The other day, after posting Extreme wings of GOP denying culpability in loss, some of our readers felt that it was a case of liberals telling conservatives how to win elections. Part of me wanted to snidely and snarkily say,” well, it looks like you guys need a little help here.” I resisted and have been thinking about it ever since.
Let’s move the shift away from conservatives vs. liberals. Conservatives and liberals are NOT posts, but political positions on a continuum. What’s a liberal? What’s a conservative? Are there positions in between? Of course. Let’s deal with the terms Republican and Democrat since those words can be exact. You either vote Republican or Democrat. You don’t vote sorta.
Republicans had jolly well better decide ways to attract people to the party and I mean people like me. I sure fit their demographic. Older, white, economics, etc. In fact, I am an escapee from the party, granted, some 30 years ago. Republicans just aren’t going to be able to rely on the southern white vote any longer, at least along the Atlantic seaboard. According to the Washington Post:
Obama’s 2012 numbers in the Southeastern coastal states outperformed every Democratic nominee since Carter and significantly narrowed past gaps between Democratic and Republican candidates. The lone possible exception is Georgia in 1996, which gave Arkansas native Bill Clinton 45.8 percent in 1996; Obama fell 0.4 percent short of that mark in tentative 2012 results, but ongoing revisions could close the gap.
The proportion of white voters in the South is also shrinking. Southern whites voted overwhelmingly for Romney, but in six Southern states, far fewer of them appear to have gone to the polls on Nov. 6 than the number who voted for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008.
In Florida, the share of votes cast by whites this year fell to 66 percent, down from 73 percent in 2000. In Georgia, the number of white voters declined while African American registration increased nearly 6 percent and Hispanic voters grew by 36 percent.
“Republicans can focus all they want on Hispanics,” said John Anzalone, a Montgomery, Ala., pollster who helped analyze swing states for the Obama campaign. “But they also have a problem with whites, in this election cycle, just showing up.”
Shifting demographics are part of the change along the Atlantic coast.
In every Southern state except Louisiana, the population of African Americans grew substantially faster than that of whites over the past decade. The growth is fueled by black retirees from the north and rising numbers of young, well-educated blacks in prosperous cities such as Atlanta, Norfolk, Charlotte and Charleston, S.C.
Other factors were expected to pull Blacks across the aisle. Republicans expected a rift within the black church over gay marriage and abortion. They counted on those social issues to pull votes over to Romney. It wasn’t going to happen. Those who have lived in the south and who aren’t political numbers wonks knew better in the first place. Some reactions to such a suggestion are as follows:
Black pastors — some of whom had preached against gay marriage in the past — rallied to the president. Romney also hit a number of sour notes with minorities during the campaign, including his apparent suggestion that blacks who support Obama want “more free stuff” from government.
“Romney was real disrespectful,” said Rodney Collier, 58, a black stylist at Haywood’s Hair Images in Richmond. “How can you be so negative and nasty to a sitting president?”
Contrary to the expectations of many Republican pollsters, black voters came out in droves on Election Day and voted overwhelmingly for Obama — near or above 95 percent in most parts of the South.
Republicans are still reeling from the results of that election. They didn’t see it coming. I just don’t understand why not. I knew it all along and I didn’t say anything here because I am superstitious. No jinxing! I think other people here knew it too. I sure didn’t hear any betting going on!
What I don’t know is how the Republicans can expect people to be attracted to a party that wants to nix women’s reproductive rights, cut back social security and Medicare, round up immigrants to deport, do away with any vestiges of gun control, tear down the wall between church and state, reduce services for poor people and kill off a health care program it took over a half century to bring to fruition. You either care about these things or you don’t. The Republican Party can’t change how you think about these things. If they got rid of their platform, that might fix the problem but I don’t think that is going to help all that much because the people are still going to have their core beliefs that are on a collision course with those who don’t vote Republican.
People like Allen West do the GOP harm. A little mouth flashing from him oozes poison throughout the entire party and paints them all with the same brush. Perception is reality.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84108.html#ixzz2DFcQ6M57
Ya think? While fools sit back and cheer for this clown prince, the entire party becomes a little more toxin to some demographic. Let’s see, he alienated Jews, Blacks, the elderly with a great deal of overlap within the sub groups.
I think he was every bit as offensive as Todd Akin or Mourdock.
