The GOP is Bankrupt!

1. 67

   Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago

   With candidates like Rand Paul, Karen Angle, Ken Buck, Rubio and wrestling impresaria Linda McMahon, possibly joining Michelle Bachman in Congress, the GOP is scraping the bottom of the barrel--
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDSbfuoeA4Q
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UxPDZCOuYA
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTRJiqX_2M0
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESdA52S4Dbg

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      They're just following in the footsteps of their hapless leaders.
      
      Video:  Rep. Boehner refuses to answer whether the Bush tax cuts will increase the deficit
      
      "In a Meet the Press interview today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) refused to answer a direct question five times in a row.  In this way, Rep. Boehner may have set a record for dodging the question.
      
      The incident (seen in the video) might be humorous if it did not involve such a serious issue.  Rep. Boehner was asked whether an extension of the Bush tax cuts would increase the deficit.  As David Gregory illustrates with Alan Greenspan (the head of the Federal Reserve under President Bush), nearly every credible economist agrees that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.  The theory of "self-paying tax cuts" has become known as "voodoo economics" because it literally imagines money being created out of nowhere.  Essentially, the theory assumes that every person receiving a tax cut would increase that initial investment by nearly 300% in order to generate the same amount of government revenue.  In fact, many people who receive tax cuts use it to pay down debt, or put it into assets (like gold) which do not necessarily generate more economic activity.
      
      Analysts have said that if the Bush tax cuts are extended without being paid for, it will increase the national debt by approximately $3.8 trillion over the next ten years.  Despite this enormous number (four times the amount spent on the demonized stimulus package), Rep. Boehner refuses to answer whether the Bush tax cuts will increase the deficit."

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I"m confused as to why you have a WWE clip as your first link... does... that ... have something to do with the GOP being bad?
      
      Another thing to note - just about every comment on your "Rand Paul sure is an idiot, a-hee-hyurk" video defends and agrees with Paul's statements. The 12-thumb-up comment (highest on there) talks about how Paul is right on...
      
      ... so...
      
      Good job on that one.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Linda McMahon is the GOP candidate for the Senate from Connecticut. (She's the one who kicked the fat guy in the crotch.)
         
         Guess I should have watched the Ron Paul video instead of assuming it showed what an idiot he is.
         
         Just watched it. Makes a lot of sense for those who want to scrap Social Security and Medicare.
         
         Error: Sharron Angle, not Karen Angle.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            rofl - well, i won't defend anyone who appears on WWE...
            
            Rand Paul's arguments make sense, though.

            replyreport
   3. 60

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Why exactly do you care?
      
      Will any of these people represent you?
      
      The republicans could put up a lamppost in November and beat whatever retread democrat gets offered up.
      
      Rand Paul doesn't have any experience, so?
      
      Did the idiot in chief have any experience before becoming the bane of America?

      replyreport
   4. 44

      rnbguruposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Truthfully, both sides of politics are disgusting. They are simply panhandlers trying to appeal to the masses without ever tackling the serious issues at hand.

      replyreport
2. 61

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   I'd also like to make a small comment about how everyone hates Rand Paul...
   
   What's so scary and stupid about his message of "you get to choose how to spend your own money, and you get to choose how to use your own property"?
   
   Is this really THAT terrifying of an idea to liberals? (not that I'm a conservative, I'm sure conservatives are nincumpoops in their own way)
   
   "Oh my gawd! a different way of approaching something?! NOOOo!!! People don't own their own property - EVERYONE owns EVERYONE's property!!"
   
   oh well. I guess me and ralph ain't never gonna agree (on politics). I'm getting to the point where I see no point in responding anymore!

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know anyone who "hates Rand Paul." However, many people consider him clueless and not not remotely qualified for the Senate.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         you wrote this forum to insult him, many others have done the same (doug hughes, i believe has an entire forum dedicated to him), and the only time anyone ever hears his name in the media is to say that he's a whack job.
         
