The Republican Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

This viewpoint is why people across the country rejected the GOP. I hope they fully embrace the Randianism.

 

How can you not agree with that? One of the main differences between the parties today is that one thinks the government should provide or assist, the other thinks they should get out of the way. If you have no job or are in massive debt and you have one candidate that says it's rich peoples' responsibility to pay back (and also that it's their fault they don't have a job) and it's government responsibility to create jobs, and you have another that says pull up your boot straps, who are you going to vote for?

 

And in general, young people have no exposure to a lot of the issues that go into those policies. They don't own homes, they don't invest, they don't have their own businesses, they don't have kids...they don't have to deal with a lot of the issues that older Americans deal with. See also, the entire occupy movement - I have no job, f*** society, let me blog about it on my iPad!

 

That principle is not the problem with the GOP's platform. The problem is in the messaging of it. The problem is allowing liberals to paint you into "look at the crazy old man talking about God causing rape!" camp because you pander too much to an extreme crowd that actually believes that nonsense.

[StrangeSox]

I am a "have." Millions of others who voted for Democratic candidates across the country are "haves." Some of the biggest receivers of government aid are the elderly and poor rural white people, both major conservative constituencies. The unemployment rate among Occupy supporters was only a couple of percent higher than the national average.

 

I sincerely hope that the GOP continues to believe that people didn't reject their platform but that they just didn't run a good enough marketing campaign for it.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I am a "have." Millions of others who voted for Democratic candidates across the country are "haves." Some of the biggest receivers of government aid are the elderly and poor rural white people, both major conservative constituencies. The unemployment rate among Occupy supporters was only a couple of percent higher than the national average.

 

I sincerely hope that the GOP continues to believe that people didn't reject their platform but that they just didn't run a good enough marketing campaign for it.

 

You act as if this was a landslide victory. It wasn't. We're 2 years removed from that very platform sweeping the country. This election was about a bad candidate and some s***ty news stories (Murdoch, Sandy, etc.). It was NOT about people being overly excited about Obama and where he is leading this country. So I hope democrats continue to believe that.

[StrangeSox]

He won 8/9 "battleground" states, most by comfortable margins. The Democrats increased their lead in the Senate by adding progressive Senators. More Americans voted for Democrats for the House, but the GOP retained their advantage because of gerrymandering (e.g. PA and OH are both somewhere around 15R-5D despite more D votes overall in the state).

[Jenksismyhero]

He won 8/9 "battleground" states, most by comfortable margins. The Democrats increased their lead in the Senate by adding progressive Senators. More Americans voted for Democrats for the House, but the GOP retained their advantage because of gerrymandering (e.g. PA and OH are both somewhere around 15R-5D despite more D votes overall in the state).

 

14 million less people voted than 4 years ago. Obama didn't get the support he got last election in those very same states. Romney failed to get the same kind of votes McCain got. This entire election was about s***ty candidates, not about platforms. Just about every analyst universally agrees with this. Do you really think the senate races were because people believe in what Democrats are selling and not because there were crappy candidates on the other side?

 

The basic platform we're talking about here is the same one they've had for the last 30 years, and if you look, Republicans (and Clinton) have done very well with it.

[StrangeSox]

It was a solid night for liberalism in general. If you really think it's because "blacks only voted for Obama because he's black," or that latinos only did so because they mistakenly believe the GOP's only policy is "deport 'em all," or that single women only did so because of "free contraceptives and abortions," or anything to do with the "takers" who want "stuff" and "things" unlike Traditional Americans, I'm glad.

[Jenksismyhero]

It was a solid night for liberalism in general. If you really think it's because "blacks only voted for Obama because he's black," or that latinos only did so because they mistakenly believe the GOP's only policy is "deport 'em all," or that single women only did so because of "free contraceptives and abortions," or anything to do with the "takers" who want "stuff" and "things" unlike Traditional Americans, I'm glad.

 

You are living in fantasy land.

[StrangeSox]

I have seen all those reasons given by conservative media and posters on this board, including you, in the past several days as for why they lost. I hope that's truly the lesson they take away.