Note to my critics—yes, some times I do go after people like West fairly heavy handedly. He is a national figure and I doubt if I will bump into him in the grocery store.
I will go after his words, his verbage, and his policy…again.
When West finally conceded, I stood up and cheered all by myself! I detested his vile language while in Congress. And, yes, I DID send some money to Philip Murphy.
I knew all along that the Repugs would get their butts kicked, including right here in Virginia.
What I like about hat article is that it’s not just Latinos that caused the Repugs to lose; they lost the African American vote very badly as well.
And I’m sick and tired of hearing how Romney lost because he was’n conservative enough. Was Allen West not conservative enough? Were Akin and Mourdock not conservative enough? Puh-leez, people. Repugs of all stripes got their butts handed to them.
West lost because his district was gerrymandered to include more Democrats. He ruffled too many mainstream Republicans so his district was changed.
“wants to nix women’s reproductive rights, cut back social security and Medicare, round up immigrants to deport, do away with any vestiges of gun control, tear down the wall between church and state, reduce services for poor people and kill off a health care program it took over a half century to bring to fruition.”
The fight over “reproductive rights” is about whether or not an unborn child has a right to life. That won’t change. “Cutting back on SS and medicare” is about reducing our deficit because the programs are killing the budget. “Rounding up [illegal] immigrants” is enforcing the law. Republicans said very little about gun control and have presented few bills. But reducing gun control is popular. There is no wall between church and state…there is only the fact that the government cannot establish a religion. But, hey….lets make the powers that be, the politicians, afraid to practice their religions so that only the irreligious seek office. You know, those that DON’T feel that there might be a higher power than they that they will have to answer to…because they certainly don’t answer to the voters. Reducing services for poor people worked when it was implemented in the 90’s. More people ended up working. And killing off ObamaCare is still a good thing because its a draconian, bureaucratic nightmare that will lead to higher costs, less jobs, more intrusion, and STILL won’t improve healthcare. Just because it took 50 years to implement (as a generalized idea of socialized medicine) does not make it a good idea. Changing the principles of the GOP will not win it more elections. Why vote for the GOP if it is only a Democrat – lite party. The Democrats will still offer yet more free benefits. If the demographics are changing…so be it. We will be in a period of decline due to a more socialized culture. Being more like Europe is not a good thing.
But the people have spoken. Since Bush’s “unfunded wars” were such a liability, and we are spending even more, now, on domestic policies, we have unfunded domestic policies. Raise those taxes on everyone. No one gets a free ride anymore. And we need those regulations to make sure that everyone absolutely gets what they deserve. Here comes the new healthcare system that everyone supposedly wants…..
http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-physicians-new-reality-patients-ask-me-to-break-the-law/?singlepage=true
And lets stop deporting any illegal immigrants. Any of them. Amnesty for all of them. They just want to work here, right? It doesn’t matter if they don’t follow the rules. Give them jobs, or, if they can’t find one…benefits. Open the borders. Forgive the identity thefts, lawbreaking, smuggling, etc that enabled them to get here, live here and work here. And the GOP should just drop this right to life stuff…THAT’LL will get them votes. I say, put Planned Parenthood in any neighborhood that wants one and subsidize the services until there free. I mean, since contraceptives and abortions are a right, why should there be a fee?
Implement every single liberal agenda item. Tax everyone until the nation understands how much is being spent. Lets see the nation finally understand what happens when they get what they want.
@Cargosquid
You sound like a not very happy camper.
Most people want a chance to be on a so called “level playing field”.
That’s not the case today. Those who have money have power beyond belief.
The moneyed have the benefit of being able to hire tax lawyers who know how to
cut taxes for the moneyed. The laborers have their tax taken out before they get
their salaries. They are mostly not aware of all the loop holes the moneyed ones and their lawyers know about.
The unfunded wars are coming back to bite us.
Sorry, Cargo: Your post was way long so I didn’t read it.
@punchak
And do you really think that electing Democrats levels the playing field?
@BSinVA
That’s ok. I don’t mind.
I will take it one thing at a time, Cargo. Reproductive rights isn’t just about children living.
Reproductive rights is a big umbrella that covers conception, zygote-hood, pregnancy, abortion, prevention, sterilization, in-vitro, and yes, giving birth and adoption if that is what one choses. To reduce it all to abortion shows just how myoptic you are.
Next topic.
@Cargosquid
YES!
