GOP Purge Inevitable?

Duck Soup

jank wrote: »

Some on these posts are a little OTT, you would swear that the GOP lost in a Reagan esque 84 landslide.
The GOP still control the house, they still have the vast majority of govenors in the country.

ALL polls say that there is a majority that want smaller government and no tax increases rather than large government and tax increases.

Flat out factually wrong. 58% of Americans support raising taxes on higher income earners.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57501245/most-americans-say-rich-should-pay-more-taxes-according-to-new-survey/

People love the idea of 'small goverment' when it's put to them in that vague bumper-sticker form. The problem is that when they're asked specifics, it turns out that they want everything cut except the bits that directly benefit them. Old people don't want Medicare cut. Veterans don't want veteran benefits or the military cut. Parents don't want education cut. Nobody wants the police cut and fewer patrols in their neighbourhoods.

Going after Romney isn't going to solve what ails the GOP. It's policies not people that are the issue - the Catch 22 is that hardline people within the party drive the policies.

Tea partiers select 'small government' Grover Norquist-approved candidates who also are hardline social conservatives. Getting government out of people's lives doesn't appear to include getting vaginal probes out of women's bodies if they want an abortion.

The GOP right screams for less spending and then insists on giving the military $2 trillion extra over the next decade that even the military say they don't need. They holler about debt, but advocate tax cuts that independent economists say will explode it. They tell government to get out of the people's lives, but only if you don't have a vagina.

The truth is the Tea Party is old-fashioned social conservatism in a tricorn hat. It's 99.9% white and Christian and it drives the Republican party's agenda and selection of candidates.

While that kind of agenda can win individual local races, it's a recipe for losing Presidential races ad infinitum. You're right, it wasn't a huge margin but it was a huge electoral college margin. Mitt Romney, possibly the whitest man alive, won as big as it is electorally possible amongst white voters. And still it wasn't enough.

The GOP needs to stop with the constant stream of bills about reproductive rights or they'll continue to lose women's votes (Remember all the "Romney is level with women voters" prognostications before the election? Turns out he lost 55% to 43% amongst women voters (the other 2% going to other candidates), unchanged from 2008.

But Romney was right about women voting on economic issues - it's just that cutting after-school and childcare programmes are economic issues if you're a mother. Defunding Panned Parenthood is an economic issue if you want to control reproduction and get preventative screening to remain healthy and working. Job training is an economic issue. Food stamps are an economic issue.

I honestly don't know where the GOP goes from here. It needs to move towards a more women-friendly, ethnic minority friendly centre, but the activists won't allow this. Florida will turn into a safe blue state in the next 10 years from demographic change alone with the current level of support that the GOP gets from Latinos.

Political commentators said before the election that this is the last time you'll be able to build a winning coalition based around white Christian voters. The result proves we've already gone past that tipping point.

Amerika

Obama = 60,459,974
Romney = 57,653,982

Odd, doesn’t look like the GOP is pushing up daises, or needs a major retooling, quite yet.

The GOP still has the house, and there is no super-majority in the Senate by the Dems. I think the GOP needs to do what they were voted into office to do.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Obama = 60,459,974
Romney = 57,653,982

Odd, doesn’t look like the GOP is pushing up daises, or needs a major retooling, quite yet.

The GOP still has the house, and there is no super-majority in the Senate by the Dems. I think the GOP needs to do what they were voted into office to do.

What were they elected to do?

I for one hope most GOP supporters maintain your head in the sand mentality.

jank

Duck Soup wrote: »

Flat out factually wrong. 58% of Americans support raising taxes on higher income earners.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57501245/most-americans-say-rich-should-pay-more-taxes-according-to-new-survey/

.

That is all well and good but as far as I can see 'rich' is not defined.
46% of people do not pay federal income anyway, the top earners who comprise of .3% of the taxpayers pay 20% of total taxes. New taxes are great until of course your the one paying for it. Gallup has a poll saying that the taxes one pays is either fair or too much, work that one out.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Obama = 60,459,974
Romney = 57,653,982

Odd, doesn’t look like the GOP is pushing up daises, or needs a major retooling, quite yet.

The GOP still has the house, and there is no super-majority in the Senate by the Dems. I think the GOP needs to do what they were voted into office to do.

Yes, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, try and ban abortions, obstruct, obstruct, compromise on nothing, obstruct, obstruct, whine, try and ban abortions and obstruct.

Did I miss anything?

vetinari

jank, this is quite simple.

The majority are in favor of the rich paying more tax.
In this election, rich was defined as people earning over 250K a year.
The polls have been in favor of raising taxes for people above that amount.

btw

the top earners who comprise of .3% of the taxpayers pay 20% of total taxes.

means that .3% of the people have 20% of the wealth. This level of income inequality is a bad thing.
You would have a more robust economy with less income equality.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

What were they elected to do?