[Jake]

How can you not agree with that? One of the main differences between the parties today is that one thinks the government should provide or assist, the other thinks they should get out of the way. If you have no job or are in massive debt and you have one candidate that says it's rich peoples' responsibility to pay back (and also that it's their fault they don't have a job) and it's government responsibility to create jobs, and you have another that says pull up your boot straps, who are you going to vote for?

 

And in general, young people have no exposure to a lot of the issues that go into those policies. They don't own homes, they don't invest, they don't have their own businesses, they don't have kids...they don't have to deal with a lot of the issues that older Americans deal with. See also, the entire occupy movement - I have no job, f*** society, let me blog about it on my iPad!

 

That principle is not the problem with the GOP's platform. The problem is in the messaging of it. The problem is allowing liberals to paint you into "look at the crazy old man talking about God causing rape!" camp because you pander too much to an extreme crowd that actually believes that nonsense.

 

The thing is both parties say both things.

 

D's - We are going to use tax revenue to give the poor the chance to live with dignity and give them and their children to get out of poverty. Additionally, you should be able to take care of yourself medically and retire with the same dignity that you had when you worked for a living. In the background, we believe in things like building up our country's infrastructure, which will employ some of our poor but more importantly gives us the structure from which private businesses build on. As far as how you live socially, we're not too worried about that. Don't buy illegal drugs, don't kill people, don't steal. Beyond that, we aren't going to tell you what to do.

 

R's - We are going to tax you less and you WILL like that. Your poor friends don't deserve s***! Perhaps a short period to get on their feet, and if they can't get a job after X amount of time it is clearly their own fault (not the rich guys hoarding money nor are the poor sometimes victims of market fluctuation). Spending money on their education is also a waste of time. We would fix the debt with these de-investments, but instead we will grow the military and play chicken with Iran and whoever else wants to bother us abroad. Don't worry though, we certainly won't waste money on healthcare and living expenses for the elderly either, so at least our strangely prioritized, bloated budget will still run a deficit. Socially, the government is your moral guiding light. We seek to make sure the government enforces aging perceptions of morality and religion. Our country is harmed by the gays, the working woman, pre-marital sex, Muslims, and all kinds of other horrible people. We will do our best as a government to hold those folks down.

 

Cliffs:

Democrats - "we'll support your life via safety nets and structural improvements, but get the hell out of your social life"

 

Republicans - "we trust the market to save your ass when you become poor, but we will remedy this by dictating mostly church-based morality to you"

 

Do you see why the message that won, won?

 

I believe if Republicans want to compete, they need to drop the latter part of the message in a big way. "The government needs to spend less and it starts with you paying it less" is a very attractive argument for them. Unfortunately, they distract from it with all the stupid social s*** they try to dictate and the poor way they communicate their fiscal message. You can try to say that the ultra-poor vote in Democrats, but it isn't true. Taxpayers are voting in the Democrats and those votes can be changed under the right circumstances, with the right argument.

 

 

I'll say this: I believe in Barack Obama and generally, the Democratic platform. I believed that given the circumstances of the beginning of Barack's presidency, it makes sense that things did not go as well financially as we/I hoped. I believe that things are getting better. I believe that 4 years was not quite long enough for Barack's policies to show their worth. I believe that Obamacare's measures have to actually come into effect before I can even begin to assess whether it works as well in practice as it sounds in theory. With that said, I expect marked improvement at the end of this term. For the Democrats to get my vote back in 2016, our financial situation will almost certainly have to get better. Civil rights will need to continually be expanded. Our path out of debt should be clear. If not, they are not promised my support.

[Jenksismyhero]

The thing is both parties say both things.

 

D's - We are going to use tax revenue to give the poor the chance to live with dignity and give them and their children to get out of poverty. Additionally, you should be able to take care of yourself medically and retire with the same dignity that you had when you worked for a living. In the background, we believe in things like building up our country's infrastructure, which will employ some of our poor but more importantly gives us the structure from which private businesses build on. As far as how you live socially, we're not too worried about that. Don't buy illegal drugs, don't kill people, don't steal. Beyond that, we aren't going to tell you what to do.