Cargo, you suggest that Republicans answer to a higher power than Democrats. I am going to suggest that perhaps we all answer to the same higher power, its just that our higher power has different expectations of us.
Many people who voted Democratic are people of faith, Christian, Jewish, Buddist, Muslim, Wiccan and even a very ethical atheist or two. We don’t have a religious test. It sounds like you do. There most certainly is a wall of separation between church and state, whether it is the one written about by Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Virginia Bill of Rights or the one codified by the Supreme Court in many different cases.
But if you think you are on the high road, by all means stay there. Let me know how it works out for you. Most people don’t really care for being told that one group is closer to the Lord than they are. No, you didn’t say it. It was implied, however.
No, I suggest that if we make religion or public religious observance by ANYONE anathema to serving in office, we will reap a class of politicians that are NOT tolerant of religion or willing to believe that any being or entity may be higher than themselves.
I was commenting on your EXACT words, not making it a GOP or Democrat thing about the religion. Sorry.
There are elements in the US that are trying to make any religious observance or public display something to be ashamed of.
I don’t think it should be part of governance. @ cargo
@Moon-howler
Except that abortion is what gets both sides going when the terms “reproductive rights” are used. Of course, all of the above still involves unborn children…… and the basic question is, “do unborn children have rights to life?” My point is that you are suggesting that the GOP needs to drop that principle to get votes and that dropping that principle would fundamentally change the GOP into another party. So, if you are talking about all of those issues and saying that the GOP is wanting to “nix” all of them…please. Show me where that is true. Republicans support the right of the unborn to be born, to not be experimented on. In regards to contraception…some believe its wrong…as do some Democrats. What laws have been presented to ban contraception?
To make this shorter…you are basically suggesting that the GOP drop all references to any of these issues in order to attract voters, right? If that is the case, again…why should anyone that supports your position vote Republican over the Democrats?
Because it isn’t any of their business?
@Cargo
Why should the govt be in the position of regulating contraception other than as a safe drug type of thing?
Do you think zygotes and fertilized eggs are children? I do not. I don’t think they are people. They are human zygotes and fertilized eggs.
I believe reaction to Limbaugh, Mourdock and Akin show that it isn’t just abortion that cranks our case. All of it is important to me.
@punchak
Please show me where enacting laws that mainly effect businesses that do not have the political connections and the legal departments to adapt to the laws levels the playing field.
Please show me where Obama’s crony capitalism with the insurance companies and banks levels the playing field.
Please show me where enabling and encouraging, in fact forcing many banks, to participate in the lending problems leading to the housing melt down leveled the playing field.
Of course, making everyone poorer does level the playing field…..
@punchak
Don’t get me wrong….. I disagree with you on the leveling of the playing field except that those policies level us into all being poorer.
But I do think that we need to enact more of them. Bring on Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, ObamaCare, Carbon taxes, more taxes, more spending. Kill the coal fired plants. Halt the drilling by US companies in the Gulf. Prevent any drilling on public lands and restrict it more on private lands….. go “renewable” all the way. I want single payer healthcare. Why not? Its supposedly works for the vets. Let’s everyone enjoy it. In fact, we should nationalize the energy companies….. its the only way to prevent them from polluting.
You and I do not have the right to determine whether or not an unborn child lives or dies. Only the mother has the natural right to decide. That is the natural order of things.
@BSinVA
So….you’re on the “no right” side. Ok. I’m not saying that your right or wrong. See…I was not actually arguing the pros and cons of abortion. I was just stating that the GOP can’t get rid of some of its principles without dissolving the party. Respect for unborn life is one of them. I’ve had this discussion on this site. But I’m now willing to give those that want them….everything that they want. Make it easier, even.
I know that the word “evolution” is a dirty word to the GOP Old Guard, but, the party could “evolve” into a more accepting group. They could still defend their values without insulting the values of others. They could still promote fiscal responsibility without playing word games. The GOP did well in the fifties and they were not the “my way or the highway”, “hate-everyone-but-Christians””, “the-Constitution-was-signed-by-Jesus”, “all-poor-people-are-lazy” party that they are today.
I think that the old republicans of yesteryear weren’t anti science. You know, like back in Nixon’s time. In fact, they are who got title X for family planning rolling.
But the new republicans, well, that’s another story. I think that the war against the poor is code for something else.