I for one hope most GOP supporters maintain your head in the sand mentality.

First and foremost… fiscal sanity! Sure the GOP will need to transform a bit to appeal to a mostly clueless and entitlement driven electorate. Fiscally conservative and socially moderate might be the future to win elections. A greater push towards the states controlling social issues might be their best hope, but granted will be tough sell to some of the base.

Mr.Micro

Mjollnir wrote: »

Yes, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, try and ban abortions, obstruct, obstruct, compromise on nothing, obstruct, obstruct, whine, try and ban abortions and obstruct.

Did I miss anything?

Indeed, if they had the real interests of the country at heart they would compromise and work out a deal. The GOP got 50% of the vote in the guise of Romney, but in reality are so split down the middle with right wing on one side and ultra right wing on the other side.

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

Obama = 60,459,974
Romney = 57,653,982

Odd, doesn’t look like the GOP is pushing up daises, or needs a major retooling, quite yet.

The GOP still has the house, and there is no super-majority in the Senate by the Dems. I think the GOP needs to do what they were voted into office to do.

The point I'm making is that that is the high-water mark for the GOP's traditional white Christian coalition. That's the maximum possible they can get running the whitest of white candidates against an African-American candidate.

Before it would have gotten them the White House. Today, it's gotten them the bum's rush.

But I'm delighted to hear you say that nothing needs to be changed. The next election - possibly with Hillary Clinton making major inroads into the southern vote - will be more ethnically diverse than ever.

If the GOP keeps on keeping on with the same anti-immigrant, anti-choice, anti-gay rhetoric they've traditionally favoured, they're not going to lose by a little the next time. They're going to get shellacked.

Amerika

vetinari wrote: »

The majority are in favor of the rich paying more tax.
In this election, rich was defined as people earning over 250K a year.
The polls have been in favor of raising taxes for people above that amount.

Okay, in the grand scheme of things, what will it really accomplish? The amount of taxes generated will be a drop in the bucket compared to this administrations spending. How exactly will taxing the rich fix things? Please, will someone answer this for me.

Amerika

Duck Soup wrote: »

The point I'm making is that that is the high-water mark for the GOP's traditional white Christian coalition. That's the maximum possible they can get running the whitest of white candidates against an African-American candidate.

Before it would have gotten them the White House. Today, it's gotten them the bum's rush.

But I'm delighted to hear you say that nothing needs to be changed. The next election - possibly with Hillary Clinton making major inroads into the southern vote - will be more ethnically diverse than ever.

If the GOP keeps on keeping on with the same anti-immigrant, anti-choice, anti-gay rhetoric they've traditionally favoured, they're not going to lose by a little the next time. They're going to get shellacked.

Glad I could make your day. And while you’re at it, keep hoping for a continual dumbing down of America… that should also help to keep Democrats getting elected.

While you're at it, why not take a stab at my "taxing the rich" question.

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, in the grand scheme of things, what will it really accomplish? The amount of taxes generated will be a drop in the bucket compared to this administrations spending. How exactly will taxing the rich fix things? Please, will someone answer this for me.

New policies of taxing the rich are purely to appease the
masses. Everybody knows that the rich simply move their money or hire more accountants to dream up or find loopholes. If Joe public believes that Mr. Rich is getting hit with more tax then Joe is happy.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

First and foremost… fiscal sanity! Sure the GOP will need to transform a bit to appeal to a mostly clueless and entitlement driven electorate. Fiscally conservative and socially moderate might be the future to win elections. A greater push towards the states controlling social issues might be their best hope, but granted will be tough sell to some of the base.

Fiscal sanity? Are you kidding me? The GOP position is cutting taxes to decrease the deficit. That's fiscal insanity. If people wanted that they'd have elected Romney.

I actually don't know what the GOP were elected to do. I know they need to man up and compromise occasionally over the next 4 years. Obama needs to do the same.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

Sure the GOP will need to transform a bit to appeal to a mostly clueless and entitlement driven electorate.

This typifies the GOP attitude towards the very people that they should be trying to appeal to.

Basically anyone who didn't vote for Romney and is not a registered Democrat is just looking for welfare. A handout. Gimme all the free stuff. Bill O'Reilly spouts this rhetoric consistently.

It can't be true. Surely most of these people are actually hard working with probably conservative values at heart, just trying to get a foothold in life?

Stop tarring them all with the one brush!

Amerika

Mr.Micro wrote: »

New policies of taxing the rich are purely to appease the
masses. Everybody knows that the rich simply move their money or hire more accountants to dream up or find loopholes. If Joe public believes that Mr. Rich is getting hit with more tax then Joe is happy.

