the executive branch in particular) to operate within the financial parameters dictated by Congress. If Congress were to pass a budget of $2 trillion, that's all they get - period. This is why Democrats have resisted passing a budget since the financial emergency of 2008-9, so that they could stick to the emergency spending levels of that time. If federal spending were kept to the same share of GDP as in 2007 (19.7% which was already inflated because of the wars), the budget deficit today would be approximately $750 billion lower per year than what it is now.
i would also point out that the CBO has stated that Obama's proposed elimination of the Bush tax cuts for those over $250K, and increasing their rates on top of that by another 3 percent or so, will net the federal government around $70 billion per year. That's all. Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire would net about $340 billion per year. Obama's solution is just a drop in the bucket. Simply taxing the rich brings down the deficit by less than 10%. There simply is not enough of a tax base out there. And those are the CBO projections - which history shows is probably optimistic.
The solution is massive spending cuts, to the tune of something close to $8 in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenue (unless you go for repealling ALL the Bush tax cuts (which I am for), where it can be a bit easier - $2 cuts for every $1 in new revenue.
This fantasy that we can continue spending like we are and simply up the taxes on the rich to pay for it is going to kill us.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3336 posts, RR: 1 Reply 68, posted (7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3755 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 66): Will you stop calling it Fake News, you're making yourself look like a name calling, bankrupt, knee jerk liberal. Stay classy. oh wait...
I may be name calling but I am correct. Anything they report , you can't trust without corroborating stories from the MSM.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 5 Reply 69, posted (7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3755 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 56): Romney lost because he didn't give any direct points about a damn thing
How could Romney honestly disclose & discuss all the millions he made over the years that were put into "tax effective" program? Not possible.
Then there were the plans to end estate taxes, end capital gains and lower the tax rates (all paid for by the middle case). Romney couldn't really be honest about those plans and expect the middle class to vote for him.
Romney had to relying on avoiding disclosure - which is what was scary.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61): And.... explain to me why they couldn't simply say, "OK, no new taxes, let's budget with what we have"?
Under that situation you are looking at no adjustments for inflation, massive cuts to Defense and massive cuts in public & private employment. You don't want to see the results of all the flaky tax programs from the Tea Party.
And, in reality, why should the President and Democrats in the Congress bow down to the Tea Party? Let things bounce around between now and January 3rd - then start working rapidly on something that will reflect the needs of the middle class.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
You are telling me that because my boss refuses to give me a raise, I should resolutely insist on living as if I earned 30% more than I do?
That's just a joke.
Lots of people are forced to live on more than they make when unexpected expenses hit them. Start with a long list of medical conditions that can explode a family's budget. What you really need to do is be very grateful that it hasn't happened to you. Yet.
But we, as a nation, have been hit with some major budget hits. Start with a totally unnecessary 10 year war that was carried out the credit card. Then add in economic mismanagement that left us in the Great Recession.
BTW. You seem to forget that a lot of American families will overspend a budget when they buy a car that creates a monthly payment. Or a house on a 15 or 30 year loan. The cost of that house or car may be over 30% of their budget, but that does not mean it was an irresponsible decision.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 67): i would also point out that the CBO has stated that Obama's proposed elimination of the Bush tax cuts for those over $250K, and increasing their rates on top of that by another 3 percent or so, will net the federal government around $70 billion per year.
Hey, $70 Billion here and $70 Billion there and pretty soon you are starting to talk about real money.
And we need to understand that there are other changes besides just the income tax rates. Let's start with Capital Gains Tax - IIRC that tax will also be going back to to Pre-Bush days. After watching a GOP Presidential candidate who can make $20+ Million a year and only be in the 13% tax bracket I really won't feel too bad about moving Capital Gains Taxes closer to Income Tax levels. For the wealthy it is often a major source of income.
Maybe the most important goal of the GOP should be to avoid moving into Jan 3rd with anything outstanding. Unfortunately their relations with the President have been pretty rough.
Again, let's wait until January 3rd when we will have a different view of necessary legislation.
pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 70, posted (7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3758 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 67): This fantasy that we can continue spending like we are and simply up the taxes on the rich to pay for it is going to kill us.
My research is that no one has this fantasy, thus it is an accusation inaccurate of reality.
The deficit is set to decline in 2013 and, assuming the President's/Democrat's plan is enacted, will see the deficit at about 3% of GDP when he leaves office. From the OMB:
1. Including the $1 trillion in discretionary cuts, the proposed Budget includes more than
$4 trillion in balanced, deficit reduction so that, by 2018, we cut the deficit to less than 3 percent of GDP, stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio, and achieve primary balance.
2. For every $1 in new revenue from those making more than $250,000 per year and from closing corporate loopholes, the Budget has $2.50 in spending cuts including the deficit reduction enacted over the last year.
3. 2012 Projected Deficit: $1.33 trillion, 8.5 percent of GDP; 2013 Projected Deficit: $901 billion, 5.5 percent of GDP; 2018 Projected Deficit: $575 billion, 2.7 percent of GDP; 2022 Projected Deficit: $704 billion, 2.8 percent of GDP.
So, I think its fair to attack their methods (cutting defense, raising some taxes, etc...) but I think its plagiarism from a right wing entertainment site to accuse Obama & the Democrats of "living in a fantasy" about the value of taxing the rich or their alleged desire to go on a big spending bingr.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 71, posted (7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3759 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 66): Good. Now they can run as Democrats next time. I prefer the term DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only) it's far more descriptive. Rhinos are such noble animals.
Sorry but just because I do not agree with every policy and plank of the Republican party does not make me "bad" or a "bad Republican" or a Democrat. RHINO is an attack word that those that are weak and cannot handle the differences and debate within the party throw at others as a cheap way to fend off discussion. I am very much a "RHINO" according to some and I am fine with that, but I am also very much a good Republican and equally a very proud American. So keep on showing how weak your arguments are by using stupid name calling or just make your arguments.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 67): It is the responsibility of the government (the executive branch in particular) to operate within the financial parameters dictated by Congress. If Congress were to pass a budget of $2 trillion, that's all they get - period. This is why Democrats have resisted passing a budget since the financial emergency of 2008-9, so that they could stick to the emergency spending levels of that time. If federal spending were kept to the same share of GDP as in 2007 (19.7% which was already inflated because of the wars), the budget deficit today would be approximately $750 billion lower per year than what it is now.
i would also point out that the CBO has stated that Obama's proposed elimination of the Bush tax cuts for those over $250K, and increasing their rates on top of that by another 3 percent or so, will net the federal government around $70 billion per year. That's all. Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire would net about $340 billion per year. Obama's solution is just a drop in the bucket. Simply taxing the rich brings down the deficit by less than 10%. There simply is not enough of a tax base out there. And those are the CBO projections - which history shows is probably optimistic.
The solution is massive spending cuts, to the tune of something close to $8 in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenue (unless you go for repealling ALL the Bush tax cuts (which I am for), where it can be a bit easier - $2 cuts for every $1 in new revenue.
This fantasy that we can continue spending like we are and simply up the taxes on the rich to pay for it is going to kill us.
Well several things:
First I have never said that we can keep spending the way we are, real changes and cuts have to be made. Now!
Second I am glad to see that some can admit that its "not Obama" that is the cause of the budget problem. He may being ducking some things that he could or should do but it really is the Congress' responsibility to pass a budget.
Third, and you know this, we do not need to cut everything to meet the current revenue stream, we can make cuts and combine them with increases in tax rates and that along with increasing economic activity will increase the revenue needs (which by the way will also increase that $70B you mentioned above). I am thinking we need to increase taxes enough to bring in an extra $350B/yr and cut approximately $500B (with approximately 10% of that coming from military budgets) in spending and commitments.
Additionally I would adjust the FICA to match the coming/current needs and I would do this in stages). We have known about this for 20+years now but have not adjusted the rates when were advised to. I have a suspicion that some were doing this on purpose to make it collapse because they were against it in the first place. A simple 1% change 20 years ago could have made it solvent now (and would have created other problems I am sure since we continuously "borrow" from that account) but we did not do that and now need to deal with it.
Tugg
[Edited 2012-11-14 17:40:10]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 72, posted (7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3760 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 68): I may be name calling but I am correct. Anything they report , you can't trust without corroborating stories from the MSM.
And you trust something from MSNBC or CNN without corroberation?
Interesting Pew Research study here. MSNBC comes off as the worst of the lot. None of the cable news outlets come off as particularly balanced.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 73, posted (7 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3756 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72): Interesting Pew Research study here. MSNBC comes off as the worst of the lot. None of the cable news outlets come off as particularly balanced.
Actually considering that news organizations are based in and generally depend on urban areas (large cities) for most of their revenue, they were relatively balanced and followed their viewership accurately. The truth is that nowadays the news really follows its viewers rather than leads them because they want to go where the money is. Also don't forget to adjust for the real "negative view" that the nation overall had of Romney which is why he lost the election.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72): And you trust something from MSNBC or CNN without corroberation?
No, I don't. Do you trust any one news source or one more than others?
I read almost everything out there. I know that at one time it was ridiculous what FoxNews had on their webpage compared to most other "respectable" news sites. Every time I went there they had some amazing new attack against the president or Democrats while the other sites would actually report news like the economy to world events etc. Seriously it went on for months, it was so painfully obvious that all they could headline was something negative about the President and his administration and party. They suddenly got better recently but even now if there is even the smallest questionable thing to report on a Democrat it goes on the top of the page. If they did the same to all parties it might be as bad but they just don't. As far as I can tell they have become the "Republican News Network".
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 75, posted (7 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3757 times:
Quoting pu (Reply 54): RUNNING ON JOBS AND THE ECONOMY mean the Republicans may have won
Romney succumbed to the attack ads on his position at Bain, starting in the primaries (Gingritch's "King of Bain: When Romney came to Town", ironically funded by Sheldon Adelson) and following into the general campaign (when Romney had exhausted his funds and could not spend presidential funds till he got nominated at the convention).
Bottom line was Romney never was able to explain how his "business skills" as a vulture capitalist (as called by Rick Perry) would translate to transforming the economy. Add to that his infamous 47% comment and his decision to not talk to his future plans ("trust me, I have my principals") and he just did not gain traction on the jobs/economy front.
Exit polls showed voters did not rate Romney above Obama on fixing the economy.
In 100% retrospect, Ryan probably could have done better on the jobs/economy front, if he came up with a plan that seniors could agree to on SS/medicare.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 66): Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 65):
the RINOs took most of the GOP hit
Good. Now they can run as Democrats next time.
So much for the big tent.
Hint: throwing people out of the GOP is only going to make the loss bigger next time.
It's a big problem for the GOP. They're losing the war of demographics, yet the hard core right wing keeps saying they need a hard core right wing candidate. Good luck with that.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 67): This fantasy that we can continue spending like we are and simply up the taxes on the rich to pay for it is going to kill us.
And that's why the Dems have always said the plan forward needs both spending cuts and increases of taxes on the rich. I can see why a GOPer would want to keep talking only about the tax increases, but it's not working...
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 76, posted (7 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3754 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 75): Hint: throwing people out of the GOP is only going to make the loss bigger next time.
Yup, and it's central to the topic of this thread.
The GOP is losing because they are forcefully expelling people from the party. This is not a new thing: the Republicans used to DOMINATE the black vote. Now they're lucky to get 1 in 10. But having made the calculated decision that Blacks are and will always be about 10% of the electorate, they can give this up. They've decided to grab a stranglehold on a particular ETHNIC demographic, and tell them that the rest of the country is out to change their way of life. Scare tactics are proven winners. The only problem? The demographic they chose to woo is shrinking, and the demographic they chose to demonize is growing.
Mississippi and Alabama, of all places, are beginning to shift blue. The writing is on the wall: the thing that you are doing, y'all need to do something different.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 77, posted (7 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3757 times:
Quoting pu (Reply 70): The deficit is set to decline in 2013 and, assuming the President's/Democrat's plan is enacted, will see the deficit at about 3% of GDP when he leaves office. From the OMB:
1. Including the $1 trillion in discretionary cuts, the proposed Budget includes more than
$4 trillion in balanced, deficit reduction so that, by 2018, we cut the deficit to less than 3 percent of GDP, stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio, and achieve primary balance.
2. For every $1 in new revenue from those making more than $250,000 per year and from closing corporate loopholes, the Budget has $2.50 in spending cuts including the deficit reduction enacted over the last year.
3. 2012 Projected Deficit: $1.33 trillion, 8.5 percent of GDP; 2013 Projected Deficit: $901 billion, 5.5 percent of GDP; 2018 Projected Deficit: $575 billion, 2.7 percent of GDP; 2022 Projected Deficit: $704 billion, 2.8 percent of GDP.
Dude, you need to stop believing everything the white house says.
The reason the OMB (i.e. the Obama Administration) says that the deficit will go down is that they have forecast rocket-style growth between now and the end of his term. He has predicted that GDP will grow as fast as in the boom-boom years between 1995 and 2000, and that tax revenues will skyrocket accordingly. He is projecting 20% real growth in 5 years, after correcting for inflation. Over 30% gross growth. The average growth over the past couple of decades is about half that
Sorry, but that is just blind optimism. It COULD happen, if some new amazing industry is created that creates an entirely new layer of economy (in the 90s it was the Internet), but it is foolish to believe that "something amazing will come up."
I took their tables and reworked them, assuming OMB's spending program but a more realistic 12% real growth rate over 5 years. Never mind how business un-friendly the country has become - let's assume that America keeps going as it has in the past. I show a budget deficit of between $800 and 900 billion in 2017.
Based on history, I'd bet money that my numbers will be much closer to the mark than OMB's. I haven't even touched their spending program, which is also optimistic I think. I think we'll have $1 trillion deficits still in 2017.
pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 78, posted (7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3751 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 77): Dude, you need to stop believing everything the white house says.