@ Cargo: “Being more like Europe is not a good thing”. Please remind me what is bad about being like Europe. Thanks
Judging from the 2012 election results, there is reason to believe that Grover Norquist’s days of bullying candidates into doing his bidding may be a thing of the past.
Going into the elections, 279 Congressional incumbents—along with 286 challengers—had signed the anti-tax pledge. However, at a time when the polls point to an overwhelming number of Americans favoring a rise in the tax rates for the nation’s very wealthiest, some 57 Republican House incumbents or challengers who signed the pledge went down to defeat while 24 GOP sitting Senators or those seeking a seat lost in their race.
Included among the high profile, pledge-signing losers were Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), former Wisconsin Governor and cabinet member Tommy Thompson (R-WI) and two-time loser Linda McMahon (R-CT). Over in the House, long time Congressmen Dan Lungren got beat after a constituent publically challenged him for signing the pledge while two GOP incumbents who had received direct funding from Norquist’s organization, Americans For Tax Reform, in an effort to save their seats, were unsuccessful.
Meanwhile, GOP Senate leaders such as Bob Corker (R-TN), John McCain (R-AZ) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), have become more vocal in their opposition to Grover Norquist and his tactics as has leading conservative voice, Bill Kristol.
Adding what might be the final nail in the coffin for Mr. Norquist’s brand of political blackmail is the fact that the likely GOP frontrunner for the party’s presidential nomination in 2016, Gov. Jeb Bush—while highly supportive of keeping taxes low—has steadfastly refused to sign the tax pledge saying, “I don’t believe you outsource your convictions and principles to people.” The younger Bush follows in the footsteps of his father, President George H.W. Bush, who earlier this year made his own feelings completely clear when he remarked, “The rigidity of those pledges is something I don’t like. The circumstances change and you can’t be wedded to some formula by Grover Norquist. It’s – who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/11/23/has-grover-norquist-and-his-anti-tax-pledge-reached-the-end-of-the-road/
More proof that the Repugs are on the wrong side of the issues, man. Americans support tax increases to help bring down deficits. The Norquist pledge is stupid, unproductive, and very bad politics to boot.
Norquist needs to go. He is a bully and I hope his days are numbered in the political arena.
Where is our friend George to give him te final shove out the door?
Keep an eye on Son of Jed. He is a rising rock star in the R party. If he sticks to old R principles he might just be the man.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, John McCain has really turned into a nasty human being. He never recovered from the 2008 election. I used to sorta like him before he put Palin on the ticket, which I am convinced was his final fall from grace.
He has just gotten Uber R since then. He is an example of a person I used to have great respect for and has just turned into a jackass.
Remember the old women he spoke gently with, telling her that President Obama wasn’t a muslim terrorist? I think that was his finest hour. He has fallen way too far from that moment.
@BSinVA
Take a look at their demographics, economic restrictions, increased restrictions on speech,and their imploding economy. Their “normal” rate of unemployment was 7-10 percent during the good years.
Their demographics look like ours, we have economic restrictions here (i.e., crumbling infrastructure no one wants to pay for), their restrictions on speech are generally to prevent the spread of xenophobic hate speech, and their economy is in the same shape our’s is. None the less, do you have an example somewhere in the world where we could look as a good example for the US to follow?
Cargo. bless you, but I too have seen the lite.
Yes, Let us tax the rich. Take every dollar of ordinary income and all dividend income for anyone making say $5 million a year and put them in prison if they try to leave. They have no value to our society. Its worked before – must have or they would not advocate it. This eliminates the need for unions and union pensions which might otherwise invest in such things.
Yes, I now see that after 1,000 years of trying to reconstruct society to not think of women as simple sex objects outside of marrige, here comes Sandra Pluke, and her agenda to make women nothing more than the sum of their parts, without guilt, responsibility or risk. Women should be compelled to work and children raised by the village. The Republican effort to control a woman’s uterus must not be confusd with need for free condums.
As to energy, the preppers and the Amish are ready – are you? We need to stop those private land owners from developing their property so that costs will rise sufficiency to save the planet and energy use can be properly rationed like health care by the Government. What else could be the goal? It has worked before.
And then there is the new one, we need to make sure that believers are seen as crazy people, who reject science, and who beleive the world is only 5,000 years old in an effort to disqualify them from office. Think of the property that could be taxed or confiscated for public use. Hey, it worked before.
We have much work to do.
