10 Steps to Defeat Boehner

[caulfield12]

1) With the expiring Bush tax cuts, change the amount from its present level to ANYONE earning above $500,000 per year in earnings WOULD NOT get a permanent tax cut. Everyone below $200,000 per year would get a tax cut for 2011. In terms of future years, those earning between $200-500,000, it would be assessed on a yearly basis depending on the economic recovery. Draw a line in the sand. Ask for ANY specific/quantifiable evidence of how providing tax cuts or lowering the capital gains tax to zero has helped to balance the federal deficit since January of 1981. Point out that giving all income groups a permanent tax cut would blow another $700,000,000 hole in the deficit.

 

2) Dare the GOP to shut down the government again on January 3rd, 2011. Bring in Mr. Lee (UT), Mr. Johnson (WI), Mr. Rubio (FLA), Mr. Toomey (PA), Mr. Paul (KY) and even Sarah Palin to make them a part of the deficit reduction bipartisan committee that will announcing its findings the first week of December.

 

3) Ask for no earmarks from the new Congress or a line-item veto. The new House has no desire to give up earmarks now. Call them on it, even if it's a drop in the bucket, put their feet to the fire, it's worth points symbolically.

 

4) Ask what specific cuts the GOP would like to make to entitlement programs in order to cut the deficit and balance the budget....with every piece of legislation, ask how many new jobs will be created and at what cost per job created. Call them out (the likes of Mr. Ryan and Mr. Paul) to provide specifics on cost-cuttiing plans for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (indexing based on income, raising the age or payroll deduction, etc.) Continue to point out that the non-partisan CBO has signed off that the Obamacare health law will save $700,000,000 from the deficit and ask for the GOP exactly how they plan on lowering health care costs while simultaneously providing coverage to nearly every American.

 

5) Drive a wedge between the Tea Party/libertarians and the traditional GOP defense hawks by threatening defense cuts and/or a drawdown of all the troops in Afghanistan.

 

6) Work with the Republicans on school choice, vouchers, Race to the Top/No Child Left Behind...knowing that the teachers' unions have nowhere to go in 2012 and that you need to firmly stake out the center.

 

7) Mr. Rubio as Vice-Presidential candidate in 2012 on the Democratic ticket.

 

8) JOBS, JOBS, JOBS...every press conference or public appearance, convince the American people that the most important item on your agenda is lowering the unemployment rate to ZERO.

 

9) Executive Order, shutdown of all tanning salons in southern Ohio and D.C.

 

10) Fight like hell and "man up" to get minorities and 18-29 year old voters back on your side...act as President as you did as a candidate in 2007-2008.

 

Minorities and young voters, are rapidly growing as a percentage of the American population. Eighty percent of the population growth in the country over the last decade has come from minorities. According to the Census Bureau, in the next decade, the Hispanic population will grow another 40 percent. That’s enough growth, over a relatively short period of time, to even turn Texas blue.

 

The youngest generation too, is reshaping the landscape. Every year between now and 2018, four million more Millennials will become eligible to vote. By 2018, they will be 90 million strong—bigger than the baby boomers—and will make up 40 percent of the eligible voting population in America.

 

10A) Immigration Reform...nobody in the GOP wants to touch this issue right now, especially the likes of John McCain

Edited November 4, 2010 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

8) JOBS, JOBS, JOBS...every press conference or public appearance, convince the American people that the most important item on your agenda is lowering the unemployment rate to ZERO.

A few of these are laughably WTF...but there's a serious point in this one that has come up again and again in the media. We heard over and over that Obama should have "focused more on jobs" or something along those lines.

 

What exactly does giving a press conference saying "I want to create jobs" actually do? No one is going to create jobs based on a press conference.

 

You can argue specific policies that might be job creators...I'd go for additional infrastructure spending and a huge investment in clean energy, others might go for an upper class tax cut...but you don't get any of those by going out every day and saying "I want to create jobs".

 

You want to win an election? Actually create some.

[NorthSideSox72]

If Obama's mindset right now is "defeat Boehner", then is is going to lose in 2012. His only and best path to success right now is to work with him.

 

[StrangeSox]

A few of these are laughably WTF...but there's a serious point in this one that has come up again and again in the media. We heard over and over that Obama should have "focused more on jobs" or something along those lines.

 

What exactly does giving a press conference saying "I want to create jobs" actually do? No one is going to create jobs based on a press conference.

 

You can argue specific policies that might be job creators...I'd go for additional infrastructure spending and a huge investment in clean energy, others might go for an upper class tax cut...but you don't get any of those by going out every day and saying "I want to create jobs".

 

You want to win an election? Actually create some.