Dude?
Ok, fair enough, if the Obama proposals are based on optimistic GDP growth, the Republicans main negotiating point going forward is that the deficit-as-percent-of-GDP taget numbers the Democrats themselves provide act as a cap on future spending, meaning further spending cuts arrive if they are not met.
...and if the Republicans are serious about not raising taxes, they will happily offer to cut favourite programs (read:defense), in tandem with entitlement spending cuts, to meet the agreed-upon deficit reduction targets, yes?
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 79, posted (7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3748 times:
Quoting pu (Reply 78): Ok, fair enough, if the Obama proposals are based on optimistic GDP growth, the Republicans main negotiating point going forward is that the deficit-as-percent-of-GDP taget numbers the Democrats themselves provide act as a cap on future spending, meaning further spending cuts arrive if they are not met.
...and if the Republicans are serious about not raising taxes, they will happily offer to cut favourite programs (read:defense), in tandem with entitlement spending cuts, to meet the agreed-upon deficit reduction targets, yes?
pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 84, posted (7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3751 times:
Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 80):
the 4 won by the Ds were comfortable wins.....meanwhile the 2 that the Rs won.......one state made the difference
The Republicans haven't had a strong presidential vote performance in 24 years. For the two elections they won since then, they actually lost the popular vote (2000) and just barely squeeked by in the other (2004).
For a generation or more, the Republican identity is firmly the Bush family and 3 overseas wars.
PHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7264 posts, RR: 24 Reply 85, posted (7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3752 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 66): Now they can run as Democrats next time. I prefer the term DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only) it's far more descriptive.
Actually history speaks otherwise and I'll give you 2 prominent examples of such.
1. The late Senator Arlen Specter of PA, who died about a month or two ago.
Prior to his switching (back) to the Democratic party in early 2010 while still in the Senate; Sen. Specter was viewed by Democrats as their favorite Republican Senator. Then, just prior to the 2010 primaries; he changed back to a Democrat (he switched to the GOP several decades earlier) and despite voting w/the Dems 100% of the time since switching parties; he was resoundly defeated by Rep. Joe Sestak (who was very partisan and voted 100% w/the Democrats since his first being elected to the House in 2006) in the Democratic primary. Sestak, in turn would be defeated by now-Senator Pat Toomey in the 2010 general election.
Heck, when Sen. Specter ran 6 years earlier (in 2004); there wasn't that much difference between him and his Democratic challenger, former-Rep. Joe Hoeffel.
Bottom line: when Sen. Specter ran as a Democrat in 2010, he lost.
2 Retiring Senator Joe Lieberman of CT
Prior to the 2006 elections, he sided w/the GOP on just one item (the War in Iraq); as a result he faced a primary challenge against Ned Lamont and lost. Since CT allows defeated primary candidates to enter the general election as an Independent (not all states do); he re-entered the race as an Independent and won.
The upshoot: despite voting w/his party 98% of the time, Demoratic voters showed him the door during the 2006 primary.
Long story short: when Democrats have a choice between Democrat Lite (RINO) vs. one of their own; they're almost always going to pick the genuine article vs. the watered down variant.
In contrast; until the economy started going south a few years ago, many so-called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only to those unfamiliar w/the acronym) were actually welcomed in.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 86, posted (7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3750 times:
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 85): I'll give you 2 prominent examples
Got any more? Two is not enough as there are many other factors involved with their switch and loss.
And I am sure that you know that the idea of the "Big Tent" is not based on a couple of legislators. It is the idea that you can have very different people with different values and even different goals all in the same party. The problem that Republican's have is that their "tent", for where it matters, is getting smaller. Support those here illegally getting citizenship? I don't think the Republican's will welcome you. Against those here illegally getting citizenship? In the Democratic party there is a vigorous debate going on if this is OK and if it is acceptable and how it could or should not be done. Not Christian and want to run for a Republican position? It might be doable locally but the further from your locality the more suspicion you will be viewed with JUST because you are not a "familiar" religion. Democrat? Who really cares about religion as long as you say what they want to here. Are you a Republican in support of using taxes as a tool to fix the budget problem? You will be shunned though just recently the voice of people like me is getting heard. Are you a Democrat and want to cut programs? Well that can be a tough issue and as I am not a Democrat I can't tell you if people lie that are shunned or just argued with.
How about gay marriage or abortion? How about unions and universal healthcare (that doesn't require getting rid of "Obamacare" first)?
I can tell you this: A big tent should not need to call people RINO's.
Tugg
[Edited 2012-11-15 14:46:44]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
PHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7264 posts, RR: 24 Reply 87, posted (7 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3756 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 86): How about gay marriage or abortion?
I will give you an example of a Pro-Life Democrat being shunned by the DNC: The late former-Governor of PA, Robert P. Casey Sr. His tough stance on abortion, due to his religious convictions cost him a speaking spot at the 1992 DNC Convention.
In contrast, MA Republican Gov. Bill Weld spoke at at the GOP convention that same year and was very local about his pro-choice views. He did get some "Boos" from the audience when he mentioned such BTW.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
ATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 484 posts, RR: 3 Reply 89, posted (7 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3749 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 46): And alienated everyone else. That's the GOP's problem.
All the bullshit aside, this is exactly why the GOP is having issues. Candidates like Romney alienate the public and preach on a platform that many (no matter their party) feel is extreme.
Personally (and as part of the top 1-5%), even I felt Romney was not interested in my interests. Were the GOP to put forth a candidate who could appeal to the general census and NOT take a PERSONAL (political) standpoint on issues that most Americans dont believe the gov't should be a part of (ie. Abortion, gay rights, religious anything), they would stand a much better chance of being elected. This is exactly why Ron Paul (though I could not be more against having him as a president) was still able to stay on the ballot and had a greater following than Nader or big ears (sorry, forgot his name).
For the GOP to succeed, they need a fundamental push toward BETTERING the country under fiscal PROCEDURES, not the conservative 'popular' ideologies. McCain was destined to lose the election because Bush II was an idiot and COMPLETELY alienated ALL of America in one way or another; although Palin didnt really help his cause either with her extreme views. Romney came across as a rich man and one who didnt care about women's rights and thats exactly why he lost.
If the GOP were to succeed, they need to put out a candidate that America can relate to. The candidate needs to take a stance on what the country's REAL problems are, not what they think will get them a few votes. If Romney were to take a stand on balancing the budget, bringing jobs back to America, and alleviating us of foreign woes, it would have been a DAMN close election.
My $.02
By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
venus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1410 posts, RR: 1 Reply 90, posted (7 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3754 times:
Give away phones, hats, and tshirts and promise everything and deliver nothing. Start partying with the Hollywood a-listers. Have Republicans buy the controlling interest in all the main stream media outlets, control the message. Since voting ID laws are considered racist on election day fill up vans with paid voters and go to precients and stuff ballot boxes.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 91, posted (7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3755 times:
Quoting venus6971 (Reply 90): Give away phones, hats, and tshirts and promise everything and deliver nothing. Start partying with the Hollywood a-listers. Have Republicans buy the controlling interest in all the main stream media outlets, control the message. Since voting ID laws are considered racist on election day fill up vans with paid voters and go to precients and stuff ballot boxes.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 92, posted (7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3752 times:
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 85): In contrast; until the economy started going south a few years ago, many so-called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only to those unfamiliar w/the acronym) were actually welcomed in.
I get your point, but I'd point out that it was really the Tea Party who started attacking RINOs. Yes, they were a side effect of the bad economy, but they also are a side effect of those who want a more right-wing GOP.
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 89): Candidates like Romney alienate the public and preach on a platform that many (no matter their party) feel is extreme.
But because Romney et al live inside the GOP echo chamber, they don't feel their views are extreme. They'd rather blame science (like poll results) than deal with the fact that they are viewed as extreme.
Romney's evasive (and in some cases flip-flopping) answers to questions gave the non-Fox crowd a lot to be concerned about. They just didn't trust Romney to not attack a program that mattered to them, or to not appoint a bunch of neo-cons that would get us in another unwanted war.
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 89): Were the GOP to put forth a candidate who could appeal to the general census and NOT take a PERSONAL (political) standpoint on issues that most Americans dont believe the gov't should be a part of (ie. Abortion, gay rights, religious anything), they would stand a much better chance of being elected.
But the problem is that many in the GOP feel such stands on social/moral issues are a core part of the party platform, and a GOP candidate needs to have those voters on-board to get nominated.
There seem to be a lot of people who call themselves GOPers and are tolerant if not ambivalent on social issues, but they are a different group than the GOP insiders/decision-makers.
The Libertarians are the ones who claim the title of fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and as sensible as many of their policies are, some are not so sensible, and they seem to want to move a lot faster to adopt their policies than the general public wants to go.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 93, posted (7 months 5 days ago) and read 3749 times:
Quoting venus6971 (Reply 90): Give away phones, hats, and tshirts and promise everything and deliver nothing. Start partying with the Hollywood a-listers. Have Republicans buy the controlling interest in all the main stream media outlets, control the message. Since voting ID laws are considered racist on election day fill up vans with paid voters and go to precients and stuff ballot boxes.
I disagree with the Democrats on many many issues, but there was more to the election than just "Barack-O-Claus..."
Even from the losing side, the GOP, I have seen many/most acknowledge that their side has problems. These will be the Republicans that fix their party, not the ones that complain that the President is Santa Claus and the Democrats do this and that
Part of getting all your news from the Republican entertainment complex is the tragic failure to recognise there are people other than yourselves who have very different values.
Your attitude is that because Obama has accomplished nothing you rank as important that this means anyone who thinks he HAS accomplished something is being deceived by propoganda that only you are clever enough to decipher.
Real Accomplishments including ending the Iraq War, putting a hard stop date on Afghanistan and enacting Obamacare are VERY important to lots of people.
Quoting venus6971 (Reply 90): Have Republicans buy the controlling interest in all the main stream media outlets, control the message.
NEWSFLASH: Judging by the voices I heard on this forum complaining the polls were biased, the race was close, and that Benghazi is an important issue to voters IT IS THE REPUBLICANS who are being woefully misguided by their myopic allegiance to partisan (especially TV) news media, which only they watch.
The problem for the Right is evryone under 50 gets their news from multiple sources, mainly the internet, where no single source dominates....aged white men and rural rednecks are watching only FoxNews .... while everyone else gets a wide selection of news inputs online.
Fox is run by a Republican Party political operative, Roger Ailes, and owned by Rupert Murdoch.
CBS is owned by multi-billionaire businessman Sumner Redstone, a Bush-supporting "Democrat".
NBC is owned by those left wing nuts at General Electric and Comcast
ABC is owned by Disney.
CNN is owned by Time Warner.
............WHERE is the "controlling interest" you imply the Democrats have over main stream media outlets?
............Part of the now comedic sport of watching FoxNews disciples in public is their loyal repitition of the CHARADE that other news sources are biased and controlled by Democrats!
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 95, posted (7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3752 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 91): Quoting venus6971 (Reply 90):
Give away phones, hats, and tshirts and promise everything and deliver nothing. Start partying with the Hollywood a-listers. Have Republicans buy the controlling interest in all the main stream media outlets, control the message. Since voting ID laws are considered racist on election day fill up vans with paid voters and go to precients and stuff ballot boxes.
It worked for the Democrats, so why not?
I am surprised Dread, that you took the idiot-bait.
The Republican's already do all that was mentioned (well the voting element is just stupid flame-bait stuff) but the poster doesn't know that as they are uninformed and just baiting a political flame war.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 93): I disagree with the Democrats on many many issues, but there was more to the election than just "Barack-O-Claus..."
Even from the losing side, the GOP, I have seen many/most acknowledge that their side has problems. These will be the Republicans that fix their party, not the ones that complain that the President is Santa Claus and the Democrats do this and that
Some will just complain, hopefully the Republican party though will actually make progress (oops don't know if I can imply something "progressive") and refresh and refocus their efforts on the fiscal elements and keeping the USA on sound economic and financial footing. And that means "paying for what we use" and negotiating and working with the Democrats in Congress and drop the "no compromise" mantra.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 5 Reply 97, posted (7 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3747 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72): And you trust something from MSNBC or CNN without corroberation?
When it comes to news I do trust them. But I can separate news programs from opinion shows.
And I can look at both and see them bringing in some reasonably smart Republicans to balance the Democrats side. Both MSNBC or CNN treat their political relationships with respect. MSNBC has the ex-head of the RNC and they have McCain's political advisor. Both bright guys and both delivering pragmatic comments on the GOP side. CNN simply has too many to list here, but all are top notch IMO.
Quoting venus6971 (Reply 90): Give away phones, hats, and tshirts and promise everything and deliver nothing
One hopes that the GOP continues on that line - nothing would help the Democrats more.
Realistically, I don't see the GOP changing that much. They and to cater to the very wealthy (like the Koch Brothers, to the Tea Party, to the supposedly Christian right, to corporate execs and they have to do all this while attacking folks in the Democratic Party who are delivering performance that the majority of voters consider realistic. (And let's not forget the Vaginal Probe Gang - they are not going away.)
Basically I believe the GOP is too controlled by the various factions to be successful in addressing the needs of the average American. It will be the Party of "Them", not the Party of Us.
1. Tugger, Right after the election former Mayor Rudy Giuliani said what you stated. He copied off of you
2. McCain and Romney may hve been a bit moderate but, their running mates were off the chains mighty to the righty.
Paul Ryan may as well wear a necklass with a fetus pendant. Sarah Palin at first seemed like the perfect running mate. Young (for VP/POTUS) and a MILF plus being a hard body with her litter of kids. But then a funny thing happened on the way to the General Election 2008: She opened her mouth.
