Derwood

We're just over 18 months from the next presidential election, and it's very interesting to watch how the GOP is shifting to set itself up for the election season.

In 2010, the Republicans actively courted/catered to the fringe. The Tea Party's anger was a huge asset in gaining seats in the midterm elections, and selling themselves as the "party of jobs" was easy when unemployment was peaking.

But now the fringe is more of a detriment than an asset. Many more people come to vote in the presidential elections, so the GOP has to re-market itself to the moderates/independent voters. We can already see the shift:

- Sarah Palin has been kept out of the news cycle
- Glen Beck taken off the air
- An unelectable celebrity (Trump) falls on the birther sword so the talking heads can decry the birth certificate issue.
- Michelle Bachman says the GOP should back off on killing Planned Parenthood.
- Ann Coulter starts toeing the party line, backing Romney.

None of these things happened by chance. We know that Karl Rove controls the narrative for the Republicans, and nothing happens by chance. I wouldn't be surprised if/when Scott Walker suddenly backs off on the labor issue.

The one thing that doesn't fit right now is the Paul Ryan budget plan. I saw an NBC poll that showed that the most supported "solution" to closing the deficit was taxing millionaires, while the least supported solution was vouchers for Medicare. Ryan's budget proposes the opposite.


So, does anyone else feel this shift going on? Are there other signs that the narrative is moving more to the center?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

aceventura3

There has always been factions in the Republican Party (just as there are factions in the Democratic Party). The most extreme factions in the party don't control the agenda.

In 2008 McCain was the party nominee, he was a moderate and proved that he was willing to compromise and work with Democrats as a result McCain did not have the support of those who are most conservative in the party. Romney is going to have the same problem, his only hope is that if he can get the nomination, he is just as plastic as Obama is and they can split the votes of the superficial and may actually beat Obama. In a Romney/Obama race neither will have highly motivated bases. Obama needs someone who he can paint as extreme, he can't do that with Romney.

I doubt Trump will even run - does anyone think he is willing to release his tax returns? That will be a bigger thing to Trump than releasing his birth certificate or his school records is to Obama.

I stated many times that I doubt Palin will run.

Bachman may run but will not be a serious contender.

Beck has always been immaterial. His rise was directly related to the frequency of the attacks he got from the liberal media. He simply ran out of shock value material.

The Tea Party will be a big factor in 2012 unless there are some serious steps taken to reduce the deficit in the next few months. The Tea Party is truly concerned about taxation, debt and spending. If those issues go away, the Tea Party goes away.

Based on what we know now I would say Pawlenty is the man to beat for the Republican Party nomination and he could beat Obama.

I still want to see "Hil-Rod" go against Obama. If she had played up her Hil-Rod persona more, I would have crossed over and voted for her in the 2008 primary. I didn't even hear about the Hil-rod thing until this week, talk about a missed opportunity.


Hil-Rod currently seems tired, I doubt she will run, but i hope she does. The primaries would be much more interesting if she does. Otherwise it will be a snooze fest on both sides.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Derwood

The Tea Party will only be a factor if the Koch Brothers continue to find them useful in pushing their pro-wealthy, low tax agenda.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

YaWhateva

I hope the Tea Party plays a big role in this election because it will all but assure the win for Obama. An independent or some other third party will run (that idiot Trump said recently he would run as a third party candidate or maybe Ron Paul). This will steal votes from the Republican nominee because these birthers and faux-libertarians will flock to the third party candidate.

__________________
“If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.” - Bill O'Reilly

"This is my United States of Whateva!"

Derwood

I guarantee that if they tried, the GOP would absolutely bury them. Swift Boating and black babies will look like nothing compared to what they'd do. I'm sure they learned their lesson from the Perot debacle.

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------

This is stolen from another message board, but illustrates why I think the GOP needs to get their collective shit together. Congress is overplaying their hand right now and are not helping:

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

aceventura3

The Koch brothers don't need the Tea Party nor does the Tea Party need the Koch brothers. The pro wealthy, low tax agenda is good for America. The goal is to make more and more people wealthy, or improve the standard of living in this country. The life style of those dependent on government is not desirable, however, those who work, save, invest create wealth live pretty good and want that for future generations.

What is your message to young people? Work, save, invest to become wealthy? Or, work, pay taxes, depend on government, to live under the control of the folks in Washington?

Again, there is nothing wrong with a social safety net, but is government best positioned to create better living standards in this country? I say, no - Tea Party says, no. Koch brothers say, no. More and more are standing up and saying, no.

---------- Post added at 08:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 PM ----------

I think Obama needs issues like the "birther" thing in order to divert attention from all of his failures. I think the media will play into that need by requiring every candidate against Obama to waste air time addressing the issue at every possible opportunity.

