Drop, Add, Double Down: BB&B Edits the 2014 GOP Platform

Ok, ok, ok. We lost.

It sucks, we got angry, depressed, and think socialism is here to stay, etc. But I don't buy it all. What happens today in politics has happened before, and will happen again. So constructively, we should move forward and evaluate the right in American politics, BBB style. Here's the format and the rules:

Subject: GOP Platform in 2014 and 2016
Style: Pick 2 current issues currently on the platform and select one to remove entirely, one to double down on. Lastly, pick any position to add to the platform.

Here's mine.

Drop: Anti-Gay marriage
Double Down: Fiscal Restraint/Balanced Budget
Add: Elimation of the Income tax in favor of national sales tax

Keep it simple and we can all easily see some ideas. Could be fun! Libs, feel free to try.

I was thinking about it and I don't think it matters. If we totally switched platforms with the Democrats, the media would still crush us.

But if I had to:

Drop: Abortion
Double down: Tax cuts
Add: young charismatic candidate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

I was thinking about it and I don't think it matters. If we totally switched platforms with the Democrats, the media would still crush us.

---

I think the republicans need to end up more libertarian. It's no coincidence that Ron Paul draws huge youth support. That's a big demographic within striking distance for repubs.

Y'all are eating it up as soon as CNN lays it out. Social issues had nothing to do with this defeat.

And after that self-righteous post:

Drop: immigration stance
Add: welfare to work program (ala Newt).
Double down: personal freedom (more libertarian).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Y'all are eating it up as soon as CNN lays it out. Social issues had nothing to do with this defeat.

---

I agree. I think it was lack of clear conservative fiscal policy

This second term will be a disaster for Obama. Republicans need to point out the commonality the Afican-American and Hispanic conservatives should have with the platform.

Drop: fiscal responsibiity
Add: free satellite TV
Double down: number of people entitled to free "stuff"

The Republicans will be a shoo-in

Drop: unelectable candidates
Add: Inclusiveness
Double down: Lincoln was a great president. :D

Need some rebranding, too. Get rid of the old rich white guy candidates and bring in the young latino lesbian candidates.

Still in mourning. First thoughts....go as close to Reagan in thought, word a deeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS

Still in mourning. First thoughts....go as close to Reagan in thought, word a deeds.

---

Don't think Reagan could win now. The electorate has changed drastically. To win, you gotta promise and deliver the moon, no matter what damage it does to the country.

I think we had a smarter electorate back then too. Obama would have lost worst than Carter did.

While Romney's vote total was down 2 million from McCain's 2008 total, Obama lost about 8.6 million voters, or 1/8 of all the people who voted for him in 2008. I don't think the GOP or the conservatives are outnumbered in this country, but it's getting close.

The winning strategy was hatched in 2010. Tea parties organized across the country and helped elect true conservative candidates all across the country. The GOP took back the House, gained about six Senate seats, and won about 600 state legislative seats. In 2012, the GOP nominated a moderate from Massachusetts. Romney had a good vision for the country, but he lost just like Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008. Conservatism wins every time it's tried by the GOP.

Double Down: Conservatism
Drop: Not a policy item, but get rid of the Republican Establishment
Add: More outreach to the African-American and Hispanic communities as well as the Ron Paul people

I feel that the GOP was very dismissive toward the Ron Paul supporters in 2012. While I didn't support Paul for President, I liked many of his ideas and positions of the issues. The GOP must also rebuild as a true conservative party from the ground up, starting at the local level. Incorporate the Tea Party people and the Ron Paul people and their ideas into a new party platform of true conservatism. The party should also do outreach to the African-American and Hispanic communities, and listen to their concerns and problems instead of just talking about your platform.

Those of you that touched on the Latino vote hit the nail on the head. 50,000 Latinos turn 18 everyday in this country. Romney ignored them and he lost. And here is the kicker: he lost the Latino vote by about 73-27% yet in polling they are anti-abortion, churchgoing and conservative. A major FAIL for Romney.

Mitt didn't even come close to carrying his home state of Massachusetts (where he was a former governor). He lost Massachusetts by 38% to 61%.

A bad, bad choice of a candidate by the repugs threw the election to b.o. It was almost like the repugs were trying to lose (again).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TechAlum05

While Romney's vote total was down 2 million from McCain's 2008 total, Obama lost about 8.6 million voters, or 1/8 of all the people who voted for him in 2008. I don't think the GOP or the conservatives are outnumbered in this country, but it's getting close.