Blue, what was in your turkey? Can it be cured? Is there an antidote? You sound absolutely absurd. this is the 20th century.
You really don’t understand anything do you or is it an act so I am forced to insult you?
@Moon-howler
Just another example of the anti-science brigade of the Republican Party.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/us-usa-campaign-georgia-idINBRE8A813W20121109
This clown is a physician too. Looks as though Darwin (gathering 4000 write-in votes) proved that there are still some people who have evolved in Georgia. Now one of those further-evolved folks needs to run in 2014.
Blue,
Anyone who serves on a science committee in government should absolutely be a proponent of actual science.
Your logic is so convaluted regarding birth control it’s hard to even address it! Wanting accesss to affordable reproductive services, i.e. birth control is actually the epitome of responsibility not the antithesis as you suggest.
The reality though is that there are mainstream republicans, like Paul Ryan, who, if they had their druthers, would pass a law claiming a zygote has as many rights as me. That is real government intrusion that would dictate the economic power, or lack thereof, for all women of child bearing age.
Blue: You are the only one who is advocating such nonsense. You would be kicked out of the GOP and the Democratic party. Mail your blather to the Tea party where you might get some traction.
@Moon-howler
Geez, I can’t argue with you or agree with you. Can I call you crazy once for every two you address to me? I think I want some of Cargos crazy points too.
I thought taxing the rich was on your agenda. Wasn’t complaining about taxing dividend income differently from ordinary income also part of the fairness agenda? We have argued about abortion and the value of not having 50 million more mouths to feed – mostly in the minority community. I get it now. I want my daughter to work, I do not want her education jeapordized and I want free student loans, health and child care for her.
As to energy, what else is the purpose of putting the breaks on our economy and putting all those people in dependency on the Government – so that China can evolve and to compensate for the next volcano (which would in a week wipe out all those benefits to the planet of a complete economic shut down. We must begin to serioulsy ration those goods now!
And BTW, what is with these lexus lanes on 495. That is class warfare if ever I saw it. Who are these people that the government is helping get to go to work faster than I can.
Actually Moon we deep fried one and baked the other. I searched all day for free turkeys, but ultimatley only found them in the market place. The lines were too long.
[giant goofy laugh]
http://free-loops.com/7647-goofy-laugh.html
I am all for taxing the rich whose incomes or dividends are higher than most people’s. I would go with a half million if I were dont it, just to be generous.
I want dividend taxation to stay the same until getting up to that point. I think you had me confused with someone else.
WE haven’t argued abortion. I don’t argue abortion. Its a personal decision. What I will argue is who gets to decide. Big difference. If you think abortion is morally wrong then by all means, don’t have one. I totally support that.
I haven’t breathed a word about energy all day long other than I was looking at gas inserts for my fireplace. You don’t read minds do you?
I didn’t mention lanes on 495 either. I don’t care who drives what as long as if its mine and you borrow it, you bring it back with the tank filled. Am I asking too much?
There is no free lunch. Probably a good lesson to learn young.
@Elena
In your world can a religous man or woman serve (1) the Government, (2) on a science oriented board, (3) an appropriations committee that includes research organizations? More importantly, must a government employee disavow his relious beleifs or the doctrines of his faith in order to serve – sort of like in the old days when people had to disavow of being a communist or supporting communism. I don’t suppose that is in the oath any more is it?
Unfair! I want to answer. People can be on a science board if they believe in science. Otherwise, no.
@BSinVA
What part of my new agenda does not conform to the Democratic party”s. Its the implications and scope of the party’s position that they don’t want to talk about, I get that
Its totally absurd, stupid and doesn’t represent the Democratic party.
If you want to discuss reality, then fine. Otherwise, you mimicking us doesn’t score points, just distain.
Jeezy-peezy, I’ve never seen so many straw men that needed to be shot down!!! LOL!!!
Where to start? So many straw men, so little time.
The sort version, none of it is the Democratic model. Blue clearly has misunderstood. Perhaps that is why Blue isn’t a Democrat. She thinks it is all about free stuff and abortions…on demand ones, whether you need it or not.
She’ll soon be in trouble with the Republican Party as well with thinking like that. 🙂
Blue: It is obvious that you get nothing !!!.. Not one Democratic has advocated taxing the rich out of existence. If you think that I am wrong then you need medication. If you think any Democrat has advocated the removal of people who are religious from public life, then you need to up your dose. If you believe that Democrats are hoping for an eruption of a fictional volcano to allow the Chinese boogymen to take over the world, then you need to sue your doctor (unless you are for tort reform).