Isn't it sad that a sitting President can not effectively run on his record? Isn't it sad that Obama needs extremists to get his base motivated? Isn't it sad that Democrats are running around saying that Republicans want starve the elderly, deny medical treatment to women, and not educate children? Does anyone really believe all that? The truth is that there are better ways to address some of our problems than throwing money at broken systems.

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 PM ----------

Here is a thought, what if there is an anti-war movement the runs a credible third party campaign and is positioned to take votes from Obama? How do you think Obama and his party would respond? Look what he did to Hil-Rod and Bill, I never knew they were racists until Obama. Or, look at what Obama did in Chicago. Behind that big Obama smile is a guy who will figuratively stab you in the back if needed - and keep on smiling

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Seaver

If the Republicans continue on their current track they'll get demolished in 2012. That's being a man who's voted Republican his entire life until the '10 elections and refuses to so so again until they gain control of the crazies again.

They saw the victories they got in the off cycle elections and got a huge head that America isn't behind them. What they don't realize (or pretend they don't) is so few people in America votes in off-cycle elections, and only the crazy-right were motivated enough to in such bad economic conditions.

Now they believe (or pretend to go along with believing) they actually stand a chance... which they don't. Again I'd like to reiterate I've voted Republican pretty much my whole life and live in a VERY red state... it's not like I'm surrounded by liberal group-think.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

roachboy

personally, i think the right has overplayed it's hand.

through the actions in wisconsin and the absurd theater of the ryan budget, the attacks on npr and planned parenthood in the name of fiscal responsibility while cutting not a single military procurement line---raising pentagon outlays on the books by 5 billion no less----it's obvious what interests the republicans are playing to. and they aren't those of most people.

they played an identity politics game in the aftermath of the bush disaster in the hopes that they could mobilize themselves differently enough to distance themselves from the consequences of the previous 8 years of republican rule---consequences which were a disaster. a series of disasters. gifts that keep on giving.

and to distance themselves from themselves and make themselves into a far-right version of themselves---which was functional-seeming because it was other-seeming---seems to have gotten a bit out of hand.

the lurch toward neo-fascism exploited the angst created by the meltdown of the real estate and related financial bubbles that their own neo-liberal fantasies about self-regulating markets and nice financiers set into motion, presided over and enabled.

they produced a classic astroturf movement with the tea party only to find themselves saddled with some of them in the house.

the tea party has become the public face of ultra-right idiocy outside the narrow purview of the tea party itself.


i think the ultra-right version of the republican party is in real danger of alienating moderates, who are find themselves confronted with incoherent neo-fascists to their right and no particular reason not to support obama because politically he's one of them.

i have the sense that even the hard-right operatives on the order of the koch brothers and norquist and rove sense it. they seem to like power more than purity in the main.

so now it's time to begin throwing the whack jobs under the bus.


what'll be interesting is to watch how the right tries to change it's language. continuing to make claims to represent "real americans" isn't going to fly so well now that everyone knows who these "real americans" are---and they aren't your average joe on the street. never were. but the language worked for some folk. i think the right media apparatus has damaged its own language games by trying to stretch them across these various mobilization changes.

we'll see if anyone believes the hype.

i don't have a particular view about the presidential field. i think romney is the most serious rumored candidate. but he can't appeal to the far right.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Derwood

Not when it's at the expensive of the middle class and/or the national debt/deficit.

The goal should be to grow and support the middle class. Any top-heavy society will crumble.

These are good goals, but not achievable when those who were born into wealth use their corporate ties to control Congress. If you think the current 1% of super-rich want more people to join their group you're naive.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Baraka_Guru

Ah, yes, a rising tide lifts all boats....well....except those whose captains can't afford to repair the holes. But that's fine, these people will keep working for the benefit those who can.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

Who and how can "crazies" be controlled?

My belief is that the liberal media gives disproportionate coverage of people on the extreme or they over emphasize one or two more unconventional issues or points of view held by otherwise normal people. For example Gingrich will constantly be reminded of his divorces and affairs - but what does that have to do with anything of importance? I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, who does now days? so, why does the media play these issues up?

---------- Post added at 12:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 AM ----------

The reason there is a middle class is because of the select few in history and currently who can take a concept and turn it into the production of real wealth. Government can not do that.

On a side note, the problem we have is that more and more of the people referenced above are not putting their brain power into the production of real goods and services but are creating wealth through what some consider speculation. For example, wealth can be created through growing a commodity like corn more efficiently than others or a person can create personal wealth simply by buying and sell corn futures. More and more brain power is being used in derivative markets - we need these human resource making real goods or providing real services. The people in DC don't understand why the above is happening and the impact it is having on the middle class.

I agree. The question is - how? I bet we disagree on that.


What was Henry Ford's response to your point?
How many millionaires did bill Gates, Microsoft, create?
What about Buffet, a lot of people got rich on his train.
What about the employees of any big profitable corporation using skilled labor, those folks generally retire in a nice situation?