The winning strategy was hatched in 2010. Tea parties organized across the country and helped elect true conservative candidates all across the country. The GOP took back the House, gained about six Senate seats, and won about 600 state legislative seats. In 2012, the GOP nominated a moderate from Massachusetts. Romney had a good vision for the country, but he lost just like Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008. Conservatism wins every time it's tried by the GOP.

Double Down: Conservatism
Drop: Not a policy item, but get rid of the Republican Establishment
Add: More outreach to the African-American and Hispanic communities as well as the Ron Paul people

I feel that the GOP was very dismissive toward the Ron Paul supporters in 2012. While I didn't support Paul for President, I liked many of his ideas and positions of the issues. The GOP must also rebuild as a true conservative party from the ground up, starting at the local level. Incorporate the Tea Party people and the Ron Paul people and their ideas into a new party platform of true conservatism. The party should also do outreach to the African-American and Hispanic communities, and listen to their concerns and problems instead of just talking about your platform.

---

Great post. I agree totally!!

Hispanics are growing (or voting more) and whites are shrinking (or not voting as much):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ima.../chart11-8.gif

Romney's votes:
54 Million from whites
6 Million from other races

Obama's votes:
36 Million from whites
28 Million from other races

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

I think we had a smarter electorate back then too. Obama would have lost worst than Carter did.

---

I wonder how many generations of us old folks have thought that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maverick

I wonder how many generations of us old folks have thought that...

---

Probably not many... but they didn't have Youtube back then.

this might take awhile....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nadB

Mitt didn't even come close to carrying his home state of Massachusetts (where he was a former governor). He lost Massachusetts by 38% to 61%.

A bad, bad choice of a candidate by the repugs threw the election to b.o. It was almost like the repugs were trying to lose (again).

---

Mitt didn't win his other "home" state of Michigan either. To make matters worse, Paul Ryan didn't win his home state of Wisconsin and Romney only won one of the nine battleground states. It doesn't get any better for the GOP in 2016. In a generic Democrat vs a generic Republican presidential contest, the Democrats win. The GOP has only one "safe" state with any size electoral votes - Texas (38) The Democrats have the "safe" states of California (55) New York (29) Illinois (20) Michigan (16) and New Jersey (14). This means that the GOP will have to win almost all the swing states and as already stated, we know how well that went for the GOP this year. In the distant future the growing Hispanic population in Texas could turn that state into a blue state. The GOP should totally reconstruct their party now and not wait until 2015.

The GOP doesn't need to change anything except those issues that would garner the Latino vote. Just get 50% of this already conservative minority's vote and we win in a landslide. Bush got 45%. Obama got 73%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

The GOP doesn't need to change anything except those issues that would garner the Latino vote. Just get 50% of this already conservative minority's vote and we win in a landslide. Bush got 45%. Obama got 73%.

---

yeah....no...

the hispanics I work with are not anti gay marriage. They came from a "government does all" mentality. It is built in.

The difference between Bush and Romney. #1 Bush spoke semi-fluent Spanish and he actively sought after their vote, delivering many speaches, in Spanish to Latino leaders and groups.

#2 Bush offered a path to citizenship. He said he still would arrest and deport BUT they could obtain citizenship through military service or by earning their college diploma. This is a reasonable, common sense immigration initiative. Hispanics siezed on this and Bush got roughly half their vote. Romney on the other hand urged "self-deportation" again: FAIL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogtorEvil

yeah....no...

the hispanics I work with are not anti gay marriage. They came from a "government does all" mentality. It is built in.

---

All of the ones I know and I know A LOT emphasis on A LOT which could be changed to A TON or over a hundred are pretty conservative and are very much conservative on most social issues. This might soundracist but they would have 30 kids before considering abortion. They just think it is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

All of the ones I know and I know A LOT emphasis on A LOT which could be changed to A TON or over a hundred are pretty conservative and are very much conservative on most social issues. This might soundracist but they would have 30 kids before considering abortion. They just think it is wrong.

---

how many had kids out of wedlock?

Johnny the women care about social issues and they vote more than men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogtorEvil

how many had kids out of wedlock?

---

I'm sorry, is that something I should be asking??

"Hey Chris, my son scored 3 goals last weekend!!! I'm so proud of him." "That's great Jorge but was he born out of wedlock?"

Sorry DE I'm just not sure how that would go over. Is there a better way I can approach this subject with the Hispanics I meet at Church, Work or at my sons soccer practices. Oh here's one: "Carlos I noticed you have 6 kids, Out of curiosity were they born before or after you married your wife?" ....Is that one better? I confess I'm probably not as good as you at coming up with these questions. What I can do, as can you is read numbers. Bush recvd. 45% Romney 27% of the latino vote. Bush had a common sense path to citizenship. Romney said GET OUT. One candidate won a seat in the Oval Office and re-election the other, going against the worst president in history, with one of the worst economies in our history, got beat. But yeah, we should keep going down the same path with the Latinos. I'm sure it will work itself out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogtorEvil

yeah....no...

the hispanics I work with are not anti gay marriage. They came from a "government does all" mentality. It is built in.