 

R's - We are going to tax you less and you WILL like that. Your poor friends don't deserve s***! Perhaps a short period to get on their feet, and if they can't get a job after X amount of time it is clearly their own fault (not the rich guys hoarding money nor are the poor sometimes victims of market fluctuation). Spending money on their education is also a waste of time. We would fix the debt with these de-investments, but instead we will grow the military and play chicken with Iran and whoever else wants to bother us abroad. Don't worry though, we certainly won't waste money on healthcare and living expenses for the elderly either, so at least our strangely prioritized, bloated budget will still run a deficit. Socially, the government is your moral guiding light. We seek to make sure the government enforces aging perceptions of morality and religion. Our country is harmed by the gays, the working woman, pre-marital sex, Muslims, and all kinds of other horrible people. We will do our best as a government to hold those folks down.

 

Cliffs:

Democrats - "we'll support your life via safety nets and structural improvements, but get the hell out of your social life"

 

Republicans - "we trust the market to save your ass when you become poor, but we will remedy this by dictating mostly church-based morality to you"

 

Do you see why the message that won, won?

 

I believe if Republicans want to compete, they need to drop the latter part of the message in a big way. "The government needs to spend less and it starts with you paying it less" is a very attractive argument for them. Unfortunately, they distract from it with all the stupid social s*** they try to dictate and the poor way they communicate their fiscal message. You can try to say that the ultra-poor vote in Democrats, but it isn't true. Taxpayers are voting in the Democrats and those votes can be changed under the right circumstances, with the right argument.

 

 

I'll say this: I believe in Barack Obama and generally, the Democratic platform. I believed that given the circumstances of the beginning of Barack's presidency, it makes sense that things did not go as well financially as we/I hoped. I believe that things are getting better. I believe that 4 years was not quite long enough for Barack's policies to show their worth. I believe that Obamacare's measures have to actually come into effect before I can even begin to assess whether it works as well in practice as it sounds in theory. With that said, I expect marked improvement at the end of this term. For the Democrats to get my vote back in 2016, our financial situation will almost certainly have to get better. Civil rights will need to continually be expanded. Our path out of debt should be clear. If not, they are not promised my support.

 

Well I disagree with the church-based morality comment. Romney never made that a part of his campaign. That's how the left has painted the GOP generally, even when that's a small, but vocal, part of the party.

 

And i've agreed the social message, as given, didn't work. There are ways to make the GOP position on gay marriage, abortion and immigration much better, while not totally conceding the issues. The messages (or lack thereof) were made worse by the awful candidates like Murdoch saying insanely stupid things. That's such an easy PR topic for liberals, just like the 47% thing. Again, stupid candidate, but the fiscal platform is not the problem.

 

SS I seriously don't understand how you can say liberalism won when pretty much everyone that supported Obama acknowledged he hasn't done a good job and it's more of a lesser of two evils situation. That's not advocating for more liberalism.

 

 

[farmteam]

SS I seriously don't understand how you can say liberalism won when pretty much everyone that supported Obama acknowledged he hasn't done a good job and it's more of a lesser of two evils situation. That's not advocating for more liberalism.

Looking at the election as a whole (ie, not just presidential race), I think he has somewhat of a point -- same-sex marriage measures passed in multiple states, a proposed amendment that would have said marriage was between 1 man 1 woman was voted down in Minnesota, the nation's first openly gay senator elected (and it was a woman in a state that's never elected a female senator, no less), the first Buddhist and Hindu congressmen were elected, and two states legalized marijuana under their own laws.

[StrangeSox]

Because the Senate got noticeably more progressive, liberals won on SSM ballot measures and legalizing marijuana (though that's not strictly a liberal thing, it's definitely not conservative), and because they won the Presidency pretty strongly despite Obama not being that strong of a candidate.