Finally! Thank you!!! We chartered our course of action for the next four years based on a fiscally inane, feel good attitude. Welcome to the new America.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

This typifies the GOP attitude towards the very people that they should be trying to appeal to.

Basically anyone who didn't vote for Romney and is not a registered Democrat is just looking for welfare. A handout. Gimme all the free stuff. Bill O'Reilly spouts this rhetoric consistently.

It can't be true. Surely most of these people are actually hard working with probably conservative values at heart, just trying to get a foothold in life?

Stop tarring them all with the one brush!

We have reached a point that households are receiving more income from the government than they are paying the government in taxes. How long do you think this trend can continue?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Be like Nutella

Personally I reckon the so called 'rich i.e. >250k earners' should be paying more than they currently are and that capital gains should be abolished and treated like normal income tax which it clearly is in most instances.

The thinking is that closing bush tax cuts - i.e. normalizing tax on the highest earners will raise maybe 50 billion a year for the gov - 2-3% off the annual def which may seem too small to bother for some people but not to me it seems like a nice figure to me and deffo worthy of doing however.... I know as many do that the very rich will just do their usual tax wizardry using fancy accountancy to get out of as much of this measure as possible but again - that doesn't mean you don't do it. First and foremost these people CAN AFFORD the tax increase... it will help their country - i.e. no excuse for not doing it... fuk em do it end of story theres no good argument for not doing it.. it won't effect employment enough to make it counter productive.. bullsh1t argument.


For Gods sake there are

236,883 reporting income of $1 million or more (2008).

just adding 5% per person and assuming exactly the lowest figure of 1 million each per year would raise more than 12 Billion dollars.... in reality those earners go from 1 million to many billions per year so the funds raised would be more like 45/50 billion dollars, to knock 2-3% off the def each year!! Republicans argue not to cut defense spending on things like the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer program - 80+ ships at 100 billion dollars? two years of post bush tax cuts reality pays for that ffs. Put's it in perspective.

No - normalizing taxes on the already wealthy in society is not going to slash the def or the debt by big huge chunks but 2-3% is 2 to 3 feckin percent and should be done. They can take it... they are RICH... in many cases stupendously rich and they would do anything they can to avoid paying tax to the government including moving their money off shore which is amazingly unpatriotic! for a class of people associated with the republicans who cry so much blindly ignorant patriotic bullsh1t it makes you eyes turn in your head.

5% more tax from everybody personally making more than 1 million dollars... and even more for those making 10 million - say 8%!... If you personally make 10 million dollars or more in pay or in dividends (mostly from the latter to avoid tax!!! hence the hypocrisy) then you OWE it to the country to help pay off the def, it's the patriotic thing to do, clearly and you can EASILY AFFORD IT! You made that money off the backs of others (and your own I'm not denying that... but also off the backs of others) so it is not a tenable position to say 'no way we're not paying extra tax we earned our money we deserve every cent and if you try and tax us we'll move our money off shore'

As they say tax the greedy not the needy stop the off shore crap... fix the loopholes... beat the tax lobbyists to death with the tax code book til they're left in bloody piles in the corridors of Washington. Taxing the rich is not austerity... cutting spending on things people need is. Romney would've headed down a road of austerity (masked by sweeping 'unpaid for' 'unrealistic' tax cuts which would have benefited the rich more than middle income earners.

When you're down you spend on structural and education and when you're up you save that's how modern keynesian economics (mostly very successfully) works. Spending right will make millions of jobs, taxing right will acceptably take from the super rich and allow the middle to breathe and spur growth through innovation and up-skilling. The def and debt is too great - it requires all of the above to be done in a gradual intelligent way over a period of years maybe as much as 15-20 years in this extreme case but the same logic applied as if it were a shorter period.

Everything has to be done, taxing the rich is just one part of it... the rest is a brawl in congress as it should be. The election was almost down the middle
so there's going to be a lot of cross isle action and that makes sense given the country is cross-isle in nature. There is no sacred cows now - tax the rich, cut welfare waste, hack open Obamacare and find a balance, spend on roads, education, cut military and drill like crazy for oil BUT also use funds to spur innovation in green energy... all has to be done... and will be done. Being stubborn on the tax the rich thing is just feckin pointless altogether.

314,000,000 people in the USA and only 250,000 earn more than 1 million per year... and most of those well above 1 million dollars. They're asking 1/12 of 1 percent to pay up because they are the 1/12 of 1 percent who can, easily pay up. This **** is not rocket science.... nor as you rightly say is it a big large part of the solution... so why be stubborn about it then? Grover is a complete unrealistic ego driven psycho with his no-tax increase contract... he's doing his nation a sever disservice, should be ashamed of himself. I personally think he didn't realise it would get so big... what he's doing and he prob lies awake at night thinking - 'fuk me I didn't mean to wreck everything ... can I just go back in time and try something else please?'