---

Wow, I have found that to be the exact opposite. Though I am now out of the industry, thanks Barney Frank!!, I come from a Construction background and I have never seen a harder working people in my entire life. All they ask for is a chance and when it is given they ask for nothing. They just bust ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

Wow, I have found that to be the exact opposite. Though I am now out of the industry, thanks Barney Frank!!, I come from a Construction background and I have never seen a harder working people in my entire life. All they ask for is a chance and when it is given they ask for nothing. They just bust ass.

---

I heard someone say Hispanics used to vote Republican because they thought the Democrats were "losers." They thought the Democrats didn't want you to work and be succesful.

Yesterday, a Hispanic called in to Rush Limbaugh and said the Mexicans coming to America these days have been brought up under big government in Mexico. They are now looking to government to pass the money around. The government represents success in Mexico, not working.

Here is part of the transcript from Rush's show yesterday:

RUSH: I mean, if everything I'm hearing this week is right, I'm the reason people like you are not voting Republican.

CALLER: Well, unfortunately that was the main reason for my call, that unfortunately the majority of the Mexican people that come over to the United States, they're already marginalized in their own country. They don't have very much education and they believe that the government is the only source of wealth.

RUSH: There you have it! There you have it!

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: This is exactly right. I'm so glad you've called. We've got an academic study and report by one of our scholars here, Heather Mac Donald at the Manhattan Institute. She's researched it, and she says that. She says that 75% of the Hispanic vote for the Democrat Party has nothing to do with immigration policy. It's all about their view that government is the source of good economics, wealth, things, stuff, what have you.

CALLER: It is, Rush.

RUSH: And you're just confirming it.

CALLER: Yeah. It is a tragedy, because all their potential, all their gifts, are just totally shut down. They cannot produce. If I would have listened to the Democrat Party when I came into this country, I would not be where I am today.

RUSH: Wow.

CALLER: Thank God I've been able to grow.

RUSH: Why?

CALLER: Because they treat you as a lower class. They make you believe that they can provide things for you. But, in the end, you give your dignity to them instead of keeping it.

RUSH: What they do is treat you as though you don't have the ability to do good things for yourself.

CALLER: Yes!

RUSH: They treat you as though you're incompetent of getting through life without them.

CALLER: Absolutely. That's totally true. And every conservative that I've talked to, they treat me as a person. They don't see me as a Mexican. They don't see the color of the skin. They're interested in my character, and I'm interested in their character. I don't see them as white, green, blue, whatever it is.

RUSH: That's exactly right. Well, you're the wrong kind of immigrant.

CALLER: (laughing)

RUSH: You're not the kind of immigrant the Democrats are looking for.

CALLER: And in different ways, I've been told that. Certainly I'm told I'm not Hispanic enough. I'm not holding to my culture.

The Roman Empire could not be defeated.....except by itself. After being the dominant force for 700 years, the Romans sunk more and more into moral decay. They tore themselves apart from the inside. Brutal power struggles resulting in civil wars, and worse, sectionalism whereby they wouldn't support other regions in the empire. But, it began with the moral decay of the society.

What do we see happening here? Moral decay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

Yesterday, a Hispanic called in to Rush Limbaugh and said the Mexicans coming to America these days have been brought up under big government in Mexico. They are now looking to government to pass the money around. The government represents success in Mexico, not working.

---

Limbaugh is part of the problem. Some republicans are saying that the GOP must choose between Rush Limbaugh and minority voters. While Limbaugh's racially charged comments are "lapped up" by white males, they show minorities what the party is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woof!

Limbaugh is part of the problem. Some republicans are saying that the GOP must choose between Rush Limbaugh and minority voters. While Limbaugh's racially charged comments are "lapped up" by white males, they show minorities what the party is all about.

---

You can't find one racially charged comment in his remarks unless simply mentioning race is racially charged. Your post is wrong on every level, expressed and implied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LookingForResults

You can't find one racially charged comment in his remarks unless simply mentioning race is racially charged. Your post is wrong on every level, expressed and implied.

---

You might not be able to find Limbaugh's comments to be racially charged, but minorities CAN. Limbaugh is a HUGE asset for Democrats. Personally, I hope he keeps on doing what he's been doing. :)

Democrats want Limbaugh (and all talk radio) gone because it's the only place to hear conservative views. Why else blame an election on an entertainer? That would be like saying Bush beat Kerry because of Bill Maher or Rachel Maddow. Ridiculous.