[caulfield12]

The Dems already start out with NY, California and many populous states in the bag these days.

 

Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico and Colorado are all trending in the wrong direction, unless the GOP can convince Hispanic voters to come back into their once big tent.

 

Even Texas and Arizona will be back in play soon ... if they continue to ignore this exponentially-increasing constituency and have "voluntary deportations," Lou Dobbs and border fences as their best ideas on the GOP cutting edge of policy-making.

 

The GOP didn't sweep the country two years ago. Obama and Emmanuel made a huge tactical mistake with health care and how it was sold/packaged, just as Clinton/Panetta/Magaziner did 15 years prior. The 1994 Gingrich revolution was 10X the phenomenon the 2010 elections were...and look how long that lasted?

 

2 years? By then, Clinton and Morris had tacked back to the middle, done the "bite" size triangulation strategy with centrist policies, the symbolic turning back on the expansion of the welfare state, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

Well I disagree with the church-based morality comment. Romney never made that a part of his campaign. That's how the left has painted the GOP generally, even when that's a small, but vocal, part of the party.

 

And i've agreed the social message, as given, didn't work. There are ways to make the GOP position on gay marriage, abortion and immigration much better, while not totally conceding the issues. The messages (or lack thereof) were made worse by the awful candidates like Murdoch saying insanely stupid things. That's such an easy PR topic for liberals, just like the 47% thing. Again, stupid candidate, but the fiscal platform is not the problem.

 

SS I seriously don't understand how you can say liberalism won when pretty much everyone that supported Obama acknowledged he hasn't done a good job and it's more of a lesser of two evils situation. That's not advocating for more liberalism.

 

Vis a vis what? Expectations after the 2008 elections?

 

Everyone admits that they set the bar way too high, no getting around that.

 

But how can you compare recovering from a financial tsunami to any other situation (always cyclical, not endemic system-wide failure) that has happened since the Great Depression? You can't.

 

He hasn't lived up to expectations, the Dems sold the Affordable Care Act poorly (not unlike the Clintons, and every lobby in the world entrenched with keeping the system profitable for insurance and drug companies, hospitals, doctors, etc., threw millions into convincing people to be afraid of change or "death panels" which already exist in the sense that poor people who can't afford treatment or whose health insurance doesn't cover many experimental procedures often die)...

 

But the fact is that NOBODY really was convinced that the GOP solution of trickle down economics had any chance of being successful.

 

Nobody in the country really believes that the rapidly escalating inequality between the rich and "normal" middle class in America is a good thing, either.

 

Most GOP voters had no complaints about Obama on foreign policy, either. For that matter, he's getting more flack from the left than the right.

 

In the end, the unemployment rate was a bigger issue than health care, but you've got all these corporations (especially the oil companies) getting tax breaks and subsidies from the government when they're making profits hand over fist. And yet who wrote those tax breaks into place? Hmmmmm....not Obama.

 

People just want a "fair opportunity," not guaranteed results or a hand out. They want to believe in the American Dream again.

 

It was alive and well under the Clintons, until Bush destroyed it almost single-handedly in 2 terms.

 

 

Obama and the Congress have no choice but to compromise. The stock marketing is going to force it, just like in 2008.

 

And the thing which will drive the GOP nuts is that the president in those situations always gets more credit than individual Senators or Representatives. Even if the Congress passes immigration reform, avoids the financial cliff, deals with the energy crisis/environment...Obama and the Senate will get more credit from the voters.

 

If Boehner continues to draw $1 million as the line in the sand instead of $250,000 or even $500,000 (Tim Kaine compromise solution), the GOP will also lose, just like Gingrich did when he shut down the government.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2012 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

Huh? So all of those tea party candidates that won didn't really win because Democrats put up the wrong message? Isn't that what i'm arguing right now just from the reverse side?

[Jenksismyhero]

Vis a vis what? Expectations after the 2008 elections?

 

Everyone admits that they set the bar way too high, no getting around that.