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

We have reached a point that households are receiving more income from the government than they are paying the government in taxes. How long do you think this trend can continue?

What percentage of households though? Again it can't be every house.

Also what percentage of these people are registered republicans? I'd guess a substantial amount!

The GOP want to cut spending on "the freeloaders" but not on anything else. Its not fiscal conservatism they are endorsing but rather selective discrimination.

joseph brand

Paleface wrote: »

What percentage of households though? Again it can't be every house.

Also what percentage of these people are registered republicans? I'd guess a substantial amount!

The GOP want to cut spending on "the freeloaders" but not on anything else. Its not fiscal conservatism they are endorsing but rather selective discrimination.

Jon Cohn notes the central irony of American politics. Because rich people are Republicans but rich states vote Democratic, Democratic policies transfer wealth from Democratic places to Republican ones:


How Blue America Subsidizes Red America

One is that high-income people living in low-income states are generally very conservative in their political ideology but probably benefit more from federal income support programs more than they realize. If you own fast food franchises in the Nashville area, for example, you're going to form a self-perception as a self-reliant businessman but the existence of Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit are helping to ensure that your customers have adequate income to sometimes eat at your Taco Bell. These chains of dependency snake even longer. If you sell luxury cars in Florida, many of your customers are probably medical professionals who are earning high incomes because other people have Medicare benefits. The aggregate geographic transfer patterns, in other words, do make a real difference to the economic life of the nation. The existence of transfer payments props up the entire local economies of low-income, low-productivity parts of the country.

You certainly didn't build that!

Mitt Romney says citizens who don't pay income tax will never vote for him. But eight of the top 10 states with the highest number of nonpayers are red states.



What am I missing here? Seriously. Are Rep voters just a mixture of misinformed poor craters, and the wealthy, hoping to keep more of their money? Personally, I think the GOP leaders are using religion as a lure.

Amerika

Be like Nutella wrote: »

No - normalizing taxes on the already wealthy in society is not going to slash the def or the debt by big huge chunks but 2-3% is 2 to 3 feckin percent and should be done. They can take it... they are RICH...

Well golly gee, I might just rush out and change my affiliation to Democrat, knowing they have their finger on the pulse of the biggest problem affecting the country... as they focused the majority of their campaign rhetoric on.

Capt'n Midnight

http://sluggerotoole.com/2012/11/08/us-election-braindump/

Classic example – the Indiana Senate race. Dick Lugar, a six term moderate GOP Senator, would have cruised to re-election with 70-odd percent of the vote in a state that Barack Obama didn’t even try to defend. He lost his primary to Tea Partier Richard Mourdock. His heresy in Tea Partiers’ eyes was to have a good personal relationship with the President from Obama’s time in the Senate. Mourdock’s lead over Democrat opponent Joe Donnelly was never that big to begin with, and then threw away the race with stupid and offensive comments about abortion and rape in the final weeks.
....
Moderates in the GOP are well aware that this is a problem. Even before the election, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (that well known hotbed of big city multi-ethnic liberalism) said, “if we lose this election there is only one explanation — demographics. If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn’t conservative enough I’m going to go nuts. We’re not losing 95 percent of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we’re not being hard-ass enough.”
...
While the old north-eastern tradition of liberal “gipsy moth” Republicans is pretty much dead, the party remains badly split between business-oriented fiscal conservatives, pragmatic social conservatives, Tea Partiers and the tattered remnants of the Goldwater/Reagan Western libertarian tradition. Three of those four factions can probably reach a pragmatic modus vivendi, but the fourth can’t. And, as noted above, the faction that can’t is the most powerful in the base. Expect fireworks.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

What percentage of households though? Again it can't be every house.

My comment was on Overall transfers of Income to Households compared to Taxes Paid by Households. Again, how long can this continue?

Amerika

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://sluggerotoole.com/2012/11/08/us-election-braindump/

So, are you for it or against it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mjollnir

Paleface wrote: »

What percentage of households though? Again it can't be every house.

Also what percentage of these people are registered republicans? I'd guess a substantial amount!

The GOP want to cut spending on "the freeloaders" but not on anything else. Its not fiscal conservatism they are endorsing but rather selective discrimination.

Indeed.

The big problem with that being that the loaded term 'freeloaders' represents a complete fallacy.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677

jman0war

As much as some Republicans try to portray the results in as favourable light as possible, this was an election they should have one.
An unpopular president and the ol mantra: It's the economy, stupid should have easily carried the day.