I have interacted with people in the top 1% who got there based on their work, their focus is not what most people expect. If you are talking about "old money", I agree with you.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Seaver

The media leaned left 15 years ago. After getting demolished by Fox News they have all shifted to center-right except for MSNBS... which no one watches anyways. Currently the news channels are so concerned with showing balance they don't call politicians out on their BS.

Ryan's proposed balanced budget relies on calculating 7% GDP growth with 2% inflation. Any economist or historian can show how that's never happened in HISTORY, yet you'll be damned to hear a single reporter give that simple fact. If there was any bit of liberal-media truth everyone would know it rote.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Derwood

It also proposes lowering the highest marginal tax rate to 25%, which would add another trillion dollars to the debt

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Willravel

The right went nuts in 2008, pulling out the big guns of crazy, and it pulled Obama like 48 miles right. What does the right do now? They can simply be unabashed corporatists now.

"We're going to go ahead and cut Medicare and social security, weakening them so the case for privatizing them will appear stronger and stronger. I'm sure you're really going to have fun when your social security is stolen in a Ponzi scheme by a hedge fund billionaire and your Medicare voucher ends up covering approximately 2% of your medical costs. Enjoy having to trust multinational conglomerates when it comes to ensuring food, water, and drugs are safe, you know, because they have such an amazing track record. By the way, we farmed out listening in on your phone calls, emails, text messages, and web surfing to private corporations that are now selling your most personal information to who knows who! Boy, that Obama sure is a socialist..."

Same shit, different election.

aceventura3

I generally agree that the media will not cover the meat of Ryan's proposal, but will instead emphasis the false notion that the proposal will end medicare and babies will die as a direct result of the proposal if enacted.

I personally see some good things and some problems with Ryan's proposal, I assume many conservatives do as well. I think it is a start.

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

Tax dollars actually collected by the government generally do not go down as a result of lowering top tax rates. Often people start to pay taxes that could be legitimately avoided. Does your calculations take that into consideration? The best thing for reducing the debt is for the economy to show strong growth. Taxation restricts economic growth.

---------- Post added at 03:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:24 PM ----------

Why do you think a company like GE gives more money to Democrats than Republicans? Why is the CEO of GE putting so much effort into getting into the good graces of Obama?

Realize there is a real but perhaps subtle difference between people like me and true "corpratists" as you say - I think big Fortune 500 type companies have an unfair advatage against small and medium size business. Government and "corporatists" collude, in my view, to restrict competition. I want an even playing field. A small business does not have the same opportunity to avoid taxes as GE. The tax code is too complicated - lower the rate (or give us a flat rate) and get rid of all the loop-holes that only benefit a select few. That is what I fight for, and I fight against big corporations and big government. I think most Tea Party people are the same.

Obama is more a "corporatist" than I am. Look at his actions with GM, banks, health care insurers. All big winners under Obama. Big losers so far - small businesses.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

I think the GOP should indeed shift strategies and realize that it's by reinforcing the strengths of a mixed economy that ensures stability. You can talk all you want about taxation and economic growth, but the fact of the matter remains that stability arises with balanced policies that ensure stability among all income levels.

There is no silver bullet to fix the economy. Lowering taxes won't in itself fix it. An economy with a fair and competitive tax system whose government enacts policies to take the economic strain off of the greatest number of people is one that should ensure prosperity. These policies include welfare, health care, pensions, balanced regulation of industries, legislation to prevent exploitation, etc.

On top of that, of course, you need a government who always has reducing the deficit as an ideal—when it makes sense. Near economic collapse isn't a time to think about reducing deficits. An ensured period of recovery, yes. Maybe it's time to think about it.

But answer me this: why is it that the only political parties in North America who have posted not just deficit reductions but surpluses in recent history have been liberal?

I think anybody who automatically thinks that liberal policies and governance are incapable of fiscal responsibility need only look at the economic history of the latter part of the 20th century, and especially the turn of the millennium.

So, yeah, the GOP needs to rethink their party and actually return to their own brand of fiscal responsibility, while still realizing the realities and advantages of mixed economies.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

pan6467

The GOP seems to not be able to stop committing political suicide.

When it came out GE paid no taxes, where were they? Telling the nation the huge corporations still need tax cuts

In Ohio, Kasich who because of his Wall Street past was labelled during the election as a pension buster, is proving that name right. Then to be taped calling a highway patrol officer an "idiot".... but Strickland was horrendous also.

In Fla. the GOP gov. cuts 170 million to disabled while cutting corporate taxes 4 BILLION. Somehow, that doesn't add up to helping the budgets.

