Politics What did Romney and the GOP do wrong?

why aren't the Dems trying it in Texas?

 

Because the Dems don't hate their country even when they lose elections?

 

you have a short memory. Both parties manipulate the rules when they can. The examples on both sides are too numerous to list.

 

that "balanced" approach seems of a piece with a much larger problem:

Dan Froomkin: How the Mainstream Press Bungled the Single Biggest Story of the 2012 Campaign

o, and as an aside this dreadful "war on entitlements" that the right is waging has a discrete source. this asshole:

Peter Peterson Spent Nearly Half A Billion In Washington Targeting Social Security, Medicare

 

Yeah I know, was just a little joke. But when was the last time you heard about the left wanting to secede?

 

Your commentary falls in the face of actual individual behaviors. "I'm a greedy capitalist pig" is descriptive of common social behaviors and it is a dominate type of behavior in most circumstances - in those circumstance choice is of little significance - surrounded by "pigs" one much be a pig or starve. You too are a "greedy capitalist pig" - you got hold to whatever teat suited your needs, it feeds you pretty good, and the hell if you ever let it go unless you can grab on to another. Self-righteous b.s. doesn't fly, nor do pigs.
--- merged: Dec 10, 2012 at 5:52 PM ---

Similar to Romney you are conflating large groups of people. Most people who vote GOP are not at the top of the financial food chain and do not benefit from the endless number of loop-holes. The people seriously bitching about the national debt are Tea Party people - they are not part of the old guard Republican establishment. We are people in the middle class who believe in being financially responsible and personally responsible. If I f'up I should pay a price for that, If I do well I should benefit from it.

Under the Bush tax cuts the rich actually pay a bigger percentage of taxes paid than before the Bush tax cuts.
--- merged: Dec 10, 2012 at 6:00 PM ---

Taxes should be based on actual social costs. Not "fairness", not re-distribution, not social engineering, not to punish. For example if driving an SUV generates $X to society, the driver should pay $X in taxes - add up the costs as best as possible, roads, pollution, police, regulatory, ambulatory, etc. But in our tax code, some people with 6,000 pound plus SUV's used for certain purposes get big tax benefits that most others don't get. The cost to operate one of the vehicles could be less than the cost of a econo-box.
--- merged: Dec 10, 2012 at 6:12 PM ---

Playing by the rules is what fairness means to me. Among adults other than playing by the rules I can not judge what another adult deems "fair", all I know is what they agree to. An adult dealing with a child or not an equal has an obligation to not take advantage of the child - in my view. People should not participate in markets or with people out of their league. I would never play poker with a professional poker player, it is out of my league. Fairness to me would be a professional poker player disclosing he/she is a professional.

I don't emulate others, I study them to understand them. I am unique and I know I can not be something that I am not. I can study Trump, but I will never try to be Trump - I could not do it. When Trump says put a fresh coat of paint on it - in my language it means to put effort into what you are selling rather than simply trying to sell it.

 

True, the left threatens an exodus to Canada.

 

Not exactly. Often "make all you can at all costs as fast as you can" has been at odds with what I believe is in my best interest. There is a common saying - pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered. There are conflicts with being singularly focused on money - the happiest people I know strike a good balance. I don't pretend those conflicts are not real nor do I hide from what I am about. There is a national need for this balance I refereed too, I recognize we can be out of balance on one side or the other. do you?
--- merged: Dec 10, 2012 at 6:27 PM ---

There are shareholder and more important there are stakeholders. In most cases the interests of stakeholders is equal if not greater than shareholders. If I own a share of Apple, my interest is about $500 or $600 dollars - the worker in China, stakeholder, assembling Iphones, whose entire lively-hood depends on that job has a greater interest in the success of Apple than I do. Another example the State of California has a pretty big interest in Apple even if the State doesn't own a single share of stock - if the Apple tax base leaves the state it would have a measurable impact.

 

Goes without saying, Ace. I believe the point was directed towards companies who are driven almost exclusively by the bottom line interest of shareholders. Companies who cut employee wages and benefits, cut corners in quality, and may even go so far as to manipulate their books, all for the sake of giving shareholders the impression that they are doing better than they may actually be doing.

 

While all taxpayers are paying less taxes (lower rates) than anytime in our lifetime, since the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% have paid both a lower average federal income tax rate and lower overall average total taxes.

 

Which in turn, benefits the US economy in much more appreciable way. The very wealthy don't have the consuming power of the middle class.

 

Republicans jump off cliff, Bush tax cuts expire, we all pay our due, life as we know it goes back to normal.

Damn those Democrats!

 

Ok, if that's how you believe and operate. Problem is there's a whole lot of folks who are willing to sell the entire nation down the toilet to make a buck (or several billion anyway.) That type of business has hurt this nation greatly.

 

Ron Paul should have been the model of the perfect Tea Party leader. But, the Tea Party never really offered to go after cutting defense spending in a large amount (which could easily be done), ending the drug 'war' (have it be a medical problem for the hard drugs), or for looking at how to greatly reduce social security and medicare. (although if you save money by making people use less medicare by being healthy, you just increase the amount of social security they will claim...). They also needed to look at the economy as a whole, and see that money flowing around the economy does come back to the government, but it also gets spent by the government. The issue is the unbalanced imports and the oil/energy money flows out of the economy and leads to debts.

Sure, and some free market car maker should make a car that doesn't use gas. Tesla has now, but it could easily be done and was done by GM, Ford and Toyota in the 90s. Technology and material engineering has only improved since then.

And I also agree that the big truck tax break was a huge scam. Yet, until the full price of the problems caused by oil are reflected in the price, it won't have a big impact. And even in England where it is $8/gal (more or less), they still haven't figured out how to use less. It is pretty sad, but I don't think the 'free market' will fix it until there is an electric car that can go 700 miles, recharge in 6 hours for $10, and cost under $20,000.

I equate that to how people in the upper tax brackets will almost always have accountants. And once you get above 5 million, there are certain tricks you can use if you generate money from foreign countries to not pay the US income taxes on it.

I would go even farther to differentiate the type of income people make. I have no problems with having a very low rate for someone who invents a new product and sells a lot of them. But, if you are the son of a multimillionaire and your Dad wants to get out of the business, that should be taxed at a very high level.

 

No the right threatens to exodus to Canada or Australia too. Many just don't realize how fucking stupid they sound when they state they're going to do it to get away from all the socialism in the US.

I like this guy-

 

Yep. The conservative spin is that the top taxpayers are paying a higher percentage of total tax revenue paid to the govt and that somehow is unfair.

Those Bush tax cuts certainly did have a measurable impact on income inequality, with the biggest spike in the last 30 years.

 

once again, we turn a corner and arrive at a high mesa of stupid.