Seriously as Tugger and Guiliani suggested the GOP should focus on smaller government and stay out of the people's wallets and especially bedrooms! Angry old white men who like Buick Le Sabers and golf and rich big money Northeast Elite corporate men of old money and the wacky Taliban impersonating religious right don't go over well with the rest of us citizens. These factions are rapidly becoming the laughing stock and a blemish on our great nation.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 100, posted (7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3749 times:
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 89): All the bullshit aside, this is exactly why the GOP is having issues. Candidates like Romney alienate the public and preach on a platform that many (no matter their party) feel is extreme.
Compared to the crap that's come out of the GOP since the election, Romney seems pretty tame. Well, at least he did until he started blaming his loss on "Obama's Gifts". I guess that 47% comment really did reflect what he thought.
Quoting venus6971 (Reply 90): Give away phones, hats, and tshirts and promise everything and deliver nothing. Start partying with the Hollywood a-listers. Have Republicans buy the controlling interest in all the main stream media outlets, control the message. Since voting ID laws are considered racist on election day fill up vans with paid voters and go to precients and stuff ballot boxes.
Such sour grapes. Try this line of thinking: you lost because your message doesn't resonate with the country. You lost because you ran a guy who is the poster child for being out of touch with the mainstream of the country. You lost because people don't think you understand their problems and are just concerned with putting money in the hands of the rich and hoping that they put it back into the country instead of putting it elsewhere. You lost because people don't think that the appropriate response to a deficit is to cut taxes and increase spending. And you lost because the country is sick and tired of hearing your guys clarifying their position on whether rape is a bad thing or not.
Fix those things, and you might have a shot in four years time.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Quote:
Like several other prominent Republicans, Newt Gingrich slammed Mitt Romney's assertion in a conference call with donors last week that he lost the 2012 presidential election because of "gifts" President Barack Obama gave to blacks, Hispanics and younger voters during his first term in the White House.
"It's nuts," Gingrich told guest host Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "First of all, it's insulting. This would be like Wal-Mart having a bad week and going, 'The customers have really been unruly.' I mean, the job of a political leader in part is to understand the people. If we can't offer a better future that is believable to more people, we're not going to win."
Seems Newt ain't buying the "Santa Claus" theory that Windbag Limbaugh and many others are putting out.
In fact, he undermines it completely by pointing out that if it's a workable strategy, why didn't Romney try it?
Quote:
"I'm very disappointed with Governor Romney's analysis, which I believe is insulting and profoundly wrong," Gingrich said in an interview with KLRU-TV in Austin. "First of all, we didn't lose Asian-Americans because they got any gifts. He did worse with Asian-Americans than he did with Latinos. This is the hardest-working and most successful ethnic group in America--they ain't into gifts.
"Second, it's an insult to all Americans," he continued. "It reduces us to economic entities. You have no passion, no idealism, no dreams, no philosophy. If it had been that simple, my question would be, 'Why didn't you outbid him?' He had enough billionaire supporters, if buying the electorate was the key, he could have got all his super PAC friends together and said, don't buy ads, give gifts. Be like the northwest Indians who have gift-giving ceremonies. We could have gone town-by-town and said, 'Come here, let me give you gifts. Here are Republican gifts.' An elephant coming in with gifts on it."
The fact is that Romney kinda did try it, but Romney's Santa Claus only visited the wealthy, which isn't the way to win a popular vote.
Seems between this and the "King of Bain" infomercial, Newt really has no time for Mitt.
Does Newt have a future as a GOP presidential candidate?
He surely has more political "street smarts" than does the Rominator.
Is there any way he can ditch his past (maybe a teary-eyed "I have sinned!" confession?) and appeal to more GOP voters?
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9914 posts, RR: 17 Reply 102, posted (7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3743 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 101): Does Newt have a future as a GOP presidential candidate?
He surely has more political "street smarts" than does the Rominator.
He probaly was scouting for 2016. Don't get me wrong: his hypocracy on social values will hurt him again, but he will get even farther. Possibly even a VP nomination next time around.
I don't get the whole "Santa Clause" thing, either. People were saved by what their government did for them when corporations didn't help at all. People saw that and it resonate with them. People want to pay rent and buy food. With corporations sending jobs overseas, like Romney did with Bain Capital, people understood that and didn't want any part of it. To me, it wasn't what Obama was handing out, but, rather, what Romney was offering was out of touch with the common man.
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 103, posted (7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3746 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 101): but Romney's Santa Claus only visited the wealthy, which isn't the way to win a popular vote.
In fairness, the Republican argument that helping the rich helps everyone DOES resonate with quite a few people, absurdly (to me) very often hourly-wage employees who apparently believe their modest lifestyle is a gift from those at the top of the food chain.
If you subtract out anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigrant postures, it seems to me the trickle down theory might have been just fine for the majority.
Although in the American presidential context it was a solid win for Obama, factually the ~3% margin of victory could have been EASILY overcome on a slightly better turnout alone. The Republican agenda holds lots of appeal.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 5 Reply 104, posted (7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3745 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 103): Although in the American presidential context it was a solid win for Obama, factually the ~3% margin of victory could have been EASILY overcome on a slightly better turnout alone.
And a better turn out on the other side could have EASILY doubled that ~3%.
Quoting Pu (Reply 103): The Republican agenda holds lots of appeal.
Why? And to whom?
Romney was simply about making the top 1% of the top 1% even richer with his tax cutting gifts - like elimination of Capital Gains Taxes and Estate Taxes. He could have given squat about that bottom "47%" - or 80% or 90%. Anything other than his financial focus on the very wealthy was simply stuff he could delegate when elected.
So who defines the GOP as a party that has a lot to offer? Holy Rollers? Tea Party type?. Manufacturers of vaginal probes? The GOP is simply too caught up in their relationships with the kooks and nuts and peeping toms to be the party they should be. Pity.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 105, posted (7 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3743 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 102): Don't get me wrong: his hypocracy on social values will hurt him again, but he will get even farther. Possibly even a VP nomination next time around.
Indeed, so I still wonder if there's any way for him to ditch his past? He never did seem to do anything to address it. Is it then the best political calculation to just not say anything about it?
Quoting seb146 (Reply 102): To me, it wasn't what Obama was handing out, but, rather, what Romney was offering was out of touch with the common man.
That, and I don't think anyone outside of his mainline supporters were able to find a way to trust the man.
Quoting Pu (Reply 103): Although in the American presidential context it was a solid win for Obama, factually the ~3% margin of victory could have been EASILY overcome on a slightly better turnout alone.
I wouldn't hang my hat on turnout alone. Seems to me the GOP did all in their power to turn out their base, and their base had every reason in the world to come out to vote.
Also they really did have a lot of things working in their favor: mostly the bad economy and the "corporations are people" ruling that allowed the SuperPACs to spend money like drunken sailors.
And in the future, unless they find a way to recraft their message, demographics just aren't going to be working in their favor.
After saying all this, I think it's mostly about the candidate. As above, Romney just wasn't able to win the trust of the people, and it's next to impossible to vote for someone you don't trust, IMHO.
In 2016 if the GOP comes up with a strong candidate and the Dems come up with a weak one, the vote could easily go the GOP way (e.g. Reagan beating the incumbent Carter in 1980). Of course, we're still paying the price of the Reagan presidency, so I hope we don't see another one like him.
Quoting Pu (Reply 103): The Republican agenda holds lots of appeal.
I'm not so sure about that. In an environment that really should have favored them they just got beat down pretty bad, and there's reasons to think it won't get any better for them.
The fiscally conservative message has widespread appeal. To everyone. By this I mean that a balanced budget is ideal, less borrowing is better and a general preference for spending cuts versus raising revenue.
Really, the only ones who think the government should always be spending lots and directing the economy at all times are intellectual Keynesians and those with a pretty adamant leftists agenda about income redistriubtion and other goals around re-engineering society. The elite of the Democratic Party, Ivy League types.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): The GOP is simply too caught up in their relationships with the kooks and nuts and peeping toms to be the party they should be.
I agree this is their biggest palpable weakness.
But the Democrats have a weakness: their trust in government, their appetite for spending.
Blue states like Massachusetts and California elect Republican governors regularly because of Democrat's excessive fondness for government programs, if Democrats would lose the spending impulse they would have few weaknesses.
Anyone who gets 58 000 000 votes has lots of appeal! Just slightly less appeal than his opponent.
Pu says what is needed is: ...A Republican who has social views more like a Democrat
...or a Democrat who has fiscal views like a Republican
My main point is that the Democrats have a tenuous majority a the moment; if they don't get carried away in government spending this could last for awhile. (in retrospect, given that the deficit was going to be huge one way or the other, and looking at the state of the economy, I say a tax cut by Obama may have done more good than a huge spending increase! )
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 107, posted (7 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3742 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 106): The fiscally conservative message has widespread appeal.
The first problem is that the Republican version of that message comes with nasty side effects:
- creationism
- transvaginal sonograms
- prayer at every possible opportunity
- Klingon-like saber rattling
The second problem is that the Republicans have never actually been fiscally conservative. Do not mistake tax cuts for fiscal conservatism. The Bush tax cuts in particular were an act of fiscal anti-conservatism.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 108, posted (7 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3743 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 106): The fiscally conservative message has widespread appeal. To everyone. By this I mean that a balanced budget is ideal, less borrowing is better and a general preference for spending cuts versus raising revenue.
It would also helped if the Republican Party's track record was all about this. Not only did social issues get in their way, but the hypocrisy of wanting to decrease spending and being more fiscally responsible yet increasing spending over the years couldn't have helped
Quoting Pu (Reply 106): Pu says what is needed is:
...A Republican who has social views more like a Democrat
...or a Democrat who has fiscal views like a Republican
I agree, more libertarianism. Honestly, I see more Republicans dropping their social views than Democrats dropping their fiscal views. It's quite possible to hold 100% Democrat views and get elected but it's becoming harder for someone with 100% Republican views to get elected, IMO
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 109, posted (7 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3744 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 106): general preference for spending cuts versus raising revenue.
That's not preference, that's necessity. You'd have to levy something like a 75% tax on all of the wealth controlled by the top 1% to close the deficit for one year. Outspending your revenues by over 50% is not a revenue problem.
Quoting Pu (Reply 106): Really, the only ones who think the government should always be spending lots and directing the economy at all times are intellectual Keynesians
...haven't those people pretty decisively been proven wrong over the last eight decades or so? Why the hell do people still listen to them when their ideas have been failures for the better part of a century?
Quoting Pu (Reply 106): Blue states like Massachusetts and California elect Republican governors regularly because of Democrat's excessive fondness for government programs, if Democrats would lose the spending impulse they would have few weaknesses.
The fact that Illinois and California are both very blue states and have major budget problems is not a coincidence.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 110, posted (7 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3745 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 106): The fiscally conservative message has widespread appeal. To everyone. By this I mean that a balanced budget is ideal, less borrowing is better and a general preference for spending cuts versus raising revenue.
Right, until you try to identify exactly what to cut.
Quoting D L X (Reply 107): The second problem is that the Republicans have never actually been fiscally conservative.
I'm having a hard time naming one at the national level who was, both in word and in deed.
The fact is that politicians like to bring home the bacon, even if they are borrowing money to buy the bacon.
rightrudder From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 129 posts, RR: 0 Reply 111, posted (7 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3744 times:
What's next? The revaluation of the immigrant viewpoint and communicating compassion. I can arguably say that the election was tipped by the Latino / Hispanic vote. The Republican party seems to view that it's all cookie cut into several basic values. But it is much more involved and much more complicated than just education, pro-choice and entrepreneurship.
Romney needed to win over a message of trust and miserably failed in convincing that across. The burden was placed on the GOP. Whereas the Obama administration strategically planned and surgically carried out several initiatives. I got to hand it to them. Such as, the Supreme court ruling in Arizona, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and of course Obama care.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana".
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 5 Reply 112, posted (7 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3746 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 106): The fiscally conservative message has widespread appeal. To everyone. By this I mean that a balanced budget is ideal, less borrowing is better and a general preference for spending cuts versus raising revenue.
Spending cuts?
Starting with Defense? After two 10+ year wars I think we can make come cuts. But, of course, we are going to need to increase VA spending to take care of those who served
But when you talk about spending cuts you will get Americans fighting that.
Social Security & Medicare a good place to cut? Those who have paid for their monthly checks will not be happy when their checks are cut, or eliminated. And it will be cut.
Quoting Pu (Reply 106): But the Democrats have a weakness: their trust in government,
There is a difference between "trusting" government and trusting the politicians. When I was in the Navy I had total trust and confidence in the officers I served under, and in the ships I was serving on. (Government employees on a government warship built by the lowest bidders on a government contract.) Today I have total trust that my Social Security will be electronically deposited in my bank every month - especially after Romney lost. I have total confidence driving on bridges built by government contractors, or the government operated ATC when I'm flying. I trust the CDC to put some very bright scientists on what ever may come up, and I trust the Federal Prosecutors to get Tim McVey tried, convicted and executed.
The politicians? Urgent need for an invasion because there are WMD's in Iraq? Doesn't get any clearer than that.
Quoting Pu (Reply 106): My main point is that the Democrats have a tenuous majority a the moment; if they don't get carried away in government spending this could last for awhile.
I'm sure that the Democrats will not spend more than Bush & Cheney did on their Ego War - especially when the long term costs are included.
Quoting Pu (Reply 106): ...A Republican who has social views more like a Democrat
That would require putting Americans over money and that will simply not happen.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3234 posts, RR: 9 Reply 113, posted (7 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3747 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 105): Indeed, so I still wonder if there's any way for him to ditch his past? He never did seem to do anything to address it.
Own it, admit he made mistakes and that he is sorry for them (even if he isn't). People will give second chances to people all the time, I really wished Gingrich was the nominee because he would have been much more exciting of a candidate for the GOP. Outside of his sexual indiscretions he seems much more honest and actually holds more integrity than Romney.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 105): Is it then the best political calculation to just not say anything about it?