I think Beck is just the first to fall. Listened to him oin the radio maybe a week ago crying about how he doesn't hate Jews and is not anti semitic, in fact he has some very close personal Jewish friends that appear on his show. I don't know what that was about but it smelled of what Limbaugh did right before he went into rehab in '04, when he broke down on the air. Beck was nothing more than a tool anyway. He used his religious views and played the recovering addict to much and to his own detriment.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

aceventura3

I agree. Our government plays favorites. I want government that gets out of the way and is neutral.

Again, I agree. There is a "but", we see the problem from different perspectives.

For example when I started my business, I worked hard saved my money - I paid taxes on the money before saving it. I paid taxes on the interest the money earned. I started my business, putting everything I owned at risk. I paid taxes and fees to form my business. I paid taxes on equipment and supplies. I paid payroll taxes. I met all the regulatory requirements. The first year I made less than minimum wage, I got no help or guarantee of a livable wage from government. Employees made more money than I did from my business, I fired one for cause and she got unemployment and made more than I did! My unemployment tax rate went up although she did not qualify for unemployment. I paid for my own health insurance, no government help. I worked day and night. Fast forward a few years, and before I can reestablish my savings, between the federal government and the state of California they take about half of every dollar in profit i make. Then fast forward another few years and business gets bad due to the recession (a recession I argue made worse by government). I have reestablished my savings, but now I am losing money - and I have to go into my savings again. I am virtually back to zero.

I hope the future gets better, but think about it - I will be taxed 3 times on the savings if I can get back to where I was. I think I would have been better off not starting my business! Who wins if I had made that choice? Not the employees I had. Not the people who sold me supplies and equipment. Not the people who leased me office space. Not the government. Etc. Etc.

And people wonder why people like me feel over-taxed and abused. I say enough already.


I disagree here. Simply, government should stop interfering, stop playing favorites, stop the attempts to pick winners and losers. Simplify the system, even the playing field. If that happened you would see an explosion of innovation and economic growth.

If you can't tell, I am very bitter and I will work pretty hard for candidates who see things from my point of view. If Republicans do that, and it is perceived as a change, then change is good. People can call us names and mock us, etc, but one thing to note is that we are highly motivated.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Two Republicans recently gave critiques of two sides of the current Republican strategy.

David Stockman, Reagan's OMB Director and architect of the trickle down, supply side economic policy that he has since admitted was a failure, on the current Republican deficit reduction plan:
The plan provides for no revenue (tax increases) and in fact, reduces revenue by $billions, dismantles Medicare for a more expensive private voucher plan, and does nothing to take a dent out of the bloated defense budget.

On the social policy side, I applaud what former Republican Senator Alan Simpson said recently:
Not just homophobic and anti-women, but Islamophobic, anti-worker......

On both the economic policy side and the social policy side, the Republican strategy is a loser.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

On one hand you cite two prominent Republicans who are in opposition to the "Republican strategy" and on the other there is the assumption that there is an established "Republican strategy" with a consensus of agreement. the Ryan plan has not met with universal Republican agreement. There was not even universal agreement on the Boehner compromise with the Senate and Obama:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us...5congress.html

I doubt there will be a "Republican strategy" until there is a Republican Presidential nominee. Until then the party will be splintered on any specific strategy. Democrats and independents should be giving Boehner as much support and encouragement as possible. What he accomplished may not ever be appreciated. What is sad is that there is this reflex on the left to want to label everyone as extreme in the Republican Party when it is clearly not the case.

{added} Just for added clarification: If the left wants more compromise, they should give positive feedback to those like Boehner who is willing to compromise. If Boehner is considered as just another one of the "crazies", us crazy folk may as well go for it all next time. Ryan has always been considered more extreme than those like Boehner have been comfortable with.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

Because if you've already taken over one party in a two-party system, it follows that you would attempt to also take over the second. Many Democrats are just as corporatist as the Republicans, but the Democrats simply haven't been taken over as much. The GOP works essentially as one to support corporate power (with like one or two exceptions), but the Democrats go back and fourth on it.
A flat tax favors the rich, which includes big corporations. We need to plug loopholes in the tax code so that businesses simply pay what's owed. GE never should have had the opportunity to pay less taxes, let alone pay none. The problem is that these huge companies pay some of the money they would have paid in taxes on lobbyists, campaigns, and bribes. These should all be either illegal or tightly regulated to prevent corporate oligarchy, which I'm sad to say is where we're headed. Corporations essentially bribe politicians to give them more subsidies and less taxes, then turn around and squash competition, carving out a permanent seat of power in the market.
I'm assuming you would have allowed GM to fail, which I agree with, but what would you have done with the financial institutions and health care insurers?

aceventura3

I think you underestimate big corporate influence with Democrats. For example think back to the BP oil spill and Mary Landrieu, Senator from Louisiana. She became (or always was) a big advocate for big oil going against the party line. They know who butters their bread - in both parties. However, the Tea Party arose as a protest against business as usual in Washington. I suggest you get more involved, you may be surprised that you have a lot in common with Tea Party folks.