Blue…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
None of your “agenda” conforms to anything except a fictional tale you have been force fed to believe from Faux News Blue.
It’s about reasonable solutions. Going back to the Clinton era tax rate is not communism my dear. It’s sustainable as proven by the actual success of the Clinton presidency. For three decades now the middle class income has stagnated while the upper 2% have garnered the majority of wealth. The recipe for a healthy democracy is a robust middle class. It isn’t a coincidence that many conservatives are now throwing Norquist under the bus. Are they also communists?
There are many religious scientists who believe in a G-d. It is when religious people deny accepted science like carbon dating that they should be precluded from serving on government committees that foster research. Do I believe in a litmus test? No. I imagine that there are enough smart people that understand they should serve on other committees that would fare better with their membership.
The question needs to be, can you afford to be wrong about climate change?
Moon,
LOVE the goofy laugh, that was fabulous!
Without insulting the values of others…hahahahahaha, you mean like liberals do to the religious? Promote fiscal conservancy without word games….what word games? You mean….like “Stop spending, we’re broke.” or “Keynesian economics shows that increased taxes slows the economy.”
And Nixon wasn’t a conservative. He was a liberal. It was the DEMOCRATS that were the conservatives then…remember. At least..the southern ones.
Everyone seems mystified why the conservatives are making noise….. Why? Aren’t they allowed to influence the culture and government when they see that the culture is turning away from traditional values like hard work, thriftyness, traditional marriage, etc? And please show me a Republican that is anti-science. Yes..yes…there are some coservatives that believe in Genisis….but then, there are some Liberals that believe that Al Gore is telling the truth about the climate.
Where was that stop spending mantra during the Bush years? I sure didn’t hear it during the 2 wars. Wars cost money. I also didnt hear it during the drug rx plan talks, but that’s ok. I am very glad it went through.
I don’t insult the religious values of others if they don’t try to impose them on me. Try to impose them on me, and get ready to be insulted.
No, the Democrats weren’t conservative in those days. You have been reading the wrong books again. Yes, some white southern Democrats were. Some werent. But Nixon wasn’t a liberal. Southerns were southerners for the most part. A strange breed.
You can’t categorize Virginia back then by normal standards. Wether you were liberal or conservative had much to do with integration and war and pay as your go on roads.
Huckabee is anti science.
that was easy.
Shall I continue?
Leave Al Gore out of it.
What does he have to do with anything. Can you afford to bet the ranch that he is wrong?
Why can’t conservatives influence culture? They never stop with just setting a good example. they always want to make laws that the rest of us have to follow. NO. Elena and I have a dear friend who is very conservative and religious. He lives his life and hopes people will see how happy he is. He doesn’t push it down everyone else’s throat.
I highly resent anyone who wants me to absorb their religion…and it is usually at the end of a sword. My religious liberal friends just don’t do that. They do their thing and share but they put their swords away when they talk to you.
@Elena
The Clinton tax rates were sustainable BECAUSE we were in the middle of the dot.com boom and the “peace” dividend.
Now..not so much.
We should be reducing rates and flattening the rates across the board. However, since the voters did not want that common sense…lets try it the liberal way. We have to pay for all this unfunded spending. Lets start taxing.
It isn’t the liberal way. You wouldnt know liberal if it was sitting on the end of your nose. Its moderate at best.
Stop protecting the wealthy.
I actually have a close family member who is one of the 1%. Sorry. He is on his own. He can sure afford it more than I can.
For the record, before anyone asks, Medicare and SS aren’t unfunded spending.
Talk to any non partisan economist, and they will tell you that there needs to be more revenue generated AND cuts in spending. That is what Obama has been saying since he was first elected to office 4 years ago. That is what Simpson Boles (which was dismissed by the Republicans) said. That is what they are saying now.
Show me the proof that cutting taxes will generate more jobs and a better economy – where are all the jobs that were created since the tax cuts went into effect in 2003. Where are they?
The issue with taxing those with greater income (I hesitate to call them wealthy), is that with the current tax system, they creatively earn income in order to avoid paying taxes. They will shift income to dividends and capital gains. They will avoid the Medicare tax. They will defer great sums of income (401k, SEP, Profit Sharing, Defered Comp, etc). Carried interest is a whole other matter. All of this in a legal way.