Bottom line is if Bush can get 45% there is no reason any other GOP candidate can't. We need to accept reality when it comes to this section of society or the GOP will keep fading. No excuse for a POTUS with a record like BO to get re-elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woof!

You might not be able to find Limbaugh's comments to be racially charged, but minorities CAN. Limbaugh is a HUGE asset for Democrats. Personally, I hope he keeps on doing what he's been doing. :)

---

I hope you're in your early 20's. I can't imagine such utterly stupid drivel from a mature adult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

Bottom line is if Bush can get 45% there is no reason any other GOP candidate can't. We need to accept reality when it comes to this section of society or the GOP will keep fading.

---

Exactly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

Wow, I have found that to be the exact opposite. Though I am now out of the industry, thanks Barney Frank!!, I come from a Construction background and I have never seen a harder working people in my entire life. All they ask for is a chance and when it is given they ask for nothing. They just bust ass.

---

I just had to fire a Hispanic working and living on my ranch. I provided a house, utilities paid, and a competitive wage. I arranged for him to get a driver's license which he did not have as a result of a marijuana charge and peripheral issues from a couple of years before, and helped him get his wife back from Corpus where she was living with her family while he looked for work. He carelessly wrecked one of the ranch vehicles, but I allowed him to pay it back over time through reasonable paycheck withholdings.

He worked hard and did a good job for a year and a half. Then recently my foreman took inventory and discovered a weed eater and a blower missing. We learned that the employee had pawned the equipment FOR $65 STINKIN' DOLLARS! When asked why he did it he said he "needed some money." When asked why he didn't ask for a loan, he had no answer.

He lost his job, his house and his family (again) over $65 BUCKS! That is the mentality with which I think we are faced with a huge segment of the population. If so, there is no hope.

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quot...de_Tocqueville

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville


“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville


Smart guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LookingForResults

I just had to fire a Hispanic working and living on my ranch. I provided a house, utilities paid, and a competitive wage. I arranged for him to get a driver's license which he did not have as a result of a marijuana charge and peripheral issues from a couple of years before, and helped him get his wife back from Corpus where she was living with her family while he looked for work. He carelessly wrecked one of the ranch vehicles, but I allowed him to pay it back over time through reasonable paycheck withholdings.

He worked hard and did a good job for a year and a half. Then recently my foreman took inventory and discovered a weed eater and a blower missing. We learned that the employee had pawned the equipment FOR $65 STINKIN' DOLLARS! When asked why he did it he said he "needed some money." When asked why he didn't ask for a loan, he had no answer.

He lost his job, his house and his family (again) over $65 BUCKS! That is the mentality with which I think we are faced with a huge segment of the population. If so, there is no hope.

---

Plenty of Caucasians do the same sort of thing. No race has a monopoly on stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quot...de_Tocqueville

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville


“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville


Smart guy.

---

We forgot to pay attention in history class. History repeats itself over and over and over. Prepare for the dictator. Obama would love that gig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

Plenty of Caucasians do the same sort of thing. No race has a monopoly on stupidity.

---

I agree.

Why does it have to be a Hispanic guy vandalized my car....a black guy broke into my house....an Asian guy was rude to me....? Couldn't we just say a guy vandalized my car....a guy broke into my house...a guy was rude to me? We are all God's children and God didn't make one race above all others.

Before the 2014 election, I am all in favor of just letting whatever will happen because of the "fiscal cliff" happen.

Harry Reid and bho are not feeling they are in a position where they have to make deals, and the welfare state must be stopped for America to prosper. I say let all the evil GWB tax cuts to expire and make the cuts as elaborated in the "deal". No more raising the debt ceiling either.

In two years, we'll have a better idea what needs to be done, and let's go more libertarian than republican. We certainly don't need a republican party that looks just like the dem party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tech77

Don't think Reagan could win now. The electorate has changed drastically. To win, you gotta promise and deliver the moon, no matter what damage it does to the country.

---

Reagan won California both times...

Drop: Social issues
Add: Inclusiveness
Double Down: Fiscal responsibility (and show the history of how it works!!)

Yea.... so basically Ron Paul.

The basic problem with the repub platform is that tax cuts for the rich doesn't create prosperity. Until they get over their fixation on cutting taxes for the super-rich, I doubt they will take control of the government again.

The votes they'll lose dropping social issues (which I fully expect them to do) will dwarf the number they gain. Social issues had nothing to do with the defeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

The votes they'll lose dropping social issues (which I fully expect them to do) will dwarf the number they gain. Social issues had nothing to do with the defeat.