Plus they threw absolutely HUGE sums of money at this election.
The result -2.

If you spent that sort of money on a football team and got the same results, you'd be in deep, deep trouble.

Capt'n Midnight

Amerika wrote: »

So, are you for it or against it?

For or against what exactly ?


Will the party split ?

If they don't move back to the middle ground then they won't appeal to large chunks of the population. And I can't see them move back to the middle ground with dropping some anchors.

It's a first past the post system, that means if the party splits then the next election will be very nasty since both will be fighting for the same vote. That will only help Democrats. Perhaps as independents the Tea Party might gain something but only if they held the balance of power, and that's not likely after all the infighting.

Be like Nutella

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

'My short sighted proposal' hahaha awww I love it...

getting rid of / replacing CGT with a 'different investment return tax' which serves to balance or equalize the rate at which rich people pay personal tax and those 'below' them is all I'm talking about. If you want to assume that that would lower investment AND Job creation then fire away... that assumption is based on what? on the fact that you think that Romney's famous 'at least 13% tax paid each of last 10 years' is arbitrarily the 'enough' figure or the 'ideal' percentage? Get off your nobel prize winning economist high horse and lose the extremism. You think the percentage rate that rich epeople pay right now is the exact right percentage rate? that the gov does not need that extra money... and that these people can't afford to pay it? and scare tactics about job creation and lower investment doesn't make sense unless we're talking HUGE increases. Nothing HUGE is going to work to fix their problem. Long term problems need long term solutions. Europe's attempt to drastically cut stuff hasn't and won't work without a disproportionate amount of pain being felt by middle and low income earners. Making those who invest pay more tax on their returns is exactly the whole fuking point - and it won't drive investment out of America or stop job creation. The measures that need to be taken and WILL be taken by the US to cut the def and pay the debt will encompass absolutely everything to some degree or other... if not by direct tax then by some associated cut. Revenue is part of the solution and CGT is part of that. IF Mitt Romney has earned 10 million+ each year for decades and admitted to paying only 'at least 13%' in real terms... I think it worked out something like 14% when they went through the records... then that is just wrong. It allowed him to get RICHER than he would've by a degree... not create more jobs by that degree. It doesn't work like that. The rich have very simply paid a lesser tax rate than other people.. as simple as that. It has to change for reasons I already mentioned and this is agreed by many many economists right across the board. Increasing OR replacing OR getting rid of CGT WILL NOT stop investment or stop job creation. It will have some effect... especially in the early days... that's just how things work... so fukin what... doesn't mean you don't do it. It's like petty blackmail from a kid in a toy shop... I'll cry if you don't buy me that toy. Yeah they'll cry ... but then they'll stop and get over it. Like our corp tax crap... we whored ourselves out to get as much DFI as we could but it has to change even if it has an initial effect on investment.. and you don't do it BIG and NASTY like Europe has been doing.. you do it clever and gradual and you do it across the board WHILE spending some of that increased revenue on fixing the machine... the nuts and bolts of the economy ... the drivers... investing in people primarily to create value within your economy.

CGT is on the table and should be no matter how much extremist fear mongering goes on and no matter how big or small a slice of the solution overall pie it represents. Sickening to imagine arguing for cuts in some things that people genuinely need, paying for some weapons that people genuinely don't need and leaving CGT completely alone and not asking the top .1% to pay more feckin tax that they can easily... very very easily afford without it having an iota of a difference on their lifestyles.

"attacking people's job prospects"... my arse... don't put words in my mouth. I don't advise anything drastic or huge or anything that could risk so many peoples job prospects as to be stupid and counter productive.

On a separate but connected issue. Tax avoidance which is what Romney has been doing for years... provably... as has a million others in America on an incredibly grand scale is a MAJOR MAJOR problem in the US and any effort on the tax front that doesn't include a big attack on these 'avoiders' is a joke. The top rate is 35%... what you personally earn for yourself... i.e. salary and investment dividends should be taxed at that rate. That 'they' have managed to avoid doing that and in doing so changed the competitive nature of the investability in the NYSE or the US as a whole is a problem 'THEY' created. Fuk them... that money is not used to create jobs, it's used for their wealthy lifestyles and properties etc etc... I'm not talking about small business turnovers... that is not personal income and that is taxed at corp rate and is a whole other story. The personal wealth of a so called small business guy who employs 250 people and earns personally more than say 5 million dollars per year is what I'm talking about... he/she should be paying 35% of that 5 million end of story. If not, then he is a 'tax avoider'... if he funnels his money into investments in order to receive annual dividends at 14% tax rate CGT then he is a 'tax avoider'.