         I guess I shouldn't write this aimed at you, but it seems like everyone is terrified of the thought that *gasp* they might actually OWN Their own property!!!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I can't speak for everyone, but Rand Paul's libertarian philosophy is abhorrent to me.  He says he opposes racial discrimination but would support a system that completely ignores it as a business practice. 
            
            You say he makes sense; I say he doesn't understand human behavior in the real world.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "I  guess I shouldn't write this aimed at you, but it seems like everyone is terrified of the thought that *gasp* they might actually OWN Their own property!!!"
            
            The problem with libertarain thinking is what happens when you take it out of a fictional book and put it in real life.
            
            Libertarains have argued fo the privatization of everything and nearly eliminating the government.  Rand Paul wouldn't want to regulate & enforce mine safety. Libertarains are against unions. So mine safety would be negotiated by the individual who works at the mine and the mine owner. Like that's gonna work out for anyone except the owner. (Notice whose property rights are protected.)
            
            No FAA. When you fly, you take your life in your hands because there is no assurance that the airline(s) adhere to any maintenance standard. Product safety? If the makers of children's toys decide lead paint is OK, there's no product safety law or inspection. A few years ago Bush gutted the funding of product safety and Fisher-Price was selling toys with lead paint. This stuff rots a kid's brain - but it's OK to libertarians in the name of philisophical purity.
            
            Oh yes, I almost forgot. Police and fire departments would be disbanded.  Even the courts would be privatized. You would buy security from a private company. If you get unemployed, and the payments lapse, they will watch your house burn down. (They will come out to protect your neighbor's house he made his payments.) And privatize the courts? Our system is not fair now - but privatize it and you can give up any hope of equal justice.
            
            Price fixing and monopolies are all OK under libertarain philosophy. The 'free market' will fix it somehow. Earlier this week I got in a discussion wiht a libertarain who claimed that the imposition of federal law enforcing equal racial rights in the South was wrong - Eventaully (and that's the key word) racial equality would have worked itself out in the South.  Never mind that by 1965 the Civil war had been over a century and the South was firmly segregated with blacks stuck at the bottom.  In the interests of philisophical purity, it should have been allowed to work itself out over time - even if it took centruies.
            
            The Gulf oil spill - do you think if we operated under libertarian rules there would be 20 Billion set up to offset the losses of teh individuals who live there? Hell, look at what the oil companies do as a matter of policy elsewhere in the globe - Without a strong federal government in the USA,  they wouln't even try to clean up the spill.
            
            And in every case, look whose 'property rights' are protected in the real world. In every case, it's the fat cat - the multinational orporation, the richest guy in town who has all the power and all the money.  Despite the inherent problems, a strong central governement that represents the people is the ONLY protection we have against  the economic cartels that are (economically) bigger than countries and would skin the consumers of the USA alive.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I could write a lengthy response showing how each one of your claims can easily be thought through and solved via a free market...
               
               ... but you wouldn't care, I've ALREADY addressed just about every issue in other posts, and I've got stuff to do.
               
               I don't think I've ever seen a single mind change in a forum.

               replyreport
         3. 67

            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Rand Paul isn't a "whack job." He's just ignorant about current and historic issues. His medical training doesn't equip him for political office.
            
            How do you feel about Angle, Bachman, Linda McMahon and Buck?

            replyreport
3. 76

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Yes...I've heard a lot of rumors about the Republicans and why are they not investigated like Rangle and Waters? Apparently, Boner has had  little "talking to's" on a few members.....Eric Cantor apparently one of the big 'uns.
   
   And OF COURSE...the TAX CUT!!!!!!
   
   Why you SEE how much they CARE about the deficit!!!!! SNARK.
   
   Cheney: "Reagan showed us deficits don't matter."....only when Democrats are in charge and you can make a political issue out of it.
   
   They are so sickening.
   
   If people fall for their bulloney, that's the last I'll ever care about politics. 40 years was enough.

   replyreport
4. 78

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Sorry, the title 'idiot in chief of America' is already taken. It belongs to that Shrub guy who left office (and totally disappeared from public view) after 8 reckless years.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      as much as I hate Obama, he IS (slightly) better than bush.
      