---

What about the two Senate seats lost because of the dumbass comments made by the two wannabe "rape expert" clowns ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nadB

What about the two Senate seats lost because of the dumbass comments made by the two wannabe "rape expert" clowns ??

---

The two men lost those races by contracting "foot-in-mouth" syndrome, not due to social issues. The Indiana race would have been a tight race even without the comment by the Indiana GOP nominee for Senate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

The votes they'll lose dropping social issues (which I fully expect them to do) will dwarf the number they gain. Social issues had nothing to do with the defeat.

---

I am agreeing with you now. We need to stand for morality because most Americans are moral. If we are ever to get the black and hispanic votes it will be because they are God-fearing people.

I think our problem is that most people just aren't paying much attention to what's going on. We need to educate them. I would encourage everyone to use Facebook and Twitter to expose the left for what they really are. Get some conversations started like we do here.

Because the education system and the media are on the Democrat's side and they are not going to do it.

Yep, education... the dems got the $5 bills to the right idiots in those races too.

• http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/throw_money.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

The basic problem with the repub platform is that tax cuts for the rich doesn't create prosperity. Until they get over their fixation on cutting taxes for the super-rich, I doubt they will take control of the government again.

---

This was also huge. Romney did a very poor job of explaining the importance of tax cuts in a recession/depression. I think he assumed people knew cutting taxes would be good for the economy. But instead, people believed he was a rich guy who wanted to only help other rich guys and didn't care about the poor. Paul Ryan did try to explain that it worked under JFK and Reagan in the VP debate, but Biden cut him off. Romney NEVER explained it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

The basic problem with the repub platform is that tax cuts for the rich doesn't create prosperity. Until they get over their fixation on cutting taxes for the super-rich, I doubt they will take control of the government again.

---

They won't help balance the budget either.

In the normal demagoguery lip flapping, I hear about the "millionaires and billionaires" that need to pay their fair share, and all the simpletons buy into it. In reality, those millionaires and billionaires suddenly become "250 thousandaires".

You can't live your lie forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow

They won't help balance the budget either.

In the normal demagoguery lip flapping, I hear about the "millionaires and billionaires" that need to pay their fair share, and all the simpletons buy into it. In reality, those millionaires and billionaires suddenly become "250 thousandaires".

You can't live your lie forever.

---

That reminds me of another Romney mistake. He never explained that raising taxes on the rich won't come close to helping our debt problem. The math doesn't add up. I think Obama wants to increase taxes by $1 Trillion over 10 years, but we run $1 Trillion deficits EVERY YEAR. There is no point in raising taxes.

Romney assumed everyone knew Obama was an economic failure and he played it safe. I would have done the same. But we underestimated the stupidity of the American people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocMarvin362

Drop: Social issues
Add: Inclusiveness
Double Down: Fiscal responsibility (and show the history of how it works!!)

Yea.... so basically Ron Paul.

---

Yep, with the GOP's current delusional and fantasyland state of mind, I don't look for them to make the significant changes you suggest. If GOP candidates offend people during the primary, those people aren't going to vote for them for President.

Yep! stupid people out-number smart people in the voter populace now. So, if you wish to be elected for a national office, you have to appeal to the stupid people. Like the democraps do now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow

They won't help balance the budget either.

In the normal demagoguery lip flapping, I hear about the "millionaires and billionaires" that need to pay their fair share, and all the simpletons buy into it. In reality, those millionaires and billionaires suddenly become "250 thousandaires".

You can't live your lie forever.

---

It won't hurt either. The lie that I see is that the tax cuts for the top 1% help create jobs here in America. Rich folks are going to invest their money world-wide for the highest possible return. It would be far better to have a 90% tax rate of the rich and then given them deductions for capital invested in the USA.

Romney only paid a 14% rate. What rate do you pay?

Give the middle class the tax cut and cut wasteful government spending. The rich don't need any tax cuts since their share of the wealth of America keeps going up. We need to make the middle class wealther to have a better economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Yep! stupid people out-number smart people in the voter populace now. So, if you wish to be elected for a national office, you have to appeal to the stupid people. Like the democraps do now.

---

Sorry, but the smart people are voting for the dems. 8 of the 10 richest counties in the USA voted for Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

It won't hurt either. The lie that I see is that the tax cuts for the top 1% help create jobs here in America. Rich folks are going to invest their money world-wide for the highest possible return. It would be far better to have a 90% tax rate of the rich and then given them deductions for capital invested in the USA.

Romney only paid a 14% rate. What rate do you pay?

Give the middle class the tax cut and cut wasteful government spending. The rich don't need any tax cuts since their share of the wealth of America keeps going up. We need to make the middle class wealther to have a better economy.