 

But how can you compare recovering from a financial tsunami to another other situation (always cyclical, not endemic system-wide failure) that has happened since the Great Depression? You can't.

 

He hasn't lived up to expectations, the Dems sold the Affordable Care Act poorly (not unlike the Clintons, and every lobby in the world entrenched with keeping the system profitable for insurance and drug companies, hospitals, doctors, etc., threw millions into convincing people to be afraid of change or "death panels" which already exist in the sense that poor people who can't afford treatment or whose health insurance doesn't cover many experimental procedures often die)...

 

But the fact is that NOBODY really was convinced that the GOP solution of trickle down economics had any chance of being successful.

 

Nobody in the country really believes that the rapidly escalating inequality between the rich and "normal" middle class in America is a good thing, either.

 

Most GOP voters had no complaints about Obama on foreign policy, either. For that matter, he's getting more flack from the left than the right.

 

In the end, the unemployment rate was a bigger issue than health care, but you've got all these corporations (especially the oil companies) getting tax breaks and subsidies from the government when they're making profits hand over fist. And yet who wrote those tax breaks into place? Hmmmmm....not Obama.

 

People just want a "fair opportunity," not guaranteed results or a hand out. They want to believe in the American Dream again.

 

It was alive and well under the Clintons, until Bush destroyed it almost single-handedly in 2 terms.

 

To say that "nobody" in the country believes that stuff is moronic. 49% of the country did. You guys are making it seem like this was an ass whooping revolution. It was nothing of the sort. Yes, a couple of states picked up gay marriage and legalized drugs. Those have been losing battles for the last decade. That doesn't mean conservatism is dead or dying, especially the fiscal side.

 

And the bolded is laughable. You watch too much Maddow. That's pure Dem-speak.

[StrangeSox]

Huh? So all of those tea party candidates that won didn't really win because Democrats put up the wrong message? Isn't that what i'm arguing right now just from the reverse side?

 

Several Tea Party candidates, like Walsh and West, lost.

 

I fully expect Republicans to do well in 2014. Mid-term demographics favor them.

[caulfield12]

To say that "nobody" in the country believes that stuff is moronic. 49% of the country did. You guys are making it seem like this was an ass whooping revolution. It was nothing of the sort. Yes, a couple of states picked up gay marriage and legalized drugs. Those have been losing battles for the last decade. That doesn't mean conservatism is dead or dying, especially the fiscal side.

 

And the bolded is laughable. You watch too much Maddow. That's pure Dem-speak.

 

 

So you can just conveniently ignore the unfunded Medicare prescription drug giveaway and 2 largely unnecessary wars (one caused by the fact that Bush Jr. blamed wanted to exact revenge for the assassination attempt on his father)....?

 

If you'll pay attention to the exit polls, MORE people still blame Bush for the economic problems of today than Obama, despite the last four years.

 

Who passed TARP???

 

Who bailed out all the banks?

 

It's ironic that most GOPers would have preferred that Chrysler and GM go bankrupt (including Romney), yet that's the single biggest issue which killed their chances in Ohio. The unemployment rate in Ohio is much better largely because Detroit survived largely intact. Even the gambit of trying to convince people Chrysler was sending jobs to China was not only countered, the CEO let every Chrysler worker in Michigan and Ohio have time off to vote.

 

If Portman would have been the VP choice, they probably could have won. The GOP had no chance to flip WI in the presidential.

 

 

 

If only Obama had suspended ALL taxes on the rich from 2009-2012, the country would probably be growing at a rate of 10% a year, unemployment would be 4% and inflation 0.5%.

 

But wait, inflation is still at historical lows. So maybe this financial cliff thing isn't quite the boogeyman it's being made out to be.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2012 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

So you can just conveniently ignore the unfunded Medicare prescription drug giveaway and 2 largely unnecessary wars (one caused by the fact that Bush Jr. blamed wanted to exact revenge for the assassination attempt on his father)....?

 

If you'll pay attention to the exit polls, MORE people still blame Bush for the economic problems of today than Obama, despite the last four years.