It really never came up.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 105): I wouldn't hang my hat on turnout alone. Seems to me the GOP did all in their power to turn out their base, and their base had every reason in the world to come out to vote.
I think most of their base was in red states already which is why the national polls were so close but there was a more pragmatic view of the candidates in the swing states were Obama won all but one.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 108): It would also helped if the Republican Party's track record was all about this. Not only did social issues get in their way, but the hypocrisy of wanting to decrease spending and being more fiscally responsible yet increasing spending over the years couldn't have helped
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 109): That's not preference, that's necessity. You'd have to levy something like a 75% tax on all of the wealth controlled by the top 1% to close the deficit for one year.
No one is talking about eliminating a deficit in one year, its a process that can take years if not decades. I have actually heard some conservatives (moderate ones) say if you are going to hike taxes on the rich make it more than the 3% that Obama is asking for
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 109): Outspending your revenues by over 50% is not a revenue problem.
It is both, as an outsider the US is under-taxed for actually a government that provides very similar services to its northern neighbor. There are some differences as our health care system is on government books but that is mostly provincial. We spend more on some things but far less on defense so it balances out to a degree, the biggest difference is that Canada largely has its fiscal house in order. The reason, slightly higher taxes.
In 2009 a Canadian journalist said a 3% VAT leaving all other taxes as is would be enough to wipe out the deficit.
Ignoring that example, with the sluggish economy there is less revenue coming in and if you cut more which will lay off public sector workers (they pay taxes too) there will be even less than the present making the efforts basically a zero sum game also killing growth and leaving a deficit largely unchanged.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 109): The fact that Illinois and California are both very blue states and have major budget problems is not a coincidence.
So does Texas, its not just the democrats that have these problems.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 109): Quoting Pu (Reply 106):
Really, the only ones who think the government should always be spending lots and directing the economy at all times are intellectual Keynesians
...haven't those people pretty decisively been proven wrong over the last eight decades or so? Why the hell do people still listen to them when their ideas have been failures for the better part of a century?
IIRC Keynesian economics advocate spending in a sluggish time like this but also austerity is fair game in a boom time which hasn't been practiced. IIRC the US has had 2 surpluses since 1980 when it could have had some in the 1980's and the 2000's.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 114, posted (7 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3751 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 112): But, of course, we are going to need to increase VA spending to take care of those who served
How much will it really have to increase, when you consider the number of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam veterans that will be dying off?
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 113): No one is talking about eliminating a deficit in one year, its a process that can take years if not decades. I have actually heard some conservatives (moderate ones) say if you are going to hike taxes on the rich make it more than the 3% that Obama is asking for
Nor am I. I'm just pointing out the magnitude of the problem and the fact that returning the tax breaks is going to be rather ineffectual to the point of being a strawman argument to turn the tide against the 1%.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 113): In 2009 a Canadian journalist said a 3% VAT leaving all other taxes as is would be enough to wipe out the deficit.
If people want to get serious about FairTax, I'm all for it.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 113): IIRC Keynesian economics advocate spending in a sluggish time like this but also austerity is fair game in a boom time which hasn't been practiced.
Because politicians cannot push themselves away from the plate, which is part of why it doesn't work.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 113): IIRC the US has had 2 surpluses since 1980 when it could have had some in the 1980's and the 2000's.
The last surplus was in the late 1990s to early 2000s, until the War on Terror. The last surplus before that was 1969.
The future of defense is going to require a lot of spending: retooling after a decade of war, paying for veterans, continuing to maintain a strong conventional force and building the forces necessary to fight terrorism and other new threats (think cyberwarfare and the like). The good news is that it will likely not be more expensive than the Cold War spending. It's also going to be necessary to seriously reign in the social spending to keep the budget in check without resorting to European level taxes.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3234 posts, RR: 9 Reply 115, posted (7 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3748 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 114): The future of defense is going to require a lot of spending: retooling after a decade of war, paying for veterans, continuing to maintain a strong conventional force and building the forces necessary to fight terrorism and other new threats (think cyberwarfare and the like). The good news is that it will likely not be more expensive than the Cold War spending.
I agree with that 100% but the problem I see with the US defense department is that they are still building things to fight a war like they would have had they gone to war with the Soviets. Building tanks and fancy aircrafts are not what 21st century warfare is going to be. Not saying this stuff should go entirely but not all of it is necessary and a lot of it isn't going to get used.
Cheaper and more effective ways of fighting these wars are is what is needed such as the drone strikes even though they are controversial. Also Cyber Warfare is a big deal as there will be people who want to hack into very critical computer grids all over the world.
China isn't looking to take over the US by military action but what they will try to do is hack in to the US computer networks and try to steal things like IP from the US government and corporations.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 116, posted (7 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3753 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 115): I agree with that 100% but the problem I see with the US defense department is that they are still building things to fight a war like they would have had they gone to war with the Soviets. Building tanks and fancy aircrafts are not what 21st century warfare is going to be.
The thing is that we will need that type of force too. Not as large and some overseas bases can be closed, but there does need to be a conventional force.
And it's somewhat compounded by needing to be upgrade things in the current era. Most of the frontline equipment was designed and put into service since the mid-1970s or so, a lot of it during the Reagan era defense push. Budgets got slashed after the Cold War ended, so many of those systems are in need of upgrade or replacement in the relatively near future.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 117, posted (7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3749 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 113): No one is talking about eliminating a deficit in one year
Indeed, that's a well known debating technique: introduce something no one intends to do, then show how it can't be done.
The logical fallacy raises its ugly head yet again.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 115): I agree with that 100% but the problem I see with the US defense department is that they are still building things to fight a war like they would have had they gone to war with the Soviets. Building tanks and fancy aircrafts are not what 21st century warfare is going to be. Not saying this stuff should go entirely but not all of it is necessary and a lot of it isn't going to get used.
Indeed, the trend across all history is to spend your money on equipment for the last war.
Before WWII, money got poured into battleships instead of aircraft carriers and submarines.
Vietnam was fought using aircraft designed in the cold war to deliver nuclear weapons (see F105, B52) yet none were dropped. Our best fighter (F4) was designed to knock down Russian bombers and didn't even come with a gun initially.
Now we know the era of the manned fighter is ending, yet we're pouring mega-bucks into F35.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 5 Reply 118, posted (7 months 22 hours ago) and read 3746 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 114): How much will it really have to increase, when you consider the number of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam veterans that will be dying off?
The problem with Vets from the Bush/Cheney Wars is that they were deployed on a rotation that was far too short when it came to tame back home to rebuild, retrain, restore family relationships, etc. We sent troops to the ME on that poor rotation home basis to avoid a draft. That draft would have been a huge public admission that Bush (or Cheney and Rumsfeld) REALLY phucked up on the unnecessary invitation of Iraq. There was also that forced retention of personnel after they had served their commitment - which was simply a back door draft.
These problems have resulted in higher levels of problems than anticipated. PTSD is right up top of the list. Suicide rates are right through the roof, which is good indication of problems ahead.
We also have a lot of wounded personnel that lived because of body armor and rapid access to medical care. Each war sees the US being better at protecting personnel so a higher percentage of injuries do live and move into the VA programs.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 114): If people want to get serious about FairTax, I'm all for it.
Every time I hear the term "Fair Tax" I see some major benefits for the wealthy and very little (or nothing) for the middle class. It's like "Simplified Tax". My brother-in-law (a tax attorney) said he always saw his income go when the politicians simplified taxes.
The reality is that a "Fair Tax" will always fail because the wealthy (and large corporations) will always have the billions available to lobbyists to get their "special" deductions. That access to a lot of money is one way to ensure any efforts of a fair tax will just be propaganda programs - with no
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 115): Building tanks and fancy aircrafts are not what 21st century warfare is going to be.
We are seeing Israel moving their tanks to staging areas right now. Tanks (and other armored vehicles) were critical in the start of ME I and ME II Wars. That simply isn't going to change as, in the end, it is boots on the ground that win wars. I can see them around until they can be replaced with drone tanks - no personnel inside, but everything else the same.
Same with fighter aircraft. At some point in the future they may well be flown by pilots in a central location, but they will always be needed.
Drones can be effective, but there needs to be personnel in place to identify some of the most important targets. I can therefore see drones being part of, say, the CIA as much as the military.
While it is easy to shift thinking to non-traditional warfare we will continue to need traditional warfare capabilities. Just look at South Korea and how we would be involved if the North does something really stupid.
They are starting to get that skin color does not matter. Even if those words come out wrong. Bobby Jindal sounding like a liberal and Ann Coulter admiting there are Blacks in her party and being proud of it.
Problem is: their tent is so exclusive, they don't appeal to many. They are still being controlled by those who base legislation and platform planning on so-called "Christian" values and if a person does not hold "Christian" values, they are not welcome. They get that women and minorities are people, too, as long as they are Christian and anti-choice and anti-gay and anti-peace.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 120, posted (7 months 22 hours ago) and read 3744 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 117): Now we know the era of the manned fighter is ending, yet we're pouring mega-bucks into F35.
There is no way that we could get from now to the time of a viable unmanned fighter without something in the middle. I think the next generation will be designed to possibly operate unmanned for some missions or variants, but retain provisions for a pilot. After that, we may be able to go towards drones.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118): These problems have resulted in higher levels of problems than anticipated. PTSD is right up top of the list. Suicide rates are right through the roof, which is good indication of problems ahead.
But again, where's the data saying a few people with more problems is far more expensive than essentially a whole generation that served and is now dying off? I'm not saying it isn't there, I've never looked, but there are many older veterans who will be coming off the rolls. And suicide rates don't hurt VA costs, they help it, unfortunately.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118): Every time I hear the term "Fair Tax" I see some major benefits for the wealthy and very little (or nothing) for the middle class.
The only way for the wealthy to pay lower taxes than someone poorer with FairTax would be to spend less. You want a middle class tax bill, you live a middle class life.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 118): The reality is that a "Fair Tax" will always fail because the wealthy (and large corporations) will always have the billions available to lobbyists to get their "special" deductions. That access to a lot of money is one way to ensure any efforts of a fair tax will just be propaganda programs
Which is different than the current system how?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 121, posted (7 months 22 hours ago) and read 3746 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 120): There is no way that we could get from now to the time of a viable unmanned fighter without something in the middle. I think the next generation will be designed to possibly operate unmanned for some missions or variants, but retain provisions for a pilot. After that, we may be able to go towards drones.
I think the F-22 AND the F-35 are a little much. Haven't dealt with the F-35 myself, but I know it's riddled with problems, and I heard from multiple people that it sucks (don't know why.) Minus the OBOGS (if it's called that) on the F-22, it is more than capable of being our next generation aircraft. I know the F-35 has a bit of a different mission and all, but honestly, they should just deal with it. It would be a lot cheaper to just modify the F-22 than make the F-35. Or just use F-18s which serve just fine.
I agree we need to continue our military R&D, but the money we spend now is pretty ridiculous. We need to seriously slash the defense budget for the good of the country, even if that means my job and yours
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 122, posted (7 months 21 hours ago) and read 3747 times:
And here is one of the big problems with the current GOP:
Quote: When GQ’s Michal Hainey asked Rubio, in an interview released Monday, “How old do you think the Earth is,” the rising Republican star described the debate about the planet’s age as “one of the great mysteries.”
“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told the interviewer. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”
“Whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras,” Rubio continued, “I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.”
There are two things here: First is the continuing need to pander to religion (and that is all they are doing).
And second and even worse is that apparently Rubio, one of the "rising stars" in the Republican party, does not understand how actual science is connected "with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”. If he can't understand that then the Republican's or the nation are doomed.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 123, posted (7 months 21 hours ago) and read 3746 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 121): I heard from multiple people that it sucks (don't know why.)
It doesn't suck. It was a plane where the idea came from politicians and bureaucrats who decided that they could build a plane to do everything and be cheap about it. The whole thing started as a combination of two programs and sort of became the aeronautical equivalent of a Christmas tree bill.
Considering all of the requirements, Lockheed and their subcontractors haven't done that badly, they were just given a really tall order. The major problem with the F-35 is that it has too many compromises simply because of what it is. Just look back through history: most of the really successful planes are the ones designed to excel at one job and work from there.
In hindsight, an upgraded F-22, an FB-22, upgraded A-10, and then a new F-18 successor (which may have ended up being not too different than the F-35) would have probably been a better route to go.
There's also probably some wisdom in not having programs like the F-35 that are too big to kill, whether it's a good idea or not. The Navy screwed themselves over when they deep sixed the A-12, but it didn't hurt the Air Force, RAF, RCAF, etc.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 121): We need to seriously slash the defense budget for the good of the country, even if that means my job and yours
If the "good of the country" means torpedoing myself economically, what's the point?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 124, posted (7 months 21 hours ago) and read 3741 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123): onsidering all of the requirements, Lockheed and their subcontractors haven't done that badly
It has run into a ton of problems. The Navy's is behind schedule (some big problem with the arresting cables I think.) The Marines version I think is the closest to coming online. I don't know really, I've just heard a lot negative about it, was surprised to hear that honestly
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123): If the "good of the country" means torpedoing myself economically, what's the point?
The country has a huge spending problem. I think part of the solution is smart spending cuts for defense. That may cost me my job, it may not, and could be detrimental to you as an aerospace engineer, but if that's what it takes to curtail our terrible spending, then so be it. Hope I keep my job but whatever it takes...
That's the problem we have now. Everyone wants to cut, but they don't want to gore their own ox. Everyone is going to have to suffer to get the budget under control.