---

You are looking at it wrong. Tax cuts are not for the retired people like Romney... they are for active businesses. The theory is that if people have more money in their accounts, they will use that to build their business (expand and hire more people). If you are taxing successful people at 90%, they won't have as much money to build their business. They may stay the same at best.... unless there is some kind of boom to their industry.

Democrats look at economics like there is a set amount of money in circulation and it is their job to distribute it evenly among the different classes of people. Republicans see an unlimited amount of money that is out there for the taking and you get it by coming up with good ideas, starting a business, taking risks, and general hard work. Democrats say that isn't fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

You are looking at it wrong. Tax cuts are not for the retired people like Romney... they are for active businesses. The theory is that if people have more money in their accounts, they will use that to build their business (expand and hire more people). If you are taxing successful people at 90%, they won't have as much money to build their business. They may stay the same at best.... unless there is some kind of boom to their industry.

---

American corporations currently have way more than a trillion $ in excess liquid assets on their balance sheets -- more than at any time in the past 50 years + -- and they aren't rolling out the carpet for new hires.

B.S. on the voodoo economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nadB

American corporations currently have way more than a trillion $ in excess liquid assets on their balance sheets -- more than at any time in the past 50 years + -- and they aren't rolling out the carpet for new hires.

B.S. on the voodoo economics.

---

I haven't heard that. Do you have a link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

I haven't heard that. Do you have a link?

---

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/07/16/idle-corporate-cash-piles-up/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nadB

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/07/16/idle-corporate-cash-piles-up/

---

Sheesh. That means businesses are not expecting a turnaround any time soon. They don't need money (tax breaks) they are just bracing for the double dip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nadB

American corporations currently have way more than a trillion $ in excess liquid assets on their balance sheets -- more than at any time in the past 50 years + -- and they aren't rolling out the carpet for new hires.

B.S. on the voodoo economics.

---

I wouldn't be hiring right now either. Too many regulations dictating what I can do, and too many government mandates on what I must provide my employees.

Too much uncertainty to plan for the future.

It's more than just money. Smart businesses are waiting and seeing right now. Can't build a factory and hire workers, then have the NLRB come in and tell you you had to hire union workers.

I suspect much of that cash will eventually be used to hire workers overseas where the government is more friendly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Romney only paid a 14% rate. What rate do you pay?

---

He paid that rate only for the two years he released tax returns. He paid 0% for twelve straight years before that. :shocked2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woof!

He paid that rate only for the two years he released tax returns. He paid 0% for twelve straight years before that. :shocked2:

---

But 40% to charity, which are better organizations for the needy than the government. :shocked2:

Mitt and the rest of the repugs look like fools for advocating for tax cuts for the highest income recipients, given their tax rates are about as low right now as they have ever been since way before WWII.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._tax_rates.png

Not when you consider revenue is needed due to vast spending programs (by both parties):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-n70Q9jL-zk...0/taxrates.jpg
Tax rates don't really matter... what we need is economic growth. With economic growth, revenues will increase regardless of what the tax rate is.

The most revenue the federal government ever collected was in 2007... after the Bush tax cuts.

“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” ― Thomas Sowell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

..With economic growth, revenues will increase regardless of what the tax rate is.

---

:rolleyes: More voodoo economics.

If that were true, you could supposedly maximize tax revenue by having a zero tax rate. Don't forget the Laffler Curve is a curve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nadB

:rolleyes: More voodoo economics.

If that were true, you could supposedly maximize tax revenue by having a zero tax rate. Don't forget the Laffler Curve is a curve.

---

Don't forget you can probably balance the budget in a fews years and pave the streets with gold by simply closing a few "loopholes". :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nadB

:rolleyes: More voodoo economics.

If that were true, you could supposedly maximize tax revenue by having a zero tax rate. Don't forget the Laffler Curve is a curve.

---

If you know what the Laffer curve is, why are you arguing that revenue will increase with an increase in the tax rates?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nadB

:rolleyes: More voodoo economics.

If that were true, you could supposedly maximize tax revenue by having a zero tax rate. Don't forget the Laffler Curve is a curve.

---

and if you know what the Laffer curve is, why are you calling it Voodoo economics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

The most revenue the federal government ever collected was in 2007... after the Bush tax cuts.

---

Employment was high because of the GW Bush housing bubble and massive deficit spending by the feds. Really not that much higher than 2000 when you consider the 7 years of inflation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Employment was high because of the GW Bush housing bubble and massive deficit spending by the feds. Really not that much higher than 2000 when you consider the 7 years of inflation.