A flat tax can be structured in many ways - but what it does is evens the playing field. GE can pay zero federal corporate income tax with an army of lawyers and accountants, it is the small business person who pays the top rate, including self-employment taxes. Again, I suggest getting out of the theory and actually find-out how small business owners are treated in our tax code.

Weak financial institution will fail, the strong will go on. Bailingout those who made bad decisions, encourages more and more bad decisions. There has to be a consequence for failure.

Health care gets the benefit of raising rates in anticipation of Obama-care and they are protected against inter-state competition. I simply say open the market, make it fair for the consumer. Or go all the way with a single payer system. Obama-care is a mess of a compromise. It solved nothing. However health-care insurers are able to raise rates and will get more people to insure without competition. In some states the average person may only have one or two choices for coverage - it is a joke.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace, knowing how you feel about compromise, doesnt that make Boehner weak and having no values?

---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

I have never seen ANY flat tax proposal that does not rely on fuzzy math and is not regressive.

If you know of one, post it, please.

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

The House voted on Ryan's budget resolution today. The vote was 235-193.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...want-more-cuts

Four republicans voted against it. If 235 out of 239 is not consensus among the Republicans, I dont what is.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Seaver

Um... Joe Barton (R) publicly apologized to BP during the meetings. There's supporting and then there's dick-sucking.

Name 1 international car company that's never had a bailout.

Go on...

Nope. Every single one you can think of has already received one.

BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, et al. They all have, and they all have restructured and come back stronger.

I was opposed to it on theory as well until I looked up the history of big car manufacturing bailouts. I just hope GM restructures properly (though admittedly it's not looking well as their lineup continues to blow).

I was at best apathetic about the Healthcare Reform, and closer to opposition.... until I lost my job and was unemployed for 13months. Suddenly it's a different story when you realize if you come down with cancer not only do you immediately go bankrupt, but you'll never get insurance again for the rest of your life (everything will be "pre-existing"). However I do feel the way you do... jump in all the way or get off the board. This compromise was the worst of both worlds, literally written by the insurance groups.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Willravel

It's relative, Ace. I don't deny there's substantial corporate influence in the Democratic party, far, far, far more than I can stomach. I'm saying it's not complete. The GOP, without fail, always acts in the interest of the rich and powerful. As does the Tea Party, regardless of what you've been told. What, you think lowering taxes is anti-corporate? And when is the last time you were at a Tea Party rally where they talked about tackling loopholes in the tax code or completely ending subsidies to big oil? I've been to 5 Tea Party protests now (and I have pictures to prove it), and their message is clear: lower the already low taxes, don't raise taxes on the rich, end Social Security and Medicare, and some of the most vague language in existence about lowering the deficit. And then there's the social stuff no one wants to admit, like gay marriage, abortion, and such.
First off, we already have regressive taxes in the system in the form of sales taxes and payroll taxes. The progressive tax system not only offsets the regressive taxes, but it also serves to balance out inherent inequalities of capitalism.

And as a small business owner, I could afford to pay a bit more.
You would have let America's core financial institutions fail? While I understand why this is in principle, are you aware of the consequences?
The market is as open as it wants to be already. You assume that somehow if the 'government' were to take a step back, healthcare providers would simply cover people with preexisting conditions or wouldn't suddenly drop insurance for people who suddenly get sick or injured. History would prove you wrong in that. As someone who was born with a cardiovascular defect, I have to say the private system is, to use your words, a joke.

WhoaitsZ

I think the neocons elected have shown that they don't give a flying fuck about anybody who is not rich. Then again Americans tend to be insanely retarded and rather vote on a feeling and sound byte instead of research or voting records.


I have to log now but have to comment on one thing. The Koch brothers were fine w/o the Tea Party.. With the TP tthe Koch's have gained immense power not so easily obtained prior. Ace, I have agreed with you like one time out of 87378984673 examples but I have a hard time believing that you believe the TP and Kochs are good w/o each other.

Kochs fund TP. TP has a false patriotism and demands lower taxes on Koch. Seriously this is the 2 + 2 = 4 question of politics. To not see how this works makes my head explode.

aceventura3

I think Boehner was acting according to his primary goal, which was to avoid a government shut-down. As speaker, I am not sure where he is willing to draw the line, or even if he is willing to. I am willing to give him more time before coming to a conclusion about being weak and too eager to compromise. I think from a long-term strategy point of view the real battle is coming.

Does that mean that it is not possible to construct a flat tax system in a manner that is fair? A consumption tax does not have to be regressive if reasonable deductions are allowed for basic goods and services like housing/food/medical. Perhaps if we put a flat tax on yachts, there won't be as much controversy regarding where rich politicians dock them - I am sure you get the connection.