There is also great confusion with Marginal and Effective tax rates – today, a married person making 200k can easily pay ~21% or less in federal tax – not the 33% rate that will be thrown around – without doing creative tax avoidance.
If all the blow hards had spent their time trying to work something out, instead of belly aching about it – we would not be facing a fiscal cliff, and there would be some certainty in the markets, instead of some people holding back on spending due to the unknown.
For Blue and the rest: The fear a lot of us have is that the religious extremists in this country want to move us toward a religious-based government. That fear is justified by the Republican-led efforts to limit contraception, limit women’s choice, limit teaching of evolution, limit civil rights for gays/lesbians, limit public school funding in favor of charter (religious) schools, etc. It’s one thing to have personal beliefs in these areas, it’s quite another to try to force everyone to follow your beliefs.
These efforts taken in isolation are bad enough, but looked at as part of the historical effort on the part of many religious men to control women and minds, it gets downright scary. If men carried babies, does anyone seriously think we’d be having a debate about contraception and abortion? Keeping women pregnant is a form of control. Thru-out history, women have been feared and controlled by men through government, and religion has supported that control. Don’t forget, women only got the right to vote in the U.S. around 100 years ago. The stated policy of many religions is for the woman to be subservient to the man. Some states have passed laws against Sharia law, but Sharia law is religious law, and any time you base government on religion, you start down a slippery slope.
So yes, I fear religion and its effect on our government. Religion has been in the business of controlling governments and minds and women for centuries, often with disastrous consequences. Believe what you want, but keep your religion to yourself!
Well put, Middleman, well put! Cheer.
Its not even 100 years ago nationally. My grandmother was 31 years old before she could vote. Thirty one years old.
I quote a great American: Having religion is like having a penis. Its OK to have one; Its OK to be proud of it. It is not OK to flaunt it in public or to shove it down everyone’s throat.
I thought it was great. Which great American illuminated the issue so skillfully?
@BS
OMG BS, that is awful AND hilarious at the same time 😉
On building jobs – it depends on who is doing it.
When you spend money to get more business and you don’t use some of the profit to invest in the health and welfare of your employees, you shouldn’t be considered an almighty “job creator” anymore, now you’re more like a slave owner.
I think it was George Washington, but I’m not sure. (wink – wink). @Moon-howler
Must have been…the father of our country. Why of course, who would know penises better than the father of our country.
@BS
@Lyssa
There is a good case that can be made from your point of view, Lyssa.
Jon Stewart os back/. Yea!!!!!
There is still a lot of denial about that election going on out there. UFB.
At what point are the R’s going to give it up?
I think the R’s are giving up and starting to consider normalcy but the tea party neo-cons will never concede. They may slip back into the murky swamp from which they came and await the second coming of Lord Grover.
I think it is clear, for the time being, that ‘Big Government’ won the election. Many of you seem content that Obama was elected on the pledges to make “the wealthy pay a little more” and to keep Obamacare.
But unfortunately there are not enough wealthy people to reduce the deficit significantly. The current trillion-dollar deficits are unsustainable, so either benefits will have to be cut or taxes will have to be raised for everyone. Bloggers here act as if the tax increases will only be for the wealthy, but that seems very unlikely. How much more is everyone willing to be taxed in order to keep these benefits in place?
The other aspect of all this is the effect of Obamacare on the economy. We are already seeing companies replace full-time employees with part-time employees to avoid paying for medical benefits. Obamacare will also likely encourage companies to continue exporting jobs overseas. Someone stated that Obamacare was a great accomplishment, but its real effect will be to make us all a little poorer and to deteriorate the quality of medical care to benefit the few that did not have medical insurance.
The wealthy can start putting a little dent in it. It seems only right that they do so. They shouldn’t be paying at a lesser rate than the rest of us just because of their wealth.
Frankly. there are so many more reasons to elect Obama than Obama care and the wealthy tax rate….call it just a state of mind.
You don’t want big govt in your pocket. I don’t want big govt in my reproductive organs or those organs belonging to my off spring.
Don’t dare tell me you don’t want big govt though because it is perfectly obvious that you do, if you voted republican at the state level or federal level.
When the Republican party stops its obsession with interference with reproductve issues, then I will stop saying that.