---

But Obama would have you believe that the tax cuts caused the recession and Romney had the same policies of cutting taxes, which got us in this mess. He said he wanted to do the opposite and ask the rich to pay a little more. Was he misleading the people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

But Obama would have you believe that the tax cuts caused the recession and Romney had the same policies of cutting taxes, which got us in this mess. He said he wanted to do the opposite and ask the rich to pay a little more. Was he misleading the people?

---

Were his lips moving?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

But Obama would have you believe that the tax cuts caused the recession and Romney had the same policies of cutting taxes, which got us in this mess. He said he wanted to do the opposite and ask the rich to pay a little more. Was he misleading the people?

---

As I recalled, the economy was running on all cylinders during the last term of Clinton, which was before the Bush tax cuts. The Great Bush Recession was caused by his promoting the housing bubble with no-money down mortgages and failing to regulate Wall Street.

The middle tax cuts were good for the economy because the folks spent the money in the US. Who knows if the tax cuts for the rich promoted economic growth in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Were his lips moving?

---

This is important. He was elected on a class warfare, Marxist agenda. Americans need to know he is bullsh...ing and trying to divide us. He lead us to believe tax cuts should never be attempted again because it failed under Bush and cause a recession/depression. Tax increases are the only way to go since it worked under Clinton. He thinks we are morons.... and for the most part, he is right! He is probably laughing at how stupid we are!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

This is important. He was elected on a class warfare, Marxist agenda. Americans need to know he is bullsh...ing and trying to divide us. He lead us to believe tax cuts should never be attempted again because it failed under Bush and cause a recession/depression. Tax increases are the only way to go since it worked under Clinton. He thinks we are morons.... and for the most part, he is right! He is probably laughing at how stupid we are!

---

Baloney. He was re-elected because the American free enterprise system is alive and well with most people knowing that the US economy was driven into the ditch by GW bush (who even didn't bother to attend the repub convention). The US will be the top oil producer by 2015 and the economy is slowly getting better. There is no Marxist agenda. Obama is in favor of continuing the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.

Thank God bin Laden is dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

As I recalled, the economy was running on all cylinders during the last term of Clinton, which was before the Bush tax cuts. The Great Bush Recession was caused by his promoting the housing bubble with no-money down mortgages and failing to regulate Wall Street.

The middle tax cuts were good for the economy because the folks spent the money in the US. Who knows if the tax cuts for the rich promoted economic growth in the US.

---

You're memory is failing you. If the economy was running on all cylinders when Bush took office there would have been no need for the tax cuts. The recession was caused by the housing crisis, which started under Clinton and was extended under Bush (how many times have we discussed this?). See the chart above, the rich paid more in taxes after the Bush tax cuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Baloney. He was re-elected because the American free enterprise system is alive and well with most people knowing that the US economy was driven into the ditch by GW bush (who even didn't bother to attend the repub convention). The US will be the top oil producer by 2015 and the economy is slowly getting better. There is no Marxist agenda. Obama is in favor of continuing the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.

Thank God bin Laden is dead.

---

Good move to start your post with the heads up about what it was about to be....Baloney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Baloney. He was re-elected because the American free enterprise system is alive and well with most people knowing that the US economy was driven into the ditch by GW bush (who even didn't bother to attend the repub convention). The US will be the top oil producer by 2015 and the economy is slowly getting better. There is no Marxist agenda. Obama is in favor of continuing the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.

Thank God bin Laden is dead.

---

You are hard to figure out. You talk like a conservative, but vote for liberals. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

You're memory is failing you. If the economy was running on all cylinders when Bush took office there would have been no need for the tax cuts. The recession was caused by the housing crisis, which started under Clinton and was extended under Bush (how many times have we discussed this?). See the chart above, the rich paid more in taxes after the Bush tax cuts.

---

Sorry Charlie, but your memory is failing you. Remember how Gore and Bush were debating what they were going to do with the projected $One Trillion dollar surplus. But you right about one thing. There was no need for the tax cuts immediately after the election. The tax cuts came after 9/11 caused a recession. There was no housing bubble while Clinton was POTUS. The housing bubble started in 2004 when GW Bush pushed no money mortgages for anybody who could fog a mirror AND wall street started their slice and dice shell game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Sorry Charlie, but your memory is failing you. Remember how Gore and Bush were debating what they were going to do with the projected $One Trillion dollar surplus. But you right about one thing. There was no need for the tax cuts immediately after the election. The tax cuts came after 9/11 caused a recession. There was no housing bubble while Clinton was POTUS. The housing bubble started in 2004 when GW Bush pushed no money mortgages for anybody who could fog a mirror AND wall street started their slice and dice shell game.