I will construct one myself. When I do, it will form the basis of my political career. I am going to wait and see how the next two years go. When I do go public I will let the world know that I was the proud participant on TFP AKA - AceVentura. You may want to start an archive, my posts may be of value one day.

You know the Washington D.C. mindset better than I do, you also understand the inside "horse trading" that goes on better than I do as well.

An honest question - Is it possible that many who voted for the Ryan plan are actually against it? If so, why might that be true? I guess that was two questions, but you know what I am interested in. I might not have the stomach for Washington D.C. style politics.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

I am not sure of the point you try to make, but my point is that the system is so rigged that a car company can not compete without favorable treatment from government. The playing field is not fair. Start-ups have no chance unless they can get someone's blessing in D.C. or some other government. Innovation slows under these conditions. That is not good. Prices go up, due to the lack of real competition. That is not good.

FYI, do a search on Telsa Motors - there is a series of posts on Telsa Motors somewhere on TFP - I originally spelled the name incorrectly, "Tulsa".

At whose expense? There is another side to the equation.

GM is going to make cars the government wants as its primary objective. That is to bad for the consumer.

First, Obama-care has currently done nothing to help your situation and possibly made it worse. A true single payer system would be better. a true free market system would be better. For a person who lost their job, what is the COBRA premium and who can afford them? Under a true competitive market a person could buy a policy at a fair price when a young adult, and hold on to that policy for life regardless of their job or what state they live in.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

silent_jay

Better than before when they made cars no one wanted, let's see, same car, done for two different 'divisions' (Chevy/Pontiac), different plastic, different badge, same piece of shit underneath, now that was too bad for the consumers.

As for Tesla, you keep bringing them up like they're one of the big name manufacturers of the world, when in reality, they aren't, they make a very specific car for a specific type of person.

aceventura3

it is not "what I am told", I do my own homework, I see with my own eyes, I have my own experiences. Often what Democrats say is good for people, really is not. What is fair is an even playing field - give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed.

Lowering taxes is pro-growth. Growth benefits everyone.

You are in California, right? What is the deal with Ca. politicians going to Texas to try to understand how Texas grew jobs while Ca. lost over 1 million jobs? They don't need a special trip, they could just ask the employers who left the state! We have been through this many times, the answers won't change.

I have never heard anything specific. But, I think Palin could craft an energy policy that is reasonable and fair to the consumer. In Alaska she went up against big oil interests for the people in her state and won.

I agree that some of the people giving speeches get carried away with over the top rhetoric. It is far more interesting to talk to regular people at these events or go to small group meetings.

Do it. I am sure you have the address to the US Treasury Dept. There is a movement of "rich" people who say they should pay more - I don't get it. if they want to pay more, send a check. If they want to do more - donate to charity. Why do they (you) need Washington for that?

Businesses fail all the time. Consolidations occur all the time. It is the nature of competitive markets. Just like the process of evolution, the consequences are good, we end up with better and stronger companies.

Also, it is in you "system" do you end up with companies making excessive profits. In a truly competitive market excessive profits get eliminated by new entrants putting pressure on prices.

Life insurance is pretty competitive, and anyone wanting a policy can buy one. Also, I I buy a policy on a child, that policy can be maintained for life regardless of medical condition. Also, a policy could be purchased that allows for face value increases. The premiums would be relatively small.
But, I will say one more time - give us one extreme or the other. Single payer all the way, or free market. I have a preference, but I could live with either and be happy with it. So, your points fall flat with me on this issue because I am more liberal than most liberals or I am more conservative than most conservatives - I don't get lost in the details of this compromises pluses and minuses or that compromises pluses and minuses.

---------- Post added at 09:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 PM ----------

BMW is growing and is optimistic.

BMW Expects `Significant' First-Half Sales Increase, Led by Chinese Growth - Bloomberg

Why do you think that is?

The point is - why not give Telsa billions in subsidies rather than GM? Why does the government get to pick? Again, workers can work for Telsa just like they work for GM, etc., so why is a subsidy going to GM more effective than a subsidy would be going to Telsa or any other car company. My preference is - don't give any of them subsidies, let them compete on an even playing field.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

silent_jay

That has what to do with the cars GM makes? Remember ace, you said:
So if you're comparing BMW to GM, I suggest you don't go down the automobile route, because they are nothing alike at all, or if this mentioning BMW is another ace smoke-screen for something else, well.......

I know BMW is growing, why is that ace? They make a quality car unlike GM who made/makes shit on wheels, not hard to grow and be optimistic when you actually make vehicles consumers want.

I agree, if a car company can't survive and builds a shit product for 30 years, it should go tits up.
How many people would be out of work if GM failed ace? How many people if Tesla failed? About 899 as of December 2010. So there's your answer ace, now that is something simple to see.

As for GM employees being able to go work for Tesla and it be 'easy' you do understand EV are a wee bit different from the vehicles GM builds right?