It has, but I think most of it lies with what the JSF set out to be and do. Looking at what's happened, there really isn't much I could point to and say that Boeing would have definitively done a better job if the X-32 had won.(They probably wouldn't have gotten that far without buying McDonnell Douglas) I think the problems Lockheed have had are problems that anyone would have had given the requirements.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 124): and could be detrimental to you as an aerospace engineer
Seems to be already, although it's difficult to tell just how bad.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 124): but if that's what it takes to curtail our terrible spending, then so be it.
Having the nation's budget in order doesn't mean a whole lot if it means throwing my budget down the well.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
I think the idea was novel but the different branches have such different demands it seemed kinda silly mushing it all together. I mean you have demands for VTOL and demands for aircraft carrier support... you'd think they could just bite the bullet and make them all VTOL but they didn't and fast forward, you get the JSF and its problems.
Think it would have been better if they made a JSF for all the branches' aircraft carriers, a JSF for the Air Forces, etc and signed a lot more countries on. But I digress
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 124):
but if that's what it takes to curtail our terrible spending, then so be it.
Having the nation's budget in order doesn't mean a whole lot if it means throwing my budget down the well.
Well, I see it as taking it for the team. I try to make my decisions without weighing in the greed of my own success. If thousands can go back to work and I lose my job, I'm happy for the other thousands and I'll have to find a new job. Not the end of the world. I'm no deserving than anyone else. Wish more people thought that way, again, look at the budget.
Can't expect others to cut what they don't want if you're not willing to cut what you don't want. But if you are going to think like that, at least mention that when you argue about not cutting defense. Using a bunch of arguments but leaving out the fact that you don't want cuts because it'll negatively affect you is misleading
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 127, posted (7 months 21 hours ago) and read 3750 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 109): You'd have to levy something like a 75% tax on all of the wealth controlled by the top 1% to close the deficit for one year.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 128, posted (7 months 20 hours ago) and read 3758 times:
Quoting rightrudder (Reply 111): I can arguably say that the election was tipped by the Latino / Hispanic vote.
Certainly, but also the LGBT vote. In fact, the number of LGBT Americans who voted for Mr. Obama is larger than the overall margin by which Mr. Obama won the popular vote.
The GOP's strategy has been to advocate policy that hurts people who aren't in the GOP's targeted "White Heterosexual Christian" core group. This strategy will continue to hurt them until they adopt a more inclusive stance.
Quoting tugger (Reply 122): There are two things here: First is the continuing need to pander to religion (and that is all they are doing).
And second and even worse is that apparently Rubio, one of the "rising stars" in the Republican party, does not understand how actual science is connected "with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”. If he can't understand that then the Republican's or the nation are doomed.
It's worse than that. It's an all-out reality dysfunction. When your entire platform and argument rely on falsehoods rather than facts and even outright denying those facts, you have a big problem.
The GOP needs to acknowledge the following:
*Global warming is real and needs to be dealt with. We can disagree on exactly how.
*There is a finite amount of oil on earth. We need to prepare for the day when we run out, whether it is next week or next century.
*Evolution, embryology, and cosmology/astrophysics are all real, bona-fide science and must be taught in school in order for our country to be able to compete with others.
*This is not a Christian country. There is freedom of religion, but religion is not the foundation of the state.
These are not "Liberal values." They are facts. They are not and should not be open to debate. The sky is blue. The grass is green. Reality is not a democracy; your ignorance is not as valid as my knowledge.
When the GOP is ready to start dealing with reality, we can have a rational and functional GOP.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 129, posted (7 months 19 hours ago) and read 3756 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 126): I think the idea was novel but the different branches have such different demands it seemed kinda silly mushing it all together.
Not that novel considering it was tried in the 1960s with the F-111. The F-35 has already done better than that.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 126): I try to make my decisions without weighing in the greed of my own success.
I'd count that as a mistake.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 126): If thousands can go back to work and I lose my job, I'm happy for the other thousands and I'll have to find a new job.
If thousands go back to work and I don't, that's a loss for. Great for them, but I'm not going to support a plan that could hurt me, no matter how many others it might help.
Quoting D L X (Reply 127): Do you have some numbers to back that up?
This article states that the top 1% controls about $1.7 trillion, which is a ton of money to be sure. The 2012 federal budget had a deficit of about $1.3 trillion. Closing that gap would require 76% of the top percent's money. That's not a revenue problem.
Quoting D L X (Reply 127): That was not true during the Clinton years.
No it wasn't.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 128): *There is a finite amount of oil on earth. We need to prepare for the day when we run out, whether it is next week or next century.
For someone who spends so much time lambasting people for being unscientific, this statement reflects a huge lack of understanding.
First, you are right that there is a finite amount of oil on earth and more importantly a finite amount we can extract easily. But, there will be no day when we run out. The tap just won't be shut off. We'll run out of the easily accessible oil, but even that is a gradual process. As the sources of oil become harder to get to, prices will go up and markets will naturally transition to alternatives. Forcing markets to use alternatives that are not yet economical is just a waste of money.
[Edited 2012-11-20 12:11:47]
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 130, posted (7 months 18 hours ago) and read 3759 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 126):
If thousands can go back to work and I lose my job, I'm happy for the other thousands and I'll have to find a new job.
If thousands go back to work and I don't, that's a loss for. Great for them, but I'm not going to support a plan that could hurt me, no matter how many others it might help.
That's really sick, actually. I'm sorry you think like that
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 131, posted (7 months 17 hours ago) and read 3754 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 107):
The first problem is that the Republican version of that message comes with nasty side effects:
The Republicans (and the Right worldwide) are always more ideological... while the Democrats (and Left worldwide) are always more pragmatic. In many ways the Left is just an ongoing protest of hard policy ideals set by the Right.
This means the Democrats (the left) changes faster to new realities, because they are more married to what works and to fewer ideologies about the role of government...But once Republicans refine their ideological message to match a majority of Americans, they can hold onto that basic strength for decades.
I think fiscal conservatives hold the key to making the Republicans a default choice for more Americans.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 108): but the hypocrisy of wanting to decrease spending and being more fiscally responsible
Its fair for voters to say the choice is between two fiscally irresponsible parties: one loves defense spending and actively looks for ways to increase its foreign entanglements; the other party never met a social wellfare program they didn't like.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 110): Right, until you try to identify exactly what to cut.
Now is the time to take an honest look at oneself and admit where Republican talking points aren't altogether wrong.
If its true 47% of America is sucking on the government tit and that the top 5% are paying more than half the taxes, Democrats need to think about whether or not this is ideal and stop trying to defend the 47%. It might be possible that a small percentage of people can in fact work, create, add value and pay most of the taxes while everyone else coasts along, but to my mind the Dems should start to think about reducing the # of Americans who depend on the government.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 112): Starting with Defense? After two 10+ year wars I think we can make come cuts. But, of course, we are going to need to increase VA spending to take care of those who served
Dems are still reluctant to talk about this IMO because in the past the Republicans have so successfully sold themselves as patriots and harnessed the PR value of foreign threats, which Hamas and Iran happily sustain.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 113): really wished Gingrich was the nominee
He knows Congress and the way the fed govt works better than Romney (who I think had more than a few unworkable policy ideas), and he is deadly serious about financial discipline it seems to me.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3234 posts, RR: 9 Reply 132, posted (7 months 17 hours ago) and read 3749 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125): Having the nation's budget in order doesn't mean a whole lot if it means throwing my budget down the well.
That's is what many economists are saying, there is no point in reigning in this deficit in the short term if it means another recession.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 123): f the "good of the country" means torpedoing myself economically, what's the point?
This is why nothing will ever get cut because every person in congress want to cut something in somebody else's district and not have the stones to want to make cuts in their own.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 133, posted (7 months 15 hours ago) and read 3747 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129): For someone who spends so much time lambasting people for being unscientific, this statement reflects a huge lack of understanding.
No it does not. I did not say that one day all the wells will run dry. What I said is that we are going to run out and that we need to prepare for that eventuality (I used the word "day" as a figure of speech). Now, we will never use it all up because the prices will skyrocket to the point where it is no longer economical to drill and demand will peter out.
What will happen is that the price of oil will get higher and higher and higher. At that point, we will need to turn to alternative energy sources to power our civilization.
Now, there are two ways that this will get solved. The way the GOP seems to favor is to fix it at the last minute by starting with incredibly expensive and undeveloped technologies that will become favored as the price of oil rises to meet those astronomically expensive technologies.
The way I want to do it is to develop those alternative technologies now, while there is time to expand and refine the technology, so that we don't wind up having an economic crisis over it.
FURTHERMORE, there are advantages to starting the transition now. We can start to get ahead of global warming. We can use technologies that allow us to be completely energy-independent. We can tell all the rich oil barons in the Mid East to go sit and rotate. No more Saudis. No more Iran. They can sit in their desert and do what they like.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 134, posted (7 months 15 hours ago) and read 3740 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 133): We can tell all the rich oil barons in the Mid East to go sit and rotate. No more Saudis. No more Iran. They can sit in their desert and do what they like.
Lolol
It's kinda funny, this would set us up to be strong economically and really improve our national security, something you'd think the Republicans would be on board for. I'm not opposed to expanding our exploration for the oil we have in America, but I agree, some research would be what I consider good government spending
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 135, posted (7 months 14 hours ago) and read 3722 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 134): It's kinda funny, this would set us up to be strong economically and really improve our national security, something you'd think the Republicans would be on board for.
You'd think. Until you realize that American oil executives and companies spend a lot of time and money courting GOP politicians.
Who do you think is behind the whole Global Warming denialist movement? Do you honestly think that 99+% of the world's leading climatologists are colluding to create a huge hoax that will cause global panic and crash modern economies just for the heck of it? Or does it make more sense to figure that oil companies would like to spend a huge amount of money suppressing this information because it would hurt their bottom line?
These are separate issues (and I'd argue that #2 creates jobs and gets money flowing, even if a lot of oil does go out) but still, being careful of environmental issues, I'm still for it
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 135): Do you honestly think that 99+% of the world's leading climatologists are colluding to create a huge hoax that will cause global panic and crash modern economies just for the heck of it?
THIS was the reason that changed my mind from being a denier. I still think politics gets involved, even on the "believers" side, but strictly looking at science, we know that something's up
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 138, posted (7 months 14 hours ago) and read 3716 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 136): 1. The price of oil is set by a group of individuals in New York City.
2. Even if the United States pumped all of it's own oil, they are private companies pumping it and WILL send most of that overseas for profit.
To be honest, to me neither of those are very large problems.
I'll have to dig around for it but I remember reading that energy and its related cost is not one of us US' big budget problems. It is something like this: We have a trade deficit of say $75B per month (yes I know it is less than that but as an example) of which energy is one-third, so $25B. That is just $300B per year in a $15T economy. While energy independence is important (that $14T economy can be damaged quite a bit by spikes and uncontrolled impacts) the cast is not that significant an element as far as damage/danger.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 5 Reply 139, posted (7 months 12 hours ago) and read 3709 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 120): where's the data saying a few people with more problems is far more expensive than essentially a whole generation that served and is now dying off?
Start with remembering that health care costs are increasing faster than non-medical inflation. That puts the costs of taking care of a young vet is going to be higher than the older vets she you project future costs out.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 120): And suicide rates don't hurt VA costs, they help it, unfortunately.
Except for family benefits that are paid out. Then there is the indirect costs over the years. My wife's father died when she was 6 from a medical condition related to his time in WW II in the RAF. Spend some time considering the impact of that on a family and you're looking at 15 to 20 years of costs for kids of people lost to a military death - regardless of how they died.
Doesn't matter how you calculate it - lost tax revenues or increased government spending - you still have an impact for a long time for those suicides.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 120): The only way for the wealthy to pay lower taxes than someone poorer with FairTax would be to spend less.
Ya gotta be kidding yourself. You are not going to hey a "Fair Tax" that isn't written by the wealthy (individual or corporate) or their lobbyists. There is simply far too much money involved.
If you don't think so look at that tax game Romney played with the Mormon Church. How many people do you think were aware of that tax loophole? Lobbyists took care of that tax and they can fix up the "Fair Tax" just as easily.
ATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 484 posts, RR: 3 Reply 140, posted (7 months 12 hours ago) and read 3700 times:
Bear in mind with my replies, I am not a democrat or a republican.
Quoting Mir (Reply 100): Compared to the crap that's come out of the GOP since the election, Romney seems pretty tame. Well, at least he did until he started blaming his loss on "Obama's Gifts". I guess that 47% comment really did reflect what he thought.
Romney may be 'tame' by political commercial views, his core values are at the heart of the GOP; he just doesnt have the balls to represent it to its core, or has the brains to realize fundamentalist conservative views not only alienate ALL liberals but even the "fiscal conservative/social liberal". Mitt Romney was not the worst candidate the GOP could have put forth but also not the best.
I cant believe after 5 years I am about to agree with you Doc, but here goes:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 128): The GOP's strategy has been to advocate policy that hurts people who aren't in the GOP's targeted "White Heterosexual Christian" core group. This strategy will continue to hurt them until they adopt a more inclusive stance.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 128): The GOP needs to acknowledge the following:
*Global warming is real and needs to be dealt with. We can disagree on exactly how.
*There is a finite amount of oil on earth. We need to prepare for the day when we run out, whether it is next week or next century.
*Evolution, embryology, and cosmology/astrophysics are all real, bona-fide science and must be taught in school in order for our country to be able to compete with others.
*This is not a Christian country. There is freedom of religion, but religion is not the foundation of the state.
These are not "Liberal values." They are facts. They are not and should not be open to debate. The sky is blue. The grass is green. Reality is not a democracy; your ignorance is not as valid as my knowledge.
When the GOP is ready to start dealing with reality, we can have a rational and functional GOP
Yes, the GOP hurts people who arent in the GOP demographic; always has been that way as well. Just as the democrat party seeks to hurt 'over-tax' those who earn more. No argument there.