---

Clinton balanced the budget because of the booming tech sector during his presidency (because Al Gore invented the internet about that time). Bush inherited the economy after the tech bubble burst.

In 2001, the Economic Growth and Recovery Tax Act was enacted (Bush tax cuts). The annual growth rate went from 0.3% in 2001 to 2.5% in 2002. By 2004, GDP growth was the highest in 20 years.

In 09/01: terrorist attacks

In 2003, in response to the economy after the terror attacks: The "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act" was enacted. The unemployment rate fell to the lowest level since World War II.
　
By 2005: the richest one percent went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005
　
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/0...bush-tax-cuts/

Check out this Homeownership chart and tell me what year it started the skyrocket. (Bush took office in 2001)

http://www.livebusinesschat.com/smf/...7.0;attach=937　
　

^ You need to read this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/bu...anted=all&_r=0

When you are done reading it, post one that shows that Clinton was the major force behind the 2007 housing bubble crash.

BTW, I think that your graph is wrong.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ly-50-year-low

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tech77

Good move to start your post with the heads up about what it was about to be....Baloney.

---

I guess that you didn't like the part about bin Laden being dead or that the US would be the world's top oil producer by 2015. Must really make your blood boil that Obummer could do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

^ You need to read this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/bu...anted=all&_r=0

When you are done reading it, post one that shows that Clinton was the major force behind the 2007 housing bubble crash.

BTW, I think that your graph is wrong.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ly-50-year-low

---

I know the truth Salty. I have never said Bush didn't share the blame. But this was not Bush's idea. He was expanding on Clinton's policies.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thre...ons_drive.html

The graph you linked is the same one I posed. It shows that homeownership took off around 1995... 6 years before Bush took office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

I know the truth Salty. I have never said Bush didn't share the blame. But this was not Bush's idea. He was expanding on Clinton's policies.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thre...ons_drive.html

The graph you linked is the same one I posed. It shows that homeownership took off around 1995... 6 years before Bush took office.

---

Anyway, I hope that you realize that anybody who bought a house before GW Bush became POTUS is probably above water.

Shifting gears here, why didn't GW Bush attending the 2012 repub convention while Slick Willie was a main speaker at the dems convention?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Anyway, I hope that you realize that anybody who bought a house before GW Bush became POTUS is probably above water.

Shifting gears here, why didn't GW Bush attending the 2012 repub convention while Slick Willie was a main speaker at the dems convention?

---

Because very few people have been shown the truth... as you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Shifting gears here, why didn't GW Bush attending the 2012 repub convention while Slick Willie was a main speaker at the dems convention?

---

....and why wasn't McCain and Palin out on the campaign trail every day shilling for Romney? :shocked2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woof!

....and why wasn't McCain and Palin out on the campaign trail every day shilling for Romney? :shocked2:

---

I don't know about McCain, but Palin is considered a far right wing / tea partier. Romney wanted to attract more moderates and she is seen as polarizing. Romney ran a very conservative campaign. He wanted to just be the alternative candidate to what we had the last 4 years. I bet he was shocked that the people gave the last 4 years 4 more years.

Regarding Clinton. Do you know how frustrating it is to know the truth and listen to him act like he was the greatest economical president of all time? He said something like, "Obama inherited an economy so bad that I don't think even I could have done any more than he did." I'm sitting there watching this and knowing it was his policies that contributed greatly to the economy Obama inheritied. I bet less than 5% of our population knows that. And Clinton knows they don't know or he wouldn't say something so arrogant.

And then Obama follows with, "Romney's policies are the policies that got us in this mess in the first place. Do you want to go back to that?" And Romney never counters with the truth and he gets his butt kicked because the people don't know the truth. As God said, "My people are destroyed from a lack of knowledge." It's so frustrating!

Obama ran a great ground game that the repubs couldn't match. As far as the repub platform is concerned, they should drop all the anti-choice rhetoric (no business of government anyway) and focus on getting back to middle. Calling Obama a Marxist, Muslim, born in Kenya is absurb, makes the repubs look like a bunch of kooks. So, the repubs should try to be more focus on individual freedoms and be willing to compromise. That pledge that they took not to raise taxes has to be one of the dumbest moves ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T1

If you know what the Laffer curve is, why are you arguing that revenue will increase with an increase in the tax rates?

---

I wasn't actually arguing that; however, tax revenue can very well increase with an increase in the income tax rate, depending on where on the Laffer curve you start from.

What I was actually pointing out is that tax rate cuts do not necessarily lead to higher levels of tax revenue; they can very well result in lower tax revenue. Again, depending on where you are on the Laffer curve to begin with.