Willravel

You're not addressing the point. While Democrats do represent corporate interests often, they do not do so anywhere near as often or as consistently as the GOP. That's my assertion and I can gladly back it up.
This economic theory has been tested and found incorrect in practice. The central problem is that the argument made for the correlation between lower taxes and economic growth is based on flawed methodology. Medium taxes are actually correlated with long term, stable economic growth in practice. You can certainly try to argue that lowering taxes is pro-growth, but you'll have to do more than put it in a sentence as a given. I'm not an economist, but based on the last 30 years of economic numbers, there's a clear correlation between responsible tax levels and economic growth. Whether that's causal is another matter.
The group of politicians and businessmen went to Texas for different reasons. The Republican California representatives, headed by Dan Logue, bought into the spin that all of California's jobs are moving to Texas, despite any evidence to suggest this. Along for the ride was Lt. Governor Newsom, who went purely to see how the myth of the healthy Texas business climate was being propagated. If you're concerned about facts, according to the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California, California has lost very few jobs to any other states over the past few years, particularly Texas. The bulk of California's job losses have more to do with jobs being shipped overseas by California companies looking for cheaper labor. That has nothing to do with tax rates and everything to do with the fact that work overseas is dirt cheap.

For those unfamiliar with state-specific budgets, California has been having serious trouble fixing our $26b state debt. Texas is in its own (two-year cycle) debt of anywhere from $14b to $27b, depending on who you ask. California Governor Jerry Brown is attempting to deal with our budget problems by slashing services, eliminating waste and loopholes, and we're probably going to see a tax increase in one form or another before too long. Texas, on the other hand, is cutting taxes in some mad attempt to bring in a ton of new business, which they're hoping will bring with it tax revenue. It isn't.
I've never heard anything specific, either, and that's what concerns me. The Tea Party in theory isn't really a bad thing. In theory, it's about people concerned about fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and government trimmed down to only what services are necessary. In practice, unfortunately, it's really more of a movement centered around hating President Obama, ignoring 2000-2008, and frankly facetious arguments about budgets that really only amount to parroted talking points.

Palin's fight in Alaska with the oil companies is a funny thing. What she did, turning down BP and taxing oil companies like crazy to make Alaska money, makes her out to be a cool customer, someone who won't bat an eye at corporate power and who isn't afraid to do what's necessary to add to a budget surplus. Unfortunately, it seems Sarah Palin doesn't even understand in the most basic terms how the oil industry in Alaska works. Also, her plan to increase taxes on big business only to redistribute it to the people of Alaska makes President Obama look far-right. What I suspect happened, and this is only a theory, is Palin farmed this out to someone who was more knowledgeable than she was, someone who happened to be far left of her, and she went with the plan she was given. What she did is something I would do. What does that tell you?
The people giving speeches are less regular than the people listening to the speeches? I'm asking this in all honesty: by what metric do you establish how regular someone is? You use the term regular to apply to people often enough that I feel I have to ask how you qualify that. Am I regular? Are you?

And for the record, I've been to relatively big Tea Party protests, with hundreds and hundreds of people, and very small ones, with as little as a dozen. I can't imagine that somehow my experiences are so very much different than yours.
Taxes aren't charity, they're responsibility. Asking people to pay taxes only makes sense in a society populated entirely by egalitarians. Clearly that doesn't describe the Untied States in 2011. The problem is the rich aren't paying their fair share. If I'm ever in a position to call myself rich again, I'll be happy to pay 35%+ taxes. For now, I'm middle-class.
That's not precisely what I asked. What specifically do you think would have happened if we allowed Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citigroup, State Street, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Bancorp, Capital One, and American Express to all fail at once? My guess is total financial collapse, of the kind that would make the Great Crash look like a financial hiccup. I honestly do understand your position of wanting the market to work naturally, but while that's wonderful in theory, in practice, in this case, I think the disaster warranted at least some cushioning.
I wasn't aware you supported single-payer. Kudos on crossing partisan lines and choosing what you believe to be correct. It's nice to agree now and again.

Derwood

At the risk of getting the thread back on topic....

Looks like Karl Rove is putting a "hit" on Donald Trump on the news shows. As I stated in the first post, Trump is going to fall on the sword for all of the nutty bullshit that the far right has been trumpeting the past two years in order to make the GOP's candidate seem more moderate. It's a well orchestrated piece of political theatre, very entertaining if you can see it for what it is.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Baraka_Guru

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

Yep, it's all going according to the script. The GOP doesn't allow chaos. Everything is planned

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

roachboy

it's often funny to note the gap that separates those who Believe and how the right operates organizationally. it appears that, from the organizational viewpoint, conservative ideology is a simple field of memes to be manipulated. in this case, it functions as the scrim for the theater of the donald.

after the bush period, it was the backdrop for the right's flight away from itself and into astroturf, an orchestrated remaking based on a "popular movement" that may have at some point been one, but which is, clearly, at this point regarded as having outlived its utility---once a tactical advantage, now a strategic liability.

i find it interesting that this theater can happen again and again without engendering crises of faith amongst believers.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I think GM is beholden to government while BMW has more freedom to respond to the market.