 

Who passed TARP???

 

Who bailed out all the banks?

 

It's ironic that most GOPers would have preferred that Chrysler and GM go bankrupt (including Romney), yet that's the single biggest issue which killed their chances in Ohio. The unemployment rate in Ohio is much better largely because Detroit survived largely intact. Even the gambit of trying to convince people Chrysler was sending jobs to China was not only countered, the CEO let every Chrysler worker in Michigan and Ohio have time off to vote.

 

If Portman would have been the VP choice, they probably could have won. The GOP had no chance to flip WI in the presidential.

 

How does gov't spending deny people the american dream or an equal opportunity?

[Y2HH]

But wait, inflation is still at historical lows. So maybe this financial cliff thing isn't quite the boogeyman it's being made out to be.

 

First, if Bush the Democrats and Republicans had not passed TARP, or bailed out the banks, Obama the same Democrats and Republicans still would have. It didn't matter who was in office at that point. While it's obviously convenient for your arguments to ignore this reality, it just isn't so. And having said that, people pin things like this on Bush or Obama and exonerate the Senate/Congress every time they repeat these lousy fallacies. Bush and Bush alone, nor the republicans and the republicans alone created the perfect storm of events that plunged us into the recession we were in, the housing collapse, which was the single biggest factor involved, was created over decades by BOTH parties. The sooner people accept AND understand that the better.

 

Inflation IS at historical lows, but if anything is a fantasy/boogeyman, it's that. Inflation SHOULD BE skyrocketing, and the only reason it isn't is because most of the rest of the world is worse off then we are, fiscally. But if that debt keeps building, we will reach a tipping point where it simply cannot be paid back.

 

One thing modern Republicans and Democrats need to learn, which they once understood, is that "meeting in the middle" does not mean one side coming all the way over to the other side. No one side is right on every topic, and both -- if anyone was to bother listening -- can sometimes make very valid points. The problem is, politics has become a near all or nothing zero-sum game...and the people caught in-between are what's at stake. Both parties blame each other for this, of course, and so do the people that follow these parties. It's hard for them to truly care when they're all rich, out of touch, and forget that people barely making it by right now CANNOT afford more fees or taxes to bail them out of the problem their carelessness helped cause, be it on a federal or local level.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Y2HH

[caulfield12]

First, if Bush the Democrats and Republicans had not passed TARP, or bailed out the banks, Obama the same Democrats and Republicans still would have. It didn't matter who was in office at that point. While it's obviously convenient for your arguments to ignore this reality, it just isn't so. And having said that, people pin things like this on Bush or Obama and exonerate the Senate/Congress every time they repeat these lousy fallacies. Bush and Bush alone, nor the republicans and the republicans alone created the perfect storm of events that plunged us into the recession we were in, the housing collapse, which was the single biggest factor involved, was created over decades by BOTH parties. The sooner people accept AND understand that the better.

 

Inflation IS at historical lows, but if anything is a fantasy/boogeyman, it's that. Inflation SHOULD BE skyrocketing, and the only reason it isn't is because most of the rest of the world is worse off then we are, fiscally. But if that debt keeps building, we will reach a tipping point where it simply cannot be paid back.

 

One thing modern Republicans and Democrats need to learn, which they once understood, is that "meeting in the middle" does not mean one side coming all the way over to the other side. No one side is right on every topic, and both -- if anyone was to bother listening -- can sometimes make very valid points. The problem is, politics has become a near all or nothing zero-sum game...and the people caught in-between are what's at stake. Both parties blame each other for this, of course, and so do the people that follow these parties. It's hard for them to truly care when they're all rich, out of touch, and forget that people barely making it by right now CANNOT afford more fees or taxes to bail them out of the problem their carelessness helped cause, be it on a federal or local level.

 

 

I actually meant to say interest rates, but essentially the same line of thing with inflation, which is much higher here in China than the US.

 

The price of a combo meal at KFC has gone from 20-21 RMB in 2007 to 27-28 RMB five years later, roughly.