Close the avoider hole, find a way to tax rich people more money coz they're getting away with murder and it won't stop job creation. that is pure fear mongering blackmail.

Mjollnir

There desperately needs to be a split, with the Goldwaters on one (hopefully larger) side and the Falwellian and/or 'sovereign citizens on the others.

Just check out the comments on this site, and believe me it's not uncommon.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html

"Express your hatred, shame, and outright disgust with anyone you know who voted Democrat

However, for me, I'm choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

Mjollnir

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm afraid that fantasy doesn't do so well crashing up against reality.

The answer, historically, is a lot and, no, there is no firm data saying investment will be lower. Quite the contrary, in fact.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/crs-study-taxes-economic-growth.php

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

The Bishop!

Mjollnir wrote: »

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/crs-study-taxes-economic-growth.php

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

Here's the laughable Heritage Foundation 'rebuttal' of that report. Apparently the CRS is not actually non-partisan anymore. :rolleyes:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/17/congressional-research-service-wrongly-implies-lower-tax-rates-dont-strengthen-economy/?query=Congressional+Research+Service+Wrongly+Implies+Lower+Tax+Rates+Don%27t+Strengthen+Economy

southsiderosie

One of the better pop culture references I saw on Facebook that sums things up pretty well: "The GOP is a Mad Men party in the age of Modern Family".

Duck Soup

Even on this thread, you see the problem in action. Progressives/liberals/Democrats say "The Republican party needs to look at policies, outreach, use of inflammatory or alienating rhetoric..."

Republicans/conservatives say "Oh and what about Obama's taxes or spending or..."

It's like whistling past a graveyard. All you can do is shrug your shoulders and say fine, keep on keeping on and welcome to more and more years in the wilderness.

The conservative media is doing the same thing. O'Reilly came as near as he could to suggesting that the Republicans lost because ethnic minorities are growing in numbers and voting for free stuff.

There's no point in even arguing. In the last 4 years, House Republicans put forward an avalanche of bills aimed at restricting reproductive rights. They lost women voters by double digits and single women by 2 to 1.

They refuse paths to citizenship, the DREAM Act (originally a biprtisan bill) and talk about building a wall the length of the Mexican border. They lost African-Americans 93-7, Latinos 73-27 and Asian-Americans (the fastest growth ethnic group in America) 70-30.

The answer to the "Yeah but we still came close" argument is this. In 1988, George H. W. Bush got 60% of the white vote and won 426 Electoral College votes and a landslide victory. In 2012, Mitt Romney got 60% of the white vote, won 206 electoral college votes and got trounced.

You can only deny reality for so long before reality comes marching into the Electoral College every 4 years and kicks you squarely in the balls.

Mjollnir

Duck Soup wrote: »

The answer to the "Yeah but we still came close" argument is this. In 1988, George H. W. Bush got 60% of the white vote and won 426 Electoral College votes and a landslide victory. In 2012, Mitt Romney got 60% of the white vote, won 206 electoral college votes and got trounced.

You can only deny reality for so long before reality comes marching into the Electoral College every 4 years and kicks you squarely in the balls.

The above is the subtext for everything I've seen from RW pundits in the past 48 hours, but it's never actually spoken outright, like kids trying not to look too deeply into that deep, dark place in the closet after lights out.

Capt'n Midnight

Duck Soup wrote: »

The answer to the "Yeah but we still came close" argument is this. In 1988, George H. W. Bush got 60% of the white vote and won 426 Electoral College votes and a landslide victory. In 2012, Mitt Romney got 60% of the white vote, won 206 electoral college votes and got trounced.

Look at Florida. The democrat vote was mobilised in part by the Republican attitude. "If voting changed things they'd make it illegal" 23% of Black voters in that state can't vote !

And the results still aren't in in Florida.

Romney needed to win the key states. Yes he won one, but lost what should have been a safer one - so he didn't really get past the starting line. Obama won in places where you can't win without getting a good chunk of white working class votes.

Yes America contains many diverse regions but Obama could not have won with getting support from some people the GOP would be associated with.


If Hilary runs in 2016 she isn't going to scare away that many democrat voters. She might attract a lot of female voters. And let's not beat about the bush a lot of people would still prefer a white woman to a black man.
A lot of Americas blame Bush for current problems so the Clintons may have an edge there.

The Republicans have been running sneaky tricks for years like when they delayed the release of the hostages from Iran till Regan's inauguration. With a mentality like that I can't see those in power in the party stepping aside if there is any chance they can convince themselves that they were close.

I'd imagine part of the delay with Florida is to keep they myth of a close election. It's not front page news anymore.