As for global warming, it has no place in politics. There are a ton of believers for it, and against it. Political lines do not define beliefs in global warming. Some of the smartest people on the planet can make the argument that our planets warming trend is nothing more than our planets cyclical trend and evidence can prove that even easier than the effects of industrialization causing warming. That is something that everyone needs to form their opinion on, not be influenced by liars, (er, politicians)... Yes, there is a finite amount of oil on Earth and while the possibility exists that we 'could' run out one day, the supply is also replenishing. Yes, the likelihood of us 'running the wells dry' exists, even conservatives will say alternate energy sources will alleviate the concern before we 'run-out' of crude. As for Evolution vs Creationism, science has proven evolution. Only the die-hard religous nuts cant accept this, it is not the stance of the GOP. As for being a 'Christian' country, we all know that is BS. Yes, the majority of the country practices some form of Christianity, our country was founded on a belief of free religion and must hold strong to that. What the GOP needs to do to succeed is axe their 'fundamental Christian' beliefs and run on real issues 'real Americans' have.
My $.02
By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 141, posted (7 months 12 hours ago) and read 3700 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 120): And suicide rates don't hurt VA costs, they help it, unfortunately.
Actually, not true. It's actually somewhat difficult to kill yourself unless you do a gun to the side/front of your head. A lot of suicide attempts get botched and then there are astronomical costs associated with trying to fix the idiot who tried to off himself.
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 140): As for global warming, it has no place in politics. There are a ton of believers for it, and against it. Political lines do not define beliefs in global warming.
It ABSOLUTELY belongs in politics as any other crisis does. We have dealt with the CFC issue, now we need to deal with this.
Not really. And you have to understand that even "true" altruism is self-serving. Giving yourself up in some way to perpetuate a group to which you belong is a selfish act.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 133): Now, we will never use it all up because the prices will skyrocket to the point where it is no longer economical to drill and demand will peter out.
That's where the thought diverges: drilling will be less, but it's a matter of why. If prices go up, then it becomes economical to go after more expensive oil. A lot of activity will shift away from oil, since it will be too expensive. Or, the price of oil remains low as things transition away and those challenging reserves are left untapped.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 133): The way the GOP seems to favor is to fix it at the last minute by starting with incredibly expensive and undeveloped technologies that will become favored as the price of oil rises to meet those astronomically expensive technologies.
Astronomically expensive technologies don't tend to stay that way. There is no need for government meddling in this: the market will take care of it. Alternatives become available and available cheaply as oil becomes more expensive and the alternatives win. People have more than enough incentive to develop alternatives on their own considering all the money on the line. None of this requires the government spending our money.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 134): It's kinda funny, this would set us up to be strong economically and really improve our national security, something you'd think the Republicans would be on board for.
If the military wants to power things with alternative fuels, that's great. Fighting wars would be much easier that way. Just stop telling me how I should power my car.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 139): Lobbyists took care of that tax and they can fix up the "Fair Tax" just as easily
But you expect sorting out the current tax code will be easier? FairTax has less stuff to make loopholes for, since there would be no more corporate taxes to start with. If you're against it because you think the only way it would be implemented is poorly, how is that any different than the current system, which liberals love to complain is poorly implemented?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 143, posted (7 months 12 hours ago) and read 3693 times:
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 140): Some of the smartest people on the planet can make the argument that our planets warming trend is nothing more than our planets cyclical trend and evidence can prove that even easier than the effects of industrialization causing warming. That is something that everyone needs to form their opinion on, not be influenced by liars, (er, politicians)
I agree that politicians should not be trusted in regards to climate change... that's why we should listen to the climatologists. They're all saying the same exact thing. I was in the same boat you were... you're trying to remove politics but it's so ingrained you don't even know it's there.
How many peer reviewed papers by climatologists are there out there saying it's a hoax?
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3234 posts, RR: 9 Reply 144, posted (7 months 11 hours ago) and read 3685 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 136): 1. The price of oil is set by a group of individuals in New York City.
Not entirely, speculation accounts for a lot of the day to day changes in the price but the overall trend in that it is going to go up in price because of supply and demand.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 136): 2. Even if the United States pumped all of it's own oil, they are private companies pumping it and WILL send most of that overseas for profit.
This I have no problem with, they sell at the market price and that is business.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 142): But you expect sorting out the current tax code will be easier? FairTax has less stuff to make loopholes for, since there would be no more corporate taxes to start with.
Here is the problem with this is that the people who benefit from the complexity of the tax code spend millions lobbying congress for these loopholes and aren't giving them up. They do not want congress to lower effective rates and cut loopholes because many corporations and individuals will pay more.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 133): The way I want to do it is to develop those alternative technologies now, while there is time to expand and refine the technology, so that we don't wind up having an economic crisis over it.
I think its very telling that there is so much lobbying from the oil and gas industry to prevent investments in newer forms of energy now, they are threatened now.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 145, posted (7 months 11 hours ago) and read 3688 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 120): There is no way that we could get from now to the time of a viable unmanned fighter without something in the middle.
Sure, upgraded F15/F16/F18 would be just fine, except that LM wouldn't be making as much money as they do on F22/F35.
Quoting tugger (Reply 122): %u201CWhether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras,%u201D Rubio continued, %u201CI'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.%u201D
Rubio needs to read up on carbon dating and similar technolgies.
Quoting Pu (Reply 131): Quoting Revelation (Reply 110):
Right, until you try to identify exactly what to cut.
Now is the time to take an honest look at oneself and admit where Republican talking points aren't altogether wrong.
If its true 47% of America is sucking on the government tit and that the top 5% are paying more than half the taxes, Democrats need to think about whether or not this is ideal and stop trying to defend the 47%. It might be possible that a small percentage of people can in fact work, create, add value and pay most of the taxes while everyone else coasts along, but to my mind the Dems should start to think about reducing the # of Americans who depend on the government.
Right, but to re-iterate my point, we aren't getting clear answers from anyone on what to cut.
When Ryan was announced as the VP candidate, I thought it'd be a good thing presuming it led to a good airing of his plan. We found out that pretty quickly Romney's team started saying things like Romney wouldn't be bound to follow Ryan's plan and I knew that the gig was up.
Obama today re-iterated he's for a balanced approach, one that has revenue cuts as well as tax raises on the rich. This was what he said throughout the campaign and throughout the debates, and it's what he's saying today.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 133): The way the GOP seems to favor is to fix it at the last minute by starting with incredibly expensive and undeveloped technologies that will become favored as the price of oil rises to meet those astronomically expensive technologies.
Which is the strategy that helps BIG OIL the most. One thing to keep in mind is that even undeveloped oil fields are kept on the books of BIG OIL as an asset, so anything that devalues that asset hurts them.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 134): It's kinda funny, this would set us up to be strong economically and really improve our national security, something you'd think the Republicans would be on board for.
Two words: BIG OIL.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 135): You'd think. Until you realize that American oil executives and companies spend a lot of time and money courting GOP politicians.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9914 posts, RR: 17 Reply 146, posted (7 months 11 hours ago) and read 3685 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 144): This I have no problem with, they sell at the market price and that is business.
Well, yes. But... The right keeps saying that if we can pump our own oil, everything will be fine. But, it won't. The oil is being pumped by private, for-profit companies who want as much as they can. If they can get top dollar from India or China, they will ship it there instead of keeping it in the United States. The right does not understand, or ignores, or glosses over, that fact.
Quoting tugger (Reply 138): While energy independence is important (that $14T economy can be damaged quite a bit by spikes and uncontrolled impacts) the cast is not that significant an element as far as damage/danger.
Just like with PBS. Some on the right make such a big deal about how PBS is a drain on the economy when, in reality, it accounts for less than 1/2 of 1% of the budget or less. I forget the numbers, but it is so incredibly miniscule it makes little difference. But, to the right, the billionares of this country are going without because of PBS when, in reality, PBS would fund their entire food budget for a month.
I am more concerned that members of his party and those who bankrolled his campaign are still shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that he even lost in the first place! That he is pumping his own gas is a non-story. I bet Jerry Brown pumps his own gas from time to time. Who cares?
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3234 posts, RR: 9 Reply 149, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3559 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 146): The oil is being pumped by private, for-profit companies who want as much as they can. If they can get top dollar from India or China, they will ship it there instead of keeping it in the United States. The right does not understand, or ignores, or glosses over, that fact.
I hope they ignore because they make the same case for taxes and jobs. The real reason that a company will hire anyone is because they will profit from the cost of that person and in the event of no taxes and no demand no one will be hired.
If a company in the US is growing 15% a year they couldn't give a crap what taxes are they will still hire. A company that won't and will make their employees work constant overtime to keep up with demand will see a very high turnover rate which is very costly and inefficient.
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1529 posts, RR: 1 Reply 150, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3552 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 148): I saw this headline somewhere and thought:
And the story here is.....?
Imageine the outcry if he had some 47%er doing it for him.
I found romney to be a fair and reasonable bloke, I didn't agree with his politics but I can imagine he is fairly easy to get on with. People talked about how it wasn't Obama who won the election but rather romney who lost but I think it was the extremists in the republican party who lost it for romney.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 151, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3513 times:
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 150): but I think it was the extremists in the republican party who lost it for romney
I dunno. I had something of a 'project' in my family prior to the election to do what I could to persuade our more liberal members to ‘see the light’. On my grandmother’s side, which full of well-to-do attorneys in Texas, there is no evidence that I successfully persuaded anyone to vote Republican if only because of the economics. These folks are limousine liberals.
My aunt is an ordained minister and an employee of a Texas Independent School District assisting young ladies in trouble finish their high school educations. Really fine lady. My cousins have, like their mother, usually voted Republican in the past. This time, and in spite of some pressure from his professor fiancé at the University of Missouri, one cousin kept the faith and voted for Romney. But the two women did not. Here is why, based on a long telephone conversation yesterday:
- The Mormon faith of Mr. Romney is seen as a cult by my aunt, and though we had spoken before about how much in common our ‘conventional’ Christianity has with the Mormons, she could not vote for him. She says many in her Christian Church in Dallas felt the same way. Had this been the only issue for her, she would have simply not voted.
- The abortion issue was played to the hilt by the Democrats, and both she and her daughter voted for Obama on this issue alone, saying “women’s reproductive rights would have been at risk under Romney”. I don’t believe this, but these otherwise two intelligent women did.
- Welfare for the disadvantaged was a really big issue for my aunt, and she openly says that “the ‘mother side of me’ tells me the Republicans, and especially rich ones like Mr. Romney, don’t care about the needy enough.” She is in the homes of Black and Hispanic families daily with girls in trouble, primarily led by single parents, and she says this topic causes a lot of fear in those homes. She acknowledges, however, that some way has to be found to break the generational welfare problem, and that the Democrat Party thrives off ‘the dependent class’.
Mr. Romney lost for a number of reasons, but I would venture that among them are:
- His Mormon faith
- The Democrats’ very successful exploitation among women of the ‘reproductive rights issue’
- Concern, probably especially among single women parents, that welfare programs under Romney would be cut.
I have not seen evidence yet that the “immigration yes, but only legal immigration” policy of the Republicans is a principal cause of the loss, but I could be wrong.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9914 posts, RR: 17 Reply 153, posted (6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3498 times:
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 150): Imageine the outcry if he had some 47%er doing it for him.
He usually did. Until Sheldon Adelson cut off his funding.
Let's not forget, too, that Romney had an elevator for his cars, and hadn't held a job in at least 6 years.
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 150): I can imagine he is fairly easy to get on with.
To me, he sounded like he was just trying to say just the right thing to every single person and say it with, what he thought was, a humble tone; but his tone only turned out to sound... creepy. Just my opinion.
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 150): I think it was the extremists in the republican party who lost it for romney.
YES!! The extremists kept pushing religion. They kept making religion an issue on everything.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 151): there is no evidence that I successfully persuaded anyone to vote Republican if only because of the economics. These folks are limousine liberals.
Like the stock market is higher now than four years ago or that there are more people working now than four years ago? That is the reason to vote for the Republi-CONs?
I never saw that party on my ballot. Must be a Texas thing. What little respect I had for you just went out the window. You think "liberals" (read: anyone who voices any hint of opinion against the right-wing extremists/tea people/FOX) all hate America and all hate money and all hate. That, sir, is called projection. Maybe it is the man in the mirror who needs to keep an open mind.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 5 Reply 154, posted (6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3494 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 142): But you expect sorting out the current tax code will be easier?
Yes, simply because of the financial contributions that would be shaping any shift to a Fair Tax to the desires of those wealthy enough to have lobbyists.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 142): FairTax has less stuff to make loopholes for, since there would be no more corporate taxes to start with.
Well, we now the wealthy will not let their taxes increase so that dumps the federal budget on the middle class more than ere before. Really fair . . .
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 151): Mr. Romney lost for a number of reasons, but I would venture that among them are:
- His Mormon faith
- The Democrats’ very successful exploitation among women of the ‘reproductive rights issue’
- Concern, probably especially among single women parents, that welfare programs under Romney would be cut.
I don't believe the religion issue was that important. Maybe a few Holy Rollers, but not a huge factor.
The War on Women was huge in comparison to religion. "Legitimate Rape"? Ya gotta be kidding. Vaginal probes? From a party of old grey men with a $2 haircut - my bet is that they wasted to watch.
The GOP simply needs to get their nose out of ladies' privates.
On the welfare side, I believe that the GOP is pretty ignorant of the levels of poverty and hunger in this country.
Back in the 60's when I was serving in the Navy the military was represented by a very wide range of Americans. Not only color, but (more importantly) economic and intelligence "diversity". You not only served with those from hard poverty areas and those with low intelligence, you worked with them on a daily basis. You learn about the different sides of America when serving in an environment like that - things you can't learn in a book.