      Yes, Bush did start the wars, thus he's worse, but for god's sake, did Bush win a Nobel Peace Prize for continuing them?!
      
      oh, and just a reminder - neither of the "wars" are actually "wars"  - the executive branch CAN simply end them at will.
      
      don't forget that both parties are guilty of the "when the other guy does it, it's evil, but when we do it, it's ok". They're the same party, and they need each other. The Republicrats live to sell your freedom -- at the point of a gun -- to businesses.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Mishaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You'd be surprised, but it looks like there is a fierce competition for that name going right now. It can be taken over in a year or two

      replyreport
5. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   The GOP is broke? Dang! Guess I need to send them another check.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The GOP is bankrupt in leadership - the 'leaders' are nincompoops.
      
      If you decide to run, I would support you over the crowd of obstructionists they have put up. Besides, I like, you Rose.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I like you, too, Doug - even though we don't agree on a lot. I somewhat agree with you on the GOP leadership, but I feel the same way about the dem leadership.
         
         Sometimes I feel that I don't have a political party. Most of the Reps are too far right, and most of the Dems are too far left. I usually vote Rep, but I did vote for Clinton once. I usually vote for the lesser of two evils. I think it's sad that a moderate can't get elected. Just shows how divided our nation is, I guess.

         replyreport
6. 76

   Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago

   There is no such thing as "private property".  The government can and will take your property from you anytime they want for any reason they say.
   
   You cannot stop them they have thousands of strongarm enforcers with guns.
   
   What an illusion that has been created, you only own property until the govt says it is not yours anymore.
   
   
   1933 Gold Confiscation Act!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      WOW! I gotta go bury all my gold gefore the hoards of gov't agens descend to take away my bling. Thanks for that warning, Dude!

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Doug - you have to realize that the fact that FDR stole tons ( literally) of gold from the public via an executive order (not even an act of congress) IS a HUGE problem!
         
         Wars have been fought over less !  The American revolution was fought against this exact problem!

         replyreport
   2. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you. The government does indeed reserve the right to take away your property.
      
      It disgusts me. We had an entire war based off of a few taxes and now we have about 50% of our wages stolen from us, and we're asking for more!

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         50%???

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            30%+ of income taxes, 5-10% from sales tax, 10% or so from all the other plethora of taxes, and another chunk of inflation tax.
            
            BOOM 50%

            replyreport
            1. 67

               Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               40% is more like it, except for hedge fund operators who pay more like 20%.
               
               Tax distribution
               
               As of 2007, there are about 138 million taxpayers in the United States.[5] The typical marginal federal income tax rate is 15%,[6] regardless of whether median (50th percentile) or mode (plurality) is used; state income taxes may also apply. In addition, for labor income there is a federal payroll tax rate of 7.65% for each of the employee and the employer, or 15.300% for the self-employed.[7] According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “the median taxpayer has a combined marginal [tax] rate of 31.6 percent” %.[8] The Treasury Department in 2006 reported, based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, the share of federal income taxes paid by taxpayers of various income levels. The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).[9][10] If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).[11]
               
               Other taxes in the United States with a less progressive structure or a regressive structure, and legal tax avoidance loopholes change the overall tax burden distribution. For example, the payroll tax system (FICA), a 12.4% Social Security tax on wages up to $106,800 (for 2009) and a 2.9% Medicare tax (a 15.3% total tax that is often split between employee and employer) is called a regressive tax on income with no standard deduction or personal exemptions but in effect is forced savings which return to the payer in the form of retirement benefits and health care. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of U.S. taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.[12]
               
               The National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that the combined federal, state, and local government average marginal tax rate for most workers to be about 40% of income.[13][14]

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Of course they pay more in payroll taxes, why would you expect the stats to show anything else?  If 40 plus percent of working Americans pay zero 'income' tax, then the mandated payroll taxes would necessarily far outstrip any other payment they make.  Lots of handy income tax credits to accomplish that.
                  