 

And yes, the likes of Mike Castle and Richard Lugar and other moderates have been wiped out by the Tea Party, the ones who might actually have been willing to compromise. They'll talk Lindsey Grahan in SC as well if he shows any willingness to cave again.

 

The problem is the GOP only is open to an increase in tax revenue (overall) and not any act tax rate increases. So they expect to once again GROW the economy and balance the budget by doing WHAT exactly? Miracles?

 

I get it, they're afraid to cave on raising the rates from 35 to 39.6 again for the highest tax bracket. Maybe they'll compromised at 37, maybe they'll compromise at defining "rich" as $500,000 or more per year, who knows.

 

The point is, that the US economy did just fine under Clinton with higher tax rates AND capital gains taxes...and small business owners weren't complaining back then, so why would it be "patently" unfair now when our country's on the verge of going over a financial cliff and EVERYONE needs to sacrifice in some way, shape or form?

 

Logic alone dictates cutting in some places (defense, tax breaks to oil companies that are bringing in billions in profits), but you have to increase revenues SOMEHOW/SOMEWHERE.

 

Theoretically, you can save by pooling health care costs as well.

[mr_genius]

the US economy did just fine under Clinton with higher tax rates AND capital gains taxes

 

then there is no need to compromise. simply go back to those rates, as they are going to do naturally.

 

[Y2HH]

I actually meant to say interest rates, but essentially the same line of thing with inflation, which is much higher here in China than the US.

 

The price of a combo meal at KFC has gone from 20-21 RMB in 2007 to 27-28 RMB five years later, roughly.

 

And yes, the likes of Mike Castle and Richard Lugar and other moderates have been wiped out by the Tea Party, the ones who might actually have been willing to compromise. They'll talk Lindsey Grahan in SC as well if he shows any willingness to cave again.

 

The problem is the GOP only is open to an increase in tax revenue (overall) and not any act tax rate increases. So they expect to once again GROW the economy and balance the budget by doing WHAT exactly? Miracles?

 

I get it, they're afraid to cave on raising the rates from 35 to 39.6 again for the highest tax bracket. Maybe they'll compromised at 37, maybe they'll compromise at defining "rich" as $500,000 or more per year, who knows.

 

The point is, that the US economy did just fine under Clinton with higher tax rates AND capital gains taxes...and small business owners weren't complaining back then, so why would it be "patently" unfair now when our country's on the verge of going over a financial cliff and EVERYONE needs to sacrifice in some way, shape or form?

 

Logic alone dictates cutting in some places (defense, tax breaks to oil companies that are bringing in billions in profits), but you have to increase revenues SOMEHOW/SOMEWHERE.

 

Theoretically, you can save by pooling health care costs as well.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have zero intention of defending the republicans. Zero.

[EvilMonkey]

It's ironic that most GOPers would have preferred that Chrysler and GM go bankrupt (including Romney), yet that's the single biggest issue which killed their chances in Ohio. The unemployment rate in Ohio is much better largely because Detroit survived largely intact. Even the gambit of trying to convince people Chrysler was sending jobs to China was not only countered, the CEO let every Chrysler worker in Michigan and Ohio have time off to vote.

You are under the misguided assumption that a bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler would have led to tons of auto workers being out of jobs. That just isn't the case. With a restructuring of the contracts and debt both entities could have emerged from bankruptcy in better shape than they are now. Yes, there would have been concessions from the unions, but they would still have jobs. And with the renegotiated contracts and vendor deals, you have a thriving business. One that doesn't have government fingers up its ass telling it what to do.

[BigSqwert]

You are under the misguided assumption that a bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler would have led to tons of auto workers being out of jobs. That just isn't the case. With a restructuring of the contracts and debt both entities could have emerged from bankruptcy in better shape than they are now. Yes, there would have been concessions from the unions, but they would still have jobs. And with the renegotiated contracts and vendor deals, you have a thriving business. One that doesn't have government fingers up its ass telling it what to do.

Leave it to you to complain about something that turned out to be extremely successful.