I believe that the GOP is basically out of touch with a very large part of Americans. That is the concern a lot of people have.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 151): I have not seen evidence yet that the “immigration yes, but only legal immigration” policy of the Republicans is a principal cause of the loss, but I could be wrong.
Immigration was a huge issue in those families who are directly impacted, or have friends who are directly impacted. My bet is that was the biggest issue (outside of the GOP's obsession with the "American Uterus"
The other factor I felt important this time was the fear that the GOP would cause a loss of health care and financial security in old age for a very large percentage of Americans. That will be an albatross for the GOP for a long time to come.
.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 155, posted (6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3482 times:
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 150): Imageine the outcry if he had some 47%er doing it for him.
I doubt there'd be an outcry for that. I think people would expect him to have someone driving him and the wife around in one of "Ann's Cadillacs" and making sure it was gassed up before a night on the town, thus the interest in the story showing him doing it himself.
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 150): I found romney to be a fair and reasonable bloke, I didn't agree with his politics but I can imagine he is fairly easy to get on with.
Agree, but I don't think I'd bother making the effort. Chances are if we disagreed he'd be betting me ten grand that he was right.
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 150): People talked about how it wasn't Obama who won the election but rather romney who lost but I think it was the extremists in the republican party who lost it for romney.
Not sure why you say that?
Maybe because they dragged Romney to the right during the primary, and were the ones to begin the attacks on his career at Bain Capital?
Personally I do think it was Romney the candidate to a large degree.
It seemed he never did win over the rank-and-file GOPers, he just used his money and percieved lack of negatives to outlast all the others.
Romney is kind of like Kerry and Gore in a way: low charisma candidates who never fired up the base to the degree that Clinton and Obama did for the Dems and Reagan and GWB did for the GOP.
I don't think being likable is good enough to win the Presidency, you have to be liked, not just likable!
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 156, posted (6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3473 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 152): You think that Democrats heightened the reproductive rights issue? You're blaming the wrong people.
Todd Akin (legitimate rape)
Richard Mourdock (God intended that rape)
Paul Ryan (forcible rape)
Akin almost got it right: when it comes to rape, women will shut your whole campaign down.
Don't blame Dems. I suspect these three were on the list of extremists flipdewaf was contemplating.
I know you probably hate her guts, but Anne Coulter wrote something very good about that subject:
Quote: No one can be blamed for the hurricane that took the news off the election, abruptly halting Romney's momentum, but Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock can be blamed on two very specific people: Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
The last two weeks of the campaign were consumed with discussions of women's "reproductive rights," not because of anything Romney did, but because these two idiots decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest.
After all the hard work intelligent pro-lifers have done in changing the public's mind about a subject the public would rather not think about at all, these purist grandstanders came along and announced insane positions with no practical purpose whatsoever, other than showing off.
While pro-lifers in the trenches have been pushing the abortion positions where 90 percent of the country agrees with us -- such as bans on partial birth abortion, and parental and spousal notification laws -- Akin and Mourdock decided to leap straight to the other end of the spectrum and argue for abortion positions that less than 1 percent of the nation agrees with.
In order to be pro-life badasses, they gave up two easy-win Republican Senate seats.
No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it's every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line.
The overwhelming majority of people -- including me -- are going to say the law shouldn't force someone who has been raped to carry the child. On the other hand, abortion should be illegal in most other cases.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 153): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 151):
Democrat Party
I never saw that party on my ballot. Must be a Texas thing. What little respect I had for you just went out the window.
Please explain how 'Democrat Party' is insulting. I don't get it. I know the proper usage is with an 'ic' at the end - sorry for the grammatical faux-pas, but where is the insult?
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 158, posted (6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3407 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 154): Well, we now the wealthy will not let their taxes increase so that dumps the federal budget on the middle class more than ere before. Really fair . . .
...so your problem is not that FairTax is unfair, just that you think that they'll hack it up? And what makes you think the wealthy will let their taxes increase under the current system?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 154): You not only served with those from hard poverty areas and those with low intelligence, you worked with them on a daily basis.
If someone is too dumb to hold more than a minimum wage job, that isn't my problem.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 159, posted (6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3404 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 158): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 156):
I know you probably hate her guts
...most sane people do.
Now just stop right there. Nobody should be hating a talking head, or a politician. There are many people that I think are stupid, and I have no use for - Chris Matthews, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Mahar - but hate them? I disagree with most things Obama does and don't want him to be president, but I don't hate him.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 5 Reply 161, posted (6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3394 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 156): but Anne Coulter wrote something very good about that subject:
Ann is working hard to take the focus away from the position of a lot or Republicans - namely the health of the mother. There are those who believe in no right to make decision. Paul Ryan was one.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 158): ...so your problem is not that FairTax is unfair, just that you think that they'll hack it up?
Of course they will hack it up. They have the money to hire lobbyists and politicians will be looking for those campaign contributions. When you are talking about trillions (over 10 years) in benefits it's pretty easy to talk about billions in campaign contributions.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 158): And what makes you think the wealthy will let their taxes increase under the current system?
The Bush Cuts die in, what, 41 days. Cash under the table doesn't help change the calendar. 42 Days and the job of politicians will be to look at new tax cuts, not raising taxes. Watch the ball drop in Times Square on New Years Eve and you will be able to feel the tax laws changing back to the Clinton Years.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 158): If someone is too dumb to hold more than a minimum wage job, that isn't my problem.
It is when you realize that both of us are one bad accident away from being left with a lower level of intelligence than they are.
Or one cell turning bad, taking us into a world of cancer that changes our lives in ways we didn't plan on. I've been there twice, as has the wife, and (for those who have been there) your indifference is more related to ignorance of what may be waiting for in the future.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 162, posted (6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3392 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 161): The Bush Cuts die in, what, 41 days. Cash under the table doesn't help change the calendar. 42 Days and the job of politicians will be to look at new tax cuts, not raising taxes.
...at which point the wealthy use their clout to get new tax cuts.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 161): Watch the ball drop in Times Square on New Years Eve and you will be able to feel the tax laws changing back to the Clinton Years.
Too bad liberals aren't as interested in bringing back the Clinton economy as they are in bringing back the Clinton tax rates.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 161): It is when you realize that both of us are one bad accident away from being left with a lower level of intelligence than they are.
That's just one risk of being alive. I don't expect the government or anyone else to have a safety net for every eventuality.
Democrats love to talk about how bad things are at the bottom. The retort is quite simple: don't be at the bottom.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 163, posted (6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3383 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125): Having the nation's budget in order doesn't mean a whole lot if it means throwing my budget down the well.
Except that having the nation's budget in order means you're more likely to have a job in the future. Whereas if we spend more now so that you can have a job now, the likelihood of you keeping that job down the line is lower, as spending will have to be cut eventually.
In other words, short-term loss for long-term gain.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 164, posted (6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3381 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 163): Except that having the nation's budget in order means you're more likely to have a job in the future.
A job doing what? If the spending gets cut, the only way to bring it back is bring back the budget problems. And any job is going to be hampered by the possibility of paying near European tax rates.
Quoting Mir (Reply 163): In other words, short-term loss for long-term gain.
It's a problem when that short term loss comes at my expense.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9914 posts, RR: 17 Reply 165, posted (6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3380 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 162): Democrats love to talk about how bad things are at the bottom. The retort is quite simple: don't be at the bottom
But, the right wing makes it harder and harder to get out of the bottom. They just assume everyone has money. We don't because we work to pay for things like rent and food. Health care and retirement and sometimes food are not essential when one is living paycheck to paycheck.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 166, posted (6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3381 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 160): ...but brown skinned Muslims are fair game, right?
Have I ever said I hated them. I don't. It sounds like you have some hate issues yourself thought. Projecting your own intensities and emotions on those you disagree with is a condition Freud wrote quite a bit about.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 160): No, Anne Coulter is a useless person who does more harm than good to the Republicans. There are few people more useless than her.
OK, but what did you think about the quote - I posted it for the discussion, not to ask what people thought of her.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 161): Ann is working hard to take the focus away from the position of a lot or Republicans - namely the health of the mother. There are those who believe in no right to make decision. Paul Ryan was one.
Stop making stuff up. Ryan opposes abortion under all circumstances, unless the procedure is deemed necessary to save the mother’s life. That was one of the differences with Romney, as Romney says he would allow exceptions for cases of rape and incest.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 164): If the spending gets cut, the only way to bring it back is bring back the budget problems.
Not so. The current spending levels would be fine if the economy were strong. Cut the spending, get the economy healthy again, and then you can slowly bring the spending back if you need it.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 164): t's a problem when that short term loss comes at my expense.
That's what a short term loss is. But what you miss is that the long term benefit will be yours as well.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 168, posted (6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3372 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 165): But, the right wing makes it harder and harder to get out of the bottom.
How specifically? How does a billionaire making more money stop you from saving for retirement? How does anyone else's gain hurt you, especially to the point that it entitles you to some of their money?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 166): OK, but what did you think about the quote - I posted it for the discussion, not to ask what people thought of her
She said what everyone already knows but doesn't want to see the Republicans stop pissing on the third rail. It's just another reminder of why I (and a boatload of other people apparently) find her irrelevant.
Quoting Mir (Reply 167): Anything. Likely something you'd want to do.
Unless of course it all gets cut to pieces.
Quoting Mir (Reply 167): Not so. The current spending levels would be fine if the economy were strong.
There is the small matter of debt. Perhaps that is the problem with liberals: they just see this as a temporary problem and as soon as the economy improves they can go right back to spending.
Quoting Mir (Reply 167): That's what a short term loss is. But what you miss is that the long term benefit will be yours as well.
Screw it. I want to get ahead now. Furthermore, if they want to solve some short term problems, start with the social programs.
[Edited 2012-11-22 20:07:04]
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 170, posted (6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3369 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 165): But, the right wing makes it harder and harder to get out of the bottom. They just assume everyone has money. We don't because we work to pay for things like rent and food.
Keep missing the point.
I just looked at the latest budget numbers. We are spending 2.34 trillion dollars this year on welfare and assistance programs (not counting veterans assistance and off-budget Social Security). That money is distributed today among 71 million individuals, and works out to $30,000 per individual receiving assistance, and $79,000 per household receiving assistance.
The point is that we are spending all this money, and things are not getting better for the people at the bottom.
You want to improve people's lives? How about a start banning of all stupid degrees being taught at taxpayer-funded universities. Why should taxpayers fund (and the student additionally pay for and get ito 6-figure debt for) someone to get a degree in Women's Studies, French Literature or Art History? People with those degrees end up at McDonals trying to pay down student loan debt at minimum wage. Our public universities should be restricted to useful degrees, like sciences, engineering, Law and Finance and so forth.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 5 Reply 171, posted (6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3366 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 162): ...at which point the wealthy use their clout to get new tax cuts.
Look around. Their loopholes are far more important to them than the tax rate. Next in line will be capital gains taxes.
Going over the cliff will put everyone into looking at what they really want in the area of taxes.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 162): Too bad liberals aren't as interested in bringing back the Clinton economy as they are in bringing back the Clinton tax rates.
I'm sure you would rather go back to theBush/Cheney Years. Want the WMDs in Iraq War again?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 162): Democrats love to talk about how bad things are at the bottom. The retort is quite simple: don't be at the bottom.
Who do you believe wants to be "at the bottom? With judgement like that you actually make it there.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 164): And any job is going to be hampered by the possibility of paying near European tax rates.
Before you worry too much about those rates you need to understand that we have far more deductions than they have. You are also getting a tax free ride on health insurance from employers providing nanny care. But that company expense is going to impact either income, or prices.
Quoting Mir (Reply 167): Cut the spending, get the economy healthy again, and then you can slowly bring the spending back if you need it.
So start with cuts to Defense? Their consultants are an easy hit - lots of middle income folks can work for the price of those guys.
And cutting funds for defense R&D (via Defense Contractors) is another way to cut out high income folks.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 172, posted (6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3361 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 169): Says the person who wants government spending to be kept steady in order to have a job, and also says:
If somebody's going to have to "take one for the team" I don't want it to be me.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 171): I'm sure you would rather go back to theBush/Cheney Years.
I recall quite a few new millionaires being minted in the 2004-2008 range. It wasn't the best economy but it's a hell of a lot better than we got now.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 171): Who do you believe wants to be "at the bottom?
Nobody. But the ball is in their court to not be at the bottom. I'll have a hard enough time trying to not be there myself, let alone keep others out.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 171): And cutting funds for defense R&D (via Defense Contractors) is another way to cut out high income folks.
Sounds like a great way to get rid of some of the middle class jobs liberals maintain are so incredibly important. And put the armed forces at less of an advantage in the future. The goal is to keep things adequately funded so there will need to be no more Reagan style expansions in spending.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9914 posts, RR: 17 Reply 173, posted (6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3353 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 168): How specifically? How does a billionaire making more money stop you from saving for retirement? How does anyone else's gain hurt you, especially to the point that it entitles you to some of their money?
Closing good paying jobs that include benefits and replacing them with either no jobs at all or low-wage jobs with no benefits. Those people who had benefits end up having none and have to rely on the government.
Here is another thing that bothers me about the right:
The narrative is: the poor and working class feel they are entitled to money from the rich. What the reality is is that the poor and working class just want what we used to have before the ultra rich got all the tax breaks for shipping our good jobs out of this country. We just want to go back to being comfortable. It's not that we want their money. We just want our money back. We feel alienated and used. Not that we want something for nothing, but, rather, we want what we had before they got greedy.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 174, posted (6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3345 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 173): Closing good paying jobs that include benefits and replacing them with either no jobs at all or low-wage jobs with no benefits
They don't work for you, and they don't work for the government. They are under no obligation to provide X jobs at Y dollars per year salary. Providing an environment that is competitive and will win those jobs for Americans is part of what the government should be doing.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 173): What the reality is is that the poor and working class just want what we used to have before the ultra rich got all the tax breaks for shipping our good jobs out of this country.