I think those pulling the strings will put themselves first rather than the party. Why are they trying to be more conservative ? It's not like their true supporters are going to jump ship. And until they start loosing core support they can convince themselves that all is going well.

Once when the Roman legions were crossing the Alps, they came across a small mountain village. It was very primitive: the houses were made of mud and wattle; the inhabitants were poor; and to one accustomed to the civilization of Rome it must have seemed very wretched.

The Roman army halted for a while and one of the officers approached the commander, Julius Caesar. "Caesar," he said, "see what a miserable village that is. And yet there is without doubt some man who is proud to be its chief."

Caesar replied: "I would rather be the chief of these mountain people than the second man in Rome."

Capt'n Midnight

so more entrenchment on the way
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/06/politics/house-races/index.html

Two years ago, the anti-tax tea party movement helped Republicans seize control of the House. This election, House Republican candidates were still stressing the core issues that the tea party movement pushed in 2010 -- less government and a focus on cutting federal spending and the deficit.
...
With the bulk of this cycle's competitive races concentrated in districts represented by more moderate members of each party, the outcome of this election could mean an even more polarized House in 2013.

A recent study by the Cook Political Report found that the number of swing districts in the nation dropped from 164 to 99 over the last 14 years. That decline has widened the ideological divide between the two parties.

"There's a remarkable reduction in the number of members who have an incentive to compromise," said David Wasserman, who analyzes House races for Cook.

Duck Soup

Oh and fact check on the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. After the 2010 tea party surge, Republicans in many states held the upper hand in bodies charged with drawing up the re-districting boundaries. As a result, more often than not the re-districting was favourable to Republicans.

In totality, Democrats actually got more votes than Republicans in congressional district races in 2012.

The other detail to note is that the expected drop-off in ethnic minority voting anticipated by Republican strategists never happened. The black vote came out in the same numbers as in 2008 and Latino voters were significantly up.

The tide's going in only one direction and the Republicans are swimming against it.

Tigerbaby

some fascinating articles in this thread. Thank you.
Is it a likelihood that the USA will fragment even more after this election?

Its a trend I've been noticing for a while. What has become of the idea of uniting behind the President? I'm not blaming GOP people BTW. I think Obama has cleverly targeted his demographic, not matter how diverse it is. And this demographic will only grow more powerful.

But at what cost to the actual Union?

Have just finished the Archdruid's series http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.ie/2012/10/how-it-could-happen-part-one-hubris.html
on the possible breakup of the Union. Very interesting reading.
Could this secession movement that he describes become a reality?

thank you.

Duck Soup

Interesting talk on Chuck Todd's show on MSNBC at the moment.

They started off by saying that (a) the Republican leadership doesn't know how to deal with the Republican base and (b) that results in not just hard-right candidates emerging victorious in party primaries but it also pushes moderate Republicans to adopt hard right positions that make them toxic at the ballot box.

One of the political journalists being interviewed said he'd already had conversations with 'Republican operatives' about the party sitting down to figure out a solution.

People are also expressing surprise that Sean Hannity on his radio show yesterday said that his views on immigration are 'evolving' around paths to citizenship.

Looks like there's nothing like a good electoral beeyotch-slapping to concentrate the mind and shift positions. Evolve or die.

Lirange

Manic Moran wrote: »

No issues with points 1, 2, 3 or 5. 4, I think is naive to hope for and I don't agree with all of it anyway.

I'm reading the post-mortem on the only truly conservative site I'm on (a firearms board), the analysis is about 50-50 on double-down vs "for the love of God, stop alienating moderates/independents."

The Republican party really does need a split.

What do you think of this from Dreher?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20257611

jank

vetinari wrote: »

j. This level of income inequality is a bad thing.
You would have a more robust economy with less income equality.

Can you define 'bad'. Is it bad because it hurts your sense of altruism or is it bad in as in it shouldn't be allowed?

jank

Paleface wrote: »

This typifies the GOP attitude towards the very people that they should be trying to appeal to.....


......Stop tarring them all with the one brush!

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Esel

Mjollnir wrote: »

Just check out the comments on this site, and believe me it's not uncommon. http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html

Wow. That guy Eric should have just done what he said he was going to do - STFU for a while.

This post (to/about him) struck me though:

Unknown said...

I have republican friends, I have democrat friends, we engage in friendly debate on issues that affect us, we don't let it get personal, because by and large, most Americans agree on 95% of issues.

Once you let it get personal, you might as well put extra locks on your doors, get a shotgun, and start collecting newspapers, cause you're done. The next step is lamp shades made out of human skin. This guy is obviously on the road to being a complete lunatic. I feel sorry for him.

Ozymandius2011

southsiderosie wrote: »

I may have egg on my face tomorrow for starting this now but...