                  And it is fairly ludicrous to give any credence to your second item above, given the first item above, no matter who came up with the numbers - that's surely a pure mathematically creative joke, too bad it is not funny. 
                  
                  Or did that 75% who paid more in payroll taxes, and many ONLY payroll taxes, have federal funny money to spend during the time of the calculation of the second creative accounting numbers you cite?  Hmmm, sounds likely.  I've noticed lots of new John Deere's, could be a high tax on those green babies.
                  
                  And, have to add, that if you give that 40% effective tax rate play as legit, then Evan Rogers is quite correct, if not very much on the low side, with his 50% estimate of effective tax rate for many working Americans.  As you have so clearly demonstrated -- 75% pay more in payroll taxes which are capped -- that is a very telling statement on the real taxing condition of this country -- sounds quite like robbery, and not of the stimulating and amusing RobinHood variety............

                  replyreport
               2. 61

                  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I saw an in-depth study in Reader's Digest for a family in Philadelphia at the median  the total of combined federal, state and local taxes including sales tax, etc. was just under 30%.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Which would further indicate that the 40 something percent that pay no income tax would likely be well under even your Reader's Digest 'median' 30%.  And the 75% who amazingly pay more in payroll taxes than income tax, would be hard pressed to ever hit 30% of total taxation from spending unless they were borrowing heavily to purchase.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Can anyone translate this? - because it makes no sense to me.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Can't help you.  I'm impressed that you've been able to follow her previous posts.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              I can understand a rant which has no facts and cites no credible source. I think she's trying to make a point, but I'm not able to grasp it. Perhaps I should have said that in statistics 'median' means middle. So the Reader's Digest article was suggesting that an 'average' family was paying near 30% -total - in all combined taxes.

                              replyreport
                        2. 60

                           Sylvie Strongposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           I have said it before,  KFlippin wins the award for the most cryptic posts.  It is hard to say they are wrong or stupid because you just have no idea what they mean.  They could be brilliant but we will never know.

                           replyreport
7. 59

   KFlippinposted 13 years ago

   Wow, the old corporate capitalist pig supported GOP is broke!  Just how can that be?  Ahhhh, I suppose all those stats on corporations who have given most to the blue goob Dems -- must be truth, and the notion of the GOP being all about corporate types -- must be a quite ordinary, working class lie.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The post suggested that the GOP was bankrupt in terms of leadership - that with the likes f Rand Paul and Angle and Bachman, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel.
      
      Some of the posts from the opposition suggest they quality of followers is right in line with the leadership.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Darn, should have realized this topic is about Rachel Maddow's quite skewed presentation last night of the GOP candidates for congressional seats!  Is it?

         replyreport
8. 76

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   No, it's no lie: google
   
   PAUL B. FARRELL
   Aug. 10, 2010, 12:45 a.m.   
   
   Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy'
   Commentary: How: Gold. Tax cuts. Debts. Wars. Fat Cats. Class gap. No fiscal discipline

   replyreport
   1. 59

      William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      replyreport
   2. 59

      KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, darn, had no idea this Farrell was the ultimate truth teller, what a notion, let me get started googling and find that ultimate Farrell truth -- oh wait, wasn't Ralph Deeds presenting some very good discussion and truths here?  Why try to detract/distract from that discussion?  Gee, let me ponder that a while............

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "the notion of the GOP being all about corporate types -- must be a quite ordinary, working class lie."
         
         I was responding to this silly...no distraction. Just trying to clue you in to what really happened during your lifetime.
         
         Much as a whole lot of insiders came out after the Iraq "war" to tell us what a crock that was.
         
         Paul Craig Roberts is also a Reagan cabinet member who will tell you the truth about republicans.
         
         When you say something is a lie, I have every right to dispute it.
         And it's not me doing it, it's people who know what they are talking about....I just lived through it, and remember the HELL  that it was.

         replyreport
9. 59

   KFlippinposted 13 years ago

   I'm terribly impressed as well......
   
   . . . .and just so very 'hope' filled now for 'change' coming from understanding the reality of the actual quite taxing (apparently) 'numbers' that reflect reality.

   replyreport