What changed wasn't the ultra rich, what changed was the global environment. You want to go back to the way things used to be? Bomb every other industrialized nation to hell in six years of war. Send the Chinese back to their villages without basic services. Send half of Europe back to Communism. Un-educate all of those pesky foreigners who can actually do things now.
America got a great, and mostly free, ride because for a long time we were the only game in town. Nobody else had the technology, nobody else had the educated workforce, and nobody else had the money to buy modern conveniences.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 173): We just want to go back to being comfortable.
Being so comfortable is part of how everyone else caught up. Making sure workers were comfortable was part of what tossed GM right into bankruptcy.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 175, posted (6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3345 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 173): The narrative is: the poor and working class feel they are entitled to money from the rich. What the reality is is that the poor and working class just want what we used to have before the ultra rich got all the tax breaks for shipping our good jobs out of this country.
Ah, a fan of the Zero-Sum Principle - a cornerstone of progressive economics. Collectively, all losses and gains sum to zero. Your loss is our gain, and your gain is our loss. Whatever you own, it is at our expense. You owe your property to us by the virtue of you owning it. Losers contribute to the society and winners take away from it. Being a winner is immoral and selfish. A society of losers is happy and moral. In this sense, the Unites States is the worst society in the world. Americans eat because other people starve. Sorry, this theory is attractive to a lot of people because it allows them to blame others for their woes, but that is not enough to prevent it from being a pile of crap.
And by the way, EVERYONE is responsible for exporting jobs. The root cause is another cornerstone of the "One Big Happy Family" view of the world, Free Trade. Over the past couple of generations Americans fell in love with the idea of buying coffee machines, cars, TVs, laptops, iPods, furniture, and all manner of widgets at prices impossible to sustain a manufacturing base in the US. Remember companies like Zenith and Sylvania? They would still be in business if people didn't say "Hey, look at that Sony". The only reason companies like GE or Dell are still in business is that they HAD to move manufacturing offshore in order to be competitive with Toshiba and Samsung.
So careful what you wish for. I would love to see manufacturing return to the US, and am willing to use import tariffs to do it. Of course that means that a laptop will cost $1500 instead of $500. I'm willing to live with that. Are you?
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1529 posts, RR: 1 Reply 176, posted (6 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3321 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 160):
...but brown skinned Muslims are fair game, right?
huh?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 158): If someone is too dumb to hold more than a minimum wage job, that isn't my problem.
What about those are too dumb to even get a minimum wage job?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 170): Why should taxpayers fund (and the student additionally pay for and get ito 6-figure debt for) someone to get a degree in Women's Studies, French Literature or Art History?
Yes there are jobs that require certain training and skills (like engineering and verty specific scientific/law studies etc) but the vast majority of jobs at a graduate level are made up of 75% transfereable skills and probably 20% on the job training meaning that only 5 percent of what you actually are doing in your job is based on what you studied and learnt whilst at university. Part of that 75% transferable skills will have been learnt at university but they are not dependant on the specific course you did, namely communication skills, working with others, goal setting, working with budgets, working with time constraints, self discipline etc. I believe people who have been away (I think leaving the family hometo study is important) to study at university have gained valuable skills no matter what course they do.
[my opinion] I think the 6 figure debt part is a problem as there seems like less difference between $200k and $250k than $50k and $100k so if there are huge fees to go to university then the students are likely to have much less self control with their money and this will result in less self control and discipline in general.[/my opinion]
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9914 posts, RR: 17 Reply 177, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3282 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 174): They don't work for you, and they don't work for the government. They are under no obligation to provide X jobs at Y dollars per year salary. Providing an environment that is competitive and will win those jobs for Americans is part of what the government should be doing.
This is what I am talking about: The same people who love greed and profit so much are the same people who kick out the workers and then blame the workers for their lot in life. It makes no sense at all. "We're gonna take away your job and benefits but it is your fault you have not job and benefits because you were asking to save for retirement and asking to have health insurance."
Why can't we blame greed and big corporations? When did that become the worst thing ever?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 174): It was never yours, or rather ours, to begin with.
Actually, it was. Just because someone makes $8 as a cashier at Wal-Mart, they are helping the Walton family stay in their posh lifestyle. The truck drivers hauling tons of cheep plastic crap to the stores are keeping the Walton family in their posh lifestyle. I am not saying the Waltons need to give up everything, but I think they can afford to give some reasonable benefits or even, at the very least, $.50 or $1 an hour more per store worker. I don't think that would kill them.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 178, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3252 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 175): Of course that means that a laptop will cost $1500 instead of $500. I'm willing to live with that. Are you?
I'm not. Learn to compete or you won't be part of the market.
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 176): What about those are too dumb to even get a minimum wage job?
I like being the smartest guy in the room, but not enough to go work at a crappy job with a bunch of dropouts and barely make any money. I'm better than that.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 177): The same people who love greed and profit so much are the same people who kick out the workers and then blame the workers for their lot in life.
If there is another worker who can do the same job for less, they'd be stupid not to.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 177): Why can't we blame greed and big corporations?
Because they're doing what they're supposed to do.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 177): When did that become the worst thing ever?
Because greed is good. You fight greed, you fight progress.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 177): Just because someone makes $8 as a cashier at Wal-Mart, they are helping the Walton family stay in their posh lifestyle. The truck drivers hauling tons of cheep plastic crap to the stores are keeping the Walton family in their posh lifestyle.
They aren't slaves. The job pays a certain rate that is set by the market and the minimum wage.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 177): I think they can afford to give some reasonable benefits or even, at the very least, $.50 or $1 an hour more per store worker. I don't think that would kill them.
It wouldn't kill them, but it isn't about not being killed. It's about maximizing profit.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 179, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3247 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 175):
Sorry, this theory is attractive to a lot of people because it allows them to blame others for their woes
True enough, but the alternative on the other end of the spectrum, (which you implicitly embrace) is attractive to a lot of people (especially in the post WW2 American generation) because of the self-serving fallacy that they themselves are entirely responsible for their own "success."
This self-made-man myth is losing ground in America because 1. it was never entirely true, and 2. more and more well-edcuated and hard working Americans are unemployed/underemployed even though they've done everything right.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 177): but I think they can afford to give some reasonable benefits or even, at the very least, $.50 or $1 an hour more per store worker. I don't think that would kill them.
Once upon a time, being born in America and having only an average devotion to work guaranteed a nice living, your own home, healthcare and retirement. PART OF THIS is old school industrialists like Henry Ford believed the workers should have a living wage and the other part of this is that America was the only game on earth.
Most new jobs are hourly and in fast food or Walmart because thats the only place America is competitive, every other skillset is much cheaper overseas.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 181, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3222 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 179): Once upon a time, being born in America and having only an average devotion to work guaranteed a nice living, your own home, healthcare and retirement.
That's where it all started to fall apart. The part of the "American Dream" that included working hard faded out and it became something we were all supposed to be born into. And that's when others started catching up.
Quoting Mir (Reply 180): Giving up a bit now for more down the road is hardly taking one for the team.
I know better than to trust politicians when they ask me to give up a bit now for more later.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 182, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3202 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 177): This is what I am talking about: The same people who love greed and profit so much are the same people who kick out the workers and then blame the workers for their lot in life. It makes no sense at all. "We're gonna take away your job and benefits but it is your fault you have not job and benefits because you were asking to save for retirement and asking to have health insurance."
You omit the little detail that in order to "kick out the workers", they had to hire them in the first place. You seem to forget that part.
Quoting Pu (Reply 179): Once upon a time, being born in America and having only an average devotion to work guaranteed a nice living, your own home, healthcare and retirement.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9914 posts, RR: 17 Reply 183, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3185 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 178): It wouldn't kill them, but it isn't about not being killed. It's about maximizing profit.
And, again, I have no problem with profits. But, when profits and excess of a few are so outrageous that the rest of us trying to get by are being told we are the problem, isn't there something wrong with that?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 181): The part of the "American Dream" that included working hard faded out and it became something we were all supposed to be born into.
Right. Hard work. There are a few who have a problem with hard work. We all know it. We all accept it. There are many, many more of us who do want to work hard and be rewarded with things like affordable health care, affordable housing, food, and, occasionally, a vacation. We can't do that anymore because of the excesses of a few. The rich feel they need to get richer and richer. They feel that is their entitlement; to have as few people work for them as possible so they can get all the money.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 184, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3181 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 183): And, again, I have no problem with profits.
...as long as you get your cut, despite having done nothing to earn it.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 183): But, when profits and excess of a few are so outrageous that the rest of us trying to get by are being told we are the problem, isn't there something wrong with that?
Nope.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 183): There are many, many more of us who do want to work hard and be rewarded with things like affordable health care, affordable housing, food, and, occasionally, a vacation.
There are others who will work just as hard and demand less. That's why you have a problem.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 183): The rich feel they need to get richer and richer.
And rightfully so. Who doesn't feel they need to get richer? Your whole argument boils down to you wanting what someone else has and your wanting the government to take it for you.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 183): to have as few people work for them as possible so they can get all the money.
What company in their right mind hires people for fun? Or pays people more than they have to without seeing some benefit?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
1. For around 30 years there has been in the US a polarisation of the labour market, which is to say that previous to this trend, the average educated man with average ambition earned an average wage. Now, there is either a good job or a McDonalds job for the average man, you are either making 6 figures or minimum wage.
David Autor at MIT is probably the most data-driven discoverer of this trend:
2. Related to labour force polarisation is the mountains of data that income and wealth growth since the 1970s has benefitted only the top; or, in other words, in the 1950s-70s as the US economy grew, lower and middle classes participated in that growth, regardless of education or other factors. Today the rich get richer, the middle class and poor stagnate or get poorer.
During the 1950s and 1960s, the halcyon days for America's middle class, productivity boomed and its benefits were broadly shared http://www.economist.com/node/7055911
....but ince the 1970s, real wages have declined for everyone except the top 1%...
The life chances of a young US citizen are more dependent on the income and education of his parents ...
the six heirs to the Walmart empire commanded wealth of almost $70 billion, which is equivalent to the wealth of the entire bottom 30 percent of US society.
The integration of China's low-skilled millions and the increased offshoring of services to India and other countries has expanded the global supply of workers. This has reduced the relative price of labour and raised the returns to capital. That reinforces the income concentration at the top, since most stocks and shares are held by richer people
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 186, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3161 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 185): 1. For around 30 years there has been in the US a polarisation of the labour market,
Quoting Pu (Reply 185): During the 1950s and 1960s, the halcyon days for America's middle class, productivity boomed and its benefits were broadly shared
Quoting Pu (Reply 185): ....but ince the 1970s, real wages have declined for everyone except the top 1%...
I appreciate your doing some research on this. I read through the articles, and one glaring thing struck me. You say that something around 40 years ago, and that the stratification of society (which is measured by the GINI index these days, began to rapidly deteriorate. And I agree. The question is what happened between the 50s/60s and now that may be responsible for the change in direction.
What struck me is that in your articles, only one mentioned free trade as a possible contributor - and then only in passing. David Autor's paper mentioned trade, but only insofar as to say that his mathematics assume "Perfect substitutability" - i.e. that wages are equal all around the world - which is obviously not the case. Until the 60s and 70s, the vast majority of consumer goods were made in the country that purchased them, which ensured a solid manufacturing base. Now, apart from very bulky items which cost a lot to ship, pretty much everything is made in low-wage countries, killing off much of our manufacturing base. We should note here that in many European countries, such as Germany (hardly a low labor cost market) have managed to keep such small manufacturing hat home. When you go to the store to buy a coffee maker or a pair of scissors, they normally say "Made in Germany". So the question is what did they do to prevent their manufacturing running off?
Another thing that was missing from all the articles was any mention at all of the growth of the welfare state. That came into being right around the time things started going downhill. Back in the 50s and 60s (and earlier) you had lots of Americans doing some pretty tough jobs like picking cotton (which today we "refuse to do", and allow immigrants (legal and otherwise) to do. Americans didn't pick cotton because they enjoyed it, but because they had to - there was no federal income assistance that allowed them to sit around and wait for "the right job" to come around. Uncontrolled immigration, flooding the market with people who think $5 per hour is mucho good money, has depressed the price of lowskilled labor disproportionately more than their share of the labor market. If their were 10-15 million fewer low-skilled laborors in the country, I'd bet that farmers would be willing to pay $20 per hour or more for people to work their fields. Sure, the cost of oranges would be higher, but so would the bottom rung wage.
So I don't disagree with your prognosis, but feel that you are missing out on some glaring omissions in your analysis - the impact of uncontrolled immigration, the welfare state, and free trade.
Quoting Pu (Reply 185): Only about half of America believes hard work will bring success.
That somewhat explains the vote a couple of weeks ago.
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 187, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3066 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 186): uncontrolled immigration, the welfare state, and free trade.
All these things have a role in explaining how America came to this point. Isn't free trade a Republican ideological pillar, btw? I bet if you promissed them you wouldn't abuse them poltically as bureaucratic rule-makers and trade obstructionists for it, the Dems would endorse tarrifs on China or other efforts to insulate America from the global glut of cheap labour.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 186): That somewhat explains the vote a couple of weeks ago.
When things are bad economically, people feel helpless and unable to control their own lives. Politically they veer to the left. The Great Depression. All of South America (the Pink Tide). When Americans feel self-reliant and that they have a good chance of succeeding with hard work, the Republican ideals of rugged indivdualism have big appeal.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 6983 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1529 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3234 posts, 
on that.
From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, 
From India, joined May 2005, 1228 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, 