My point is that if GM failed there would be a shift in net employment from one employer to others. If there is a resulting net reduction in employment it would be because other may be more efficient than GM and as a result the would be good for consumers.

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

I am not going to argue if Republicans score 80.0 compared to Democrats scoring 79.9.

But, before we continue ( and I am more than willing), on the issue of GE. I think GE being a profitable company paying no taxes is a travesty of corporate tax justice and fairness. This makes me mad, it makes me want to change the system - I want fairness. I laid out suggestions - lower the corporate tax rate (or take it to zero) and get rid of all the subsidies, credits, loop-holes and favorable treatment from government and level the playing field. You seem to be very passive about this, and it is clear that raising the rate won't make a difference. Obama, members of Congress, you or anyone can give a clear and concise explanation of how GE got away with this - sure people will say tax credits, etc., but that is superficial. It would take hundreds of pages of text in small print to see the complete picture - it is a joke.

Tea Party people fight against these kinds of travesties, are you with us or not? Honest people can disagree on how to fix the problem, but the Tea Party is the only group that is having the discussion! To that you say what? The generic response of Tea Party people are "crazies" or only care about the rich is no longer enough.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

Rove is a power broker or as Palin would say a party "blue blood". Yes, Rove has a plan, but non-blue bloods in the party have a different plan. This is a battle within the party - the winner will determine the final plan.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Derwood

Only if you believe that Tea Party candidates like Trump and Bachmann are not part of Rove's plan.

I believe they are.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Willravel

I'd rather simplify the tax code for corporations than lower it to zero. Frankly, we need the money and paying taxes is part of doing business with and in the United States.

The bulk of GE's profits were made offshore, thus utilizing a popular loophole in our tax system. That's not the complete picture, but it gives you a good idea.
I'm not with the Tea Party for a few basic reasons: 1) The Tea Party doesn't care about fiscal responsibility under Republican administrations, 2) the Tea Party listens to the likes of Beck, Palin,and Rush, who are all nothing but lying propagandists, and 3) the Tea Party will likely die off this year; what power the Tea Party may have had in 2008 is now basically gone. A new, non-partisan vehicle is needed for this kind of change to take place, but a non-partisan vehicle will be attacked by the conservative media and ignored by the liberal media.

aceventura3

In 2010 GE's had net income or profits of over $11 billion dollars. Generally a bit less than half of their revenues are US and the rest international. Did you know GE got bailout money from the government? GE has a double A rating, about as good as a corporation can get and it was a triple A, same as the US government in 2008. If they needed money they could have easily gotten it from the market. Oh, but they did Buffet bought $3 billion in shares, and GE sold $12 billion in a public offering in 2008 and 2009. Not only did GE pay dividends to shareholders in 2010, they raised the dividends not once but twice. If you read their annual report online you will see they are more optimistic about making a boat load of money than ever before. The financial crisis that Obama saved us from allowed GE to write down billions in paper losses in their GE Capital division thanks to Obama's false "saving us from the brink", b.s. GE is simply stronger than ever, thanks to your democratic friends in Washington.

If government spending remained constant given the Bush tax plan we would be running a surplus. Look at tax dollars collected and government spending back to about 2003. But even if you do factor in the added spending under Bush, as a percentage of our national income the deficits would be below historical averages. The spending during the last two years has been unbelievable. Also, note that the Tea Party movement started closely aligned with the bailouts.

Palin is of little consequence currently.
Beck has been fired.
Rush is an entertainer that has been doing what he does for over 20 years and has nothing to do with the Tea party.



Time will tell. If the government gets spending under control the Tea Party will die down. Otherwise the influence will increase. And it will increase at the expense of old-school Republicans who don't get it. Even if Obama wins in 2012, he will face people in Congress who will not compromise. I seriously suggest Obama deal with the issues of spending and the debt now.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Ace, we ran a surplus in each of Clinton's last for years....before the Bush tax cuts.

In fact, individual income taxes as percent of GDP was the highest in recent history in 2000 (10.2 percent) and declined with the onset of the Bush tax cuts to 8.1 percent in '02, 7.2 percent in '03 and 6.9 percent in 04, only to rise marginally in the last Bush years., but nowhere near that 10.2 percent before he took office.

Total income tax revenue decreased in each of the years following the Bush 01 and 03 tax cuts. It took until '06 to get back to the level of revenue from Clinton's last year.

See OMB: Historical Tables | The White House

see tables 2.1 and 2.3

As to deficit spenders, the two worst spenders were Reagan and GW Bush.

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire