IGX

FRKCTL wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

FRKCTL wrote:put country ahead of obstructionist partisan politics for a change.

Please expand on this platitude.

over the last two years the organizing principle behind the actions of boehner and mcconnell was to make obama a one term president.

McConnell's only real contribution was to set up Obama's budget proposals up for failure by putting them to a preliminary Senate vote.

A true 3rd party option would be nice.

Turdacious wrote:

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:We now have career politicians from both sides running on platforms of "I absolutely will not compromise with anyone on the other side of the isle." There's no dialogue between the sides to the tune of "is this bill good for the American people" or "what parts of this bill to I agree with and what kind of compromise can we work out". Now it's all about blocking ANY legislation by the other guys just because it's the other party proposing it.

And that's different from the last 200 or so years how? Case in point-- Clinton blocked welfare to work legislation proposed by Gingrich for political reasons, and turned around and proposed basically the same thing so he could get credit for it.

As Bismark said, laws are like sausages...

I didn't say it was any different now that it ever has been. Just that America is at its heart a centrist nation, and we end up with politicians who play the extremes to get elected.

I'd much rather see the House and Senate made up of about 1/3 Dems, 1/3 Repubs, and 1/3 "independents" of every bent. That could be enough to get legitimate legislation through on it's merits.

Andy79 wrote:

milosz wrote:The idea that Paul Ryan or any Republican might swoop in and solve the deficit is amazing. It's almost like those people have never heard of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

You gotta get past all that surface bullshit and realize that elections are won on Sigmund Freud style loins effect and nothing more. The one who makes pussies wet and legs tingle always wins. Every time.

You've really latched onto this "loins" meme with all your might. Care to consider then why extremely superficially attractive eye-candy people like Palin and Romney don't carry the day?

Sorry to break the news to you Andy but shaky old white dudes waving guns and confederate flags (present company excluded, of coarse) , or their mannequin proxies, just don't send surges of blood anywhere below the ears to women, youth, latinos, blacks, asians, gays, or otherwise educated Americans.

We know republicans are going to balloon the deficit and drive economic inequality, as they always do. That may be sexy to the 1% who will only be made richer for it, but that and their out of touch social policies designed to equally erode or deny social equality just ain't sexy to people who's loins still function.

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:We now have career politicians from both sides running on platforms of "I absolutely will not compromise with anyone on the other side of the isle." There's no dialogue between the sides to the tune of "is this bill good for the American people" or "what parts of this bill to I agree with and what kind of compromise can we work out". Now it's all about blocking ANY legislation by the other guys just because it's the other party proposing it.

And that's different from the last 200 or so years how? Case in point-- Clinton blocked welfare to work legislation proposed by Gingrich for political reasons, and turned around and proposed basically the same thing so he could get credit for it.

As Bismark said, laws are like sausages...

I didn't say it was any different now that it ever has been. Just that America is at its heart a centrist nation, and we end up with politicians who play the extremes to get elected.

I'd much rather see the House and Senate made up of about 1/3 Dems, 1/3 Repubs, and 1/3 "independents" of every bent. That could be enough to get legitimate legislation through on it's merits.

The only thing that would change is that more people with an (I) behind their name would get rich at the trough. I may be a little cynical though.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:The hacks on the right just got a big black eye, which is almost an advantage long term, since the hacks on the left haven't gotten hit yet, and may not for another 4 or 8 years. My very liberal friends who are thrilled with Obama baffle me. His actual policies on civil liberties, taxes, foreign policy, etc. are mostly not liberal. Much like the right-wing folks who think Obama's a socialist, they're believing things they're told by people who lie for money.

I would agree with this if I thought the GOP was actually willing to learn from this loss. While the party leaders might learn, the primary voters will not. The smart people in the party might try to push a candidate that won't alienate women and Hispanics, but that candidate will have a hard time beating the Santorums (or even Palins) of the party.

CharlieBob wrote:

Holeyfraggaroley wrote:I think they need to get back to their Reagan roots and marginalize the religious aspects of the right. Right at the moment I don't trust the current group of GOP. Get Colin Powell to run with a VP that doesn't give me the heebeegeebees. I would have been good with Mcain, but he had that ding bat as a VP.

Colin Powell would be a phenomenal presidential candidate, whom I think could pull votes from all demographics. The problem would be getting him through the republican primary process where any hints of moderateness get blasted to hell so all we are left with is right wing crazy people.

George Bush turned Colin Powell into a Democrat. Powell endorsed Obama this time, and he'll likely change party affiliation soon.

In my state, the gop was behind a massive campaign to turn a religious law into an amendment to the state constitution. With its pandering to the religious right, the gop is dangerouly close to being the theocratic party and that is way bigger government than most of us want.

Pinky wrote:

FRKCTL wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

FRKCTL wrote:put country ahead of obstructionist partisan politics for a change.

Please expand on this platitude.

over the last two years the organizing principle behind the actions of boehner and mcconnell was to make obama a one term president.

People who complain about the partisan behavior of the Republicans over the last two years never seem to remember the behavior of Obama and the Democrats in Congress that gave the Republicans the house. Pretending that only one side of the aisle puts partisan politics over the good of the country is delusional.

^^^^This^^^^

I hope you dumbass fuckers have made preparations for the coming colapse. It's not going to be some religious nutjobs wet dream of where the Rapture meets Mad Max, but it's going to be bad. Very bad.

We spend way to much on programs (hell, everything) that are unsustainable. Raising taxes with our already insane and inefficient tax system will do nothing to produce extra revenue, but will kill the economy. The Feds will resort to the only lever they have left to pull; monetarizing the debt. We already are monetarizing the debt to a large degree; half or more of our debt is being purchased by the federal reserve.

Say hello to inflation, higher unemployment, and misery. If you are dumb enough to live in high density urban and or suburban areas, I really feel for you. Most Americans have on average, $400.00 in savings. When they lose their job and their government handout check doesn't buy squat, things are going to get ugly fast.

The only bright spot is the people that voted fot this shit will be the hardest hit.

I love all the playing about caring about the debt and the complete unwillingness by either side to actually sacrifice anything to fix it.

That's OK. We'll all be underwater in a few years anyway.

j-cubed wrote:

CharlieBob wrote:

Holeyfraggaroley wrote:I think they need to get back to their Reagan roots and marginalize the religious aspects of the right. Right at the moment I don't trust the current group of GOP. Get Colin Powell to run with a VP that doesn't give me the heebeegeebees. I would have been good with Mcain, but he had that ding bat as a VP.

Colin Powell would be a phenomenal presidential candidate, whom I think could pull votes from all demographics. The problem would be getting him through the republican primary process where any hints of moderateness get blasted to hell so all we are left with is right wing crazy people.

George Bush turned Colin Powell into a Democrat. Powell endorsed Obama this time, and he'll likely change party affiliation soon.

Colin Powell is a shit bag and has very interesting friends.

Romney's 1 + -3 = 10 tax plan would have driven us into the ground far sooner.

Romney didn't have tax plan. He had an outline a plan that was so vague that people could honesty argue that is was or was not feasible based on how they filled in the blanks.

Batboy2/75 wrote:Raising taxes with our already insane and inefficient tax system will do nothing to produce extra revenue, but will kill the economy.

Please cite a reference on this ridiculous opinion, or try to explain it.

Any tax plan will need to be filled with (intentional) loopholes-- this subsidy to the lobbying industry and former members of Congress must be continued for the health of the Republic.

Is the myth that Republican presidents are good on the deficit the most persistent of modern political myth?




http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/1 ... ican-money

You guy believed Romney's (cough) "plan" to lower revenue (taxes) and raise expenditure (military, etc) was/is a recipe to lower the deficit?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Raising taxes with our already insane and inefficient tax system will do nothing to produce extra revenue, but will kill the economy.

Please cite a reference on this ridiculous opinion, or try to explain it.

I assume it's the part about no extra revenue that you're calling ridiculous.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Raising taxes with our already insane and inefficient tax system will do nothing to produce extra revenue, but will kill the economy.

Please cite a reference on this ridiculous opinion, or try to explain it.

You are right to a degree, there is plenty more to collect.

BTW- I never stated that raising taxes won't raise extra money. I stated "Raising taxes with our already insane and inefficient tax system will do nothing to produce extra revenue, but will kill the economy."

You're getting caught up in looking at rates and tax tables. I'm all for raising taxes, if we do it in a smart way. The key here is, we are not collecting the maximum amount possible (maximum while doing no harm) because our progressive tax system is nothing more than a negative feed back loop. The higher and more progressive the rates, the more deductions and give aways creep into the system.Because these deductions and credits are not universal, only a small number of the wealthly and politically favored subset of citizens benefit. This leads to more calls for more higher rates etc., the loop goes on and our tax system becomes even more Byzantine.

In short our current tax system is criminally inefficient, unfair, and leads to huge negative economic distorions.

The Federal Government always collects roughly 15% of GDP, no matter what the tax rates are. The only variables in the equation is the size and growth of GDP & the econmoic distortion (damage) it causes. Raise the top tax rate to 99% and the government will collect the same slice of GDP. It's just that GDP will be smaller or stagnant.

Then there are the distortions to econmic behavior; people doing what would normally be considered irrational behavior to take avantage of federal tax loop holes or handouts. The home lending crisis was partly caused by the home deduction because everyone wanted a slice of this deduction. This led to a distortion of huge proportions as everyone wanted a slice of the free give away. Same thing is happening with the Chevy Volt tax credits, wind farm subsidies, Child tax credit, home deduction credit, etc.

Eliminate all deductions and tax credits, other than a standard per person deduction, and then flatten the tax code.

This is called raising taxes.

Turdacious wrote:viewtopic.php?p=561756

Yes Trd, I notice you. Sorry to have neglected you of late.

Batboy2/75 wrote:You are right to a degree, there is plenty more to collect.

BTW- I never stated that raising taxes won't raise extra money. I stated "Raising taxes with our already insane and inefficient tax system will do nothing to produce extra revenue, but will kill the economy."

It would be much, much more preferable to do a complete tax system overhaul. But raising taxes in our current system will raise revenue. Perhaps not efficiently, but still.

Eliminate all deductions and tax credits, other than a standard per person deduction, and then flatten the tax code.

This is called raising taxes.

The advantage to this is, when somebody proposes future raising/lowering taxes, it's much simpler to guess what will happen. Right now, growing economic inequality and decreased economic mobility would lead one to expect a more progressive rate, not a flatter one. But we'll see. GOP will probably need a few months to start figuring out what it wants to do.

Pinky wrote:

FRKCTL wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

FRKCTL wrote:put country ahead of obstructionist partisan politics for a change.

Please expand on this platitude.

over the last two years the organizing principle behind the actions of boehner and mcconnell was to make obama a one term president.

People who complain about the partisan behavior of the Republicans over the last two years never seem to remember the behavior of Obama and the Democrats in Congress that gave the Republicans the house. Pretending that only one side of the aisle puts partisan politics over the good of the country is delusional.

mcconnell et al were not playing ball with the obama team from the get go. the phony narrative concocted by the righties got them the mid terms. not getting the presidency and losing a congressional seat here and there should tell them that maybe they pushed the filibustering intransigence strategy a little too hard too long.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/barac ... m-now-what

The GOP will have an internal battle for direction — and possibly a civil war: Screenplay formula requires that late in every story, protagonists hit their lowest points, and then spend a few minutes in what’s known as a “long dark night of the soul,” where the protagonist ponders what he’s learned and comes to grip with who he really is. After its second successive presidential loss, the Republican party is likely to perform a similar public soul searching, perhaps with a long-simmering public battle.

I've been saying something like this for a while. Whether Mitt had won the presidency or not.

The rise of the Tea Party and a shift amongst young voters caused a rift in the Republican party that can't be swept under the rug forever.

The few Repugs I know out here on the left coast seem to finding their way towards a more reasonable in most cases, and libertarian in other cases, stance on the biggest issues.

Entitlements in their current form are unsustainable. But safety nets are probably necessary, making reform that much more important.

Debt in every form, from local, state, federal, personal, student, is a major problem with no real chance for a soft landing.

War sucks. Everyone but the Newts, O'Reillys, Cheneys, Rumsefelds etc agrees. And Darf. He loves totalwar and shit.

Dropping the religious stuff I would think might go a long way towards bringing back right leaning independents. Embracing civil unions for gays etc... not a bad idea, and it's inevitable anyway.

LOL at these clowns thinking we need to just rearrange the deck chairs, i.e. dumping the fundies and the voting for amnesty. Or even worse, let's just tax the rich and continue on dumbasses.

We are headed over the cliff. To use a Dylan phrase "Get ready for Ragnarok"

When the hipster douchebags and ghetto scum scream for someone to save them, it will be a bullet in the back of the head or the feel of the boot on the back of their neck that will be the answer.

If you live like a slave, you deserve to be one.

I think that if I was a Republican strategist, I would focus my message on two things which still resonate with many (and perhaps most) Americans and still represent responsible governance.

1. Freedoms...freedom of religion, freedom to bear arms, freedom of expression, etc. which are threatened by an interventionist government.

2. Fiscal responsibility...no amount of feel good politicking can change the mathematics which currently threaten our union. Republicans could score big with a platform that focuses on reducing and ultimately eliminating our national debt through some combination of spending cuts and taxes.

I could make a whole long list of things I wouldn't do, but that's not the point here.