I have to wonder if the GOP isn't going to purge itself of its far-right extremists after this election cycle. They have essentially cost the GOP the senate - Indiana and Missouri should have been relatively easy pick-ups if the nominees had not been such social extremists. And it is hard to see how the national party didn't drag Scott Brown with it.

Will the party shift more to the center? Or will the 'not conservative enough' brigade win out? Unless more Republicans are willing to give the two fingers to pundits and Grover Norquist, I can't see that happening, but if they are smart, the Jeb Bush/Chris Christie wing of the party will take over after this election cycle.

I think Jeb Bush's surname and more importantly the memory of his role in the rigged election in Florida in 2000 could make him a controversial candidate. He may have been popular with Hispanics, but he appointed Katherine Harris Secretary of State there and will therefore forever be associated with disenfranchisement of African Americans and Hispanics nationally.

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

Can you define 'bad'. Is it bad because it hurts your sense of altruism or is it bad in as in it shouldn't be allowed?

Well it depends on whose perspective you are looking at things from and what your overall goal is when looking at such issues.

For me, income inequality is bad for society as well as being morally unjustifiable.

I believe that everyone should have an equal chance at success in life. Yet in the majority of the world this is just not the case. In large part your opportunities to succeed are determined by one factor alone, the place of your birth, i.e. the family you are born into. There are generations of people who struggle all their lives and never get anywhere because the odds are stacked so badly against them. This also leads to grave exploitation of people by those in positions of wealth and power, which is also something that I find deeply repugnant. Modern economic slavery to me is no different to the kind of indenture that has been abolished in most of the world now, at least officially and legally.

That's the moral argument.

The world has limited resources. And try as I might I fail to see how it benefits society in anyway that these resources are increasingly congested into the hands of a very small percentage of the world's population. Income inequality leads to mass suffering and destabalisation.

The only advantage of income inequality is in the gluttony it affords the very small number of very wealthy people at the top. I don't see how that is desirable unless you happen to be one of those people. And even then, I don't think it is desirable.

I can understand modest differences and I'm not saying that we should live in a communist society, but the kind of extreme capitalism we have right now is equally indefensible.

Gbear

Memnoch wrote: »

Well it depends on whose perspective you are looking at things from and what your overall goal is when looking at such issues.

For me, income inequality is bad for society as well as being morally unjustifiable.

I believe that everyone should have an equal chance at success in life.

Income inequality is a symptom. The cause is a lack of social mobility.

There's nothing wrong with income inequality in a meritocracy. The lack of a meritocracy - or "The American Dream" - is the problem.

Capt'n Midnight

Memnoch wrote: »

The only advantage of income inequality is in the gluttony it affords the very small number of very wealthy people at the top. I don't see how that is desirable unless you happen to be one of those people. And even then, I don't think it is desirable.

I can understand modest differences and I'm not saying that we should live in a communist society, but the kind of extreme capitalism we have right now is equally indefensible.

At one point Bill Gates had accumulated as much wealth as the bottom 40% of US citizens.

Excluding Florida, the number of votes for Obama AND Romney is only 38.5% of the population.
(58488199 + 61681462) /311591917


"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."
Hélder Câmara

In the US socialism is a bad word, even though it creates social stability.
A lot of the Obamacare money ends up in the pockets of middle class healthcare workers and professionals. Even if you claim it's bread and circuses it's still gotta be better than living in fear of your neighbours.

Gbear

Memnoch wrote: »

Well it depends on whose perspective you are looking at things from and what your overall goal is when looking at such issues.

For me, income inequality is bad for society as well as being morally unjustifiable.

I believe that everyone should have an equal chance at success in life.

Income inequality is a symptom. The cause is a lack of social mobility.

There's nothing wrong with income inequality in a meritocracy. The lack of a meritocracy - or "The American Dream" - is the problem.

Slightly pedantic but an important distinction.
You won't get much traction with a lot of people if you sound like you're advocating wealth redistribution.
If you're arguing that you really believe in a meritocracy (which is what the Republicans seem to think they're advocating) but that the system is broken you'll make more headway.

Capt'n Midnight

Gbear wrote: »

Slightly pedantic but an important distinction.
You won't get much traction with a lot of people if you sound like you're advocating wealth redistribution.

It's only a wealth distribution problem in the sense that the flow of wealth is from the have nots to the haves.

If you could change the system such that all levels of society could accumulate wealth then it wouldn't really be an issue.

At present the very rich have seen their incomes continue to increase while the vast majority don't see better times in the foreseeable future than they have experienced in the past.

There is a saying that a rising tide raises all boats. And while it does there aren't as many social problems because everyone is a stakeholder and everyone can expect that while they may not benefit as much as others their life will get better.