 

Ironically, Boehner's main focus seems to be repealing health care.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would love to see Congress deal with the tax cut question by submitting two bills - one for extension of tax cuts for all but the top 2 brackets, and a seperate one for extension or modification for the top tiers. The lower one will pass in a hurry from both sides, and that will allow those to continue, while the higher tier ones are debated. Seems like a win for everyone, since everyone can point to tax cuts for 99% of the country.

 

[StrangeSox]

I would love to see Congress deal with the tax cut question by submitting two bills - one for extension of tax cuts for all but the top 2 brackets, and a seperate one for extension or modification for the top tiers. The lower one will pass in a hurry from both sides, and that will allow those to continue, while the higher tier ones are debated. Seems like a win for everyone, since everyone can point to tax cuts for 99% of the country.

 

I don't know why the Democrats didn't do this before the election, honestly. It would have forced Republicans to either hold up "tax cuts for the middle class" to get tax cuts for the wealthy, or to give up tax cuts for the wealthy.

[Balta1701]

I would love to see Congress deal with the tax cut question by submitting two bills - one for extension of tax cuts for all but the top 2 brackets, and a seperate one for extension or modification for the top tiers. The lower one will pass in a hurry from both sides, and that will allow those to continue, while the higher tier ones are debated. Seems like a win for everyone, since everyone can point to tax cuts for 99% of the country.

The reality is...the Republicans and a good chunk of Democrats are dead-set against this move because it's a political loser for them. They want to be able to vote for the tax cuts on the top brackets but they know that "Person X voted for a budget busting, $3 trillion tax cut for millionaires and billionaires" is a political loser, so just like with the original Bush tax cuts, if they want to cut the top rate, the only way they're going to get it through is to tie it to smaller tax cuts on the lower rates.

[EvilMonkey]

More class warfare. Why do you hate people who earned their money? Or is it jealousy that you don't have what they have?

 

#1 best bet wold be to compromise and extend it for 2 years as-is and revisit it then when the economy is (hopefully) better.

 

#2 Not sure what you would have to gain from this.

 

#3, most the new people campaigned against earmarks, so them staying away from them should be a positive.

 

#4 Why would cutting costs create jobs? They will be happy to give you specifics on things to cut, but I have no idea why you seem to think that that will create jobs.

 

#5 So you want to remove troops, threatening all the gains (if any) so far, just to score cheap political points? Nice.

 

 

#6 sounds like a Clinton tactic, co-op the other sides ideas and make them your own. Clinton wasn't as bad a President as some make him out to be, but he was kinda scummy. I met him once and shook his hand, can see whay people like him.

 

#7 Never happen

 

#9 That's pretty funny. But he can always get spray-on tan.

 

#8 The dirty secret none of the politicians wil tell you is that unless the government is hiring, they can't create 'jobs'. They can just get the hell out of the way and let businesses create jobs. Make the climate favorible for them to do so, remove obsticles, etc. But unless they hiring themselves, they can't do jack.

 

#10 Young people get a real shock to the system when they finally leave mommy's house and get outr on thier own. Taxes take on a whole new meaning when you see your already small paycheck being cut in half to fund all these things that make you 'feel good'.

 

#10a Why don't they?

[StrangeSox]

More class warfare. Why do you hate people who earned their money? Or is it jealousy that you don't have what they have?

 

Why not read some actual criticisms of capitalism instead of straw man versions? There's a lot of question begging in those sentences.

 

#10 Young people get a real shock to the system when they finally leave mommy's house and get outr on thier own. Taxes take on a whole new meaning when you see your already small paycheck being cut in half to fund all these things that make you 'feel good'.

 

If this straw man was true, Democrats wouldn't hold the Senate and the WH.

 

Also, who that has a small paycheck is getting taxed 50%?

[caulfield12]

More class warfare That's exactly what FDR did, just more successfully.. Why do you hate people who earned their money? Or is it jealousy that you don't have what they have?

 

#1 best bet wold be to compromise and extend it for 2 years as-is and revisit it then when the economy is (hopefully) better. (then you're 100% not reducing the deficit and only enlarging it....true? once again, $9.3 trillion of the deficit numbers are due to Reagan and both Bushes, not the evil tax and spend liberals of big government, i just want to see all the Tea Party inductees vote for tax cuts for the rich and explain how that will reduce the deficit exactly, where's the evidence, corporations are sitting on $2,000,000,000 and won't spend it because future demand is so uncertain)

 

#2 Not sure what you would have to gain from this.

 

#3, most the new people campaigned against earmarks, so them staying away from them should be a positive. (and that's the only idea Eric Cantor has put forth, we heard the same from McCain, it's 1/100th or 1% of the overall problem statistically)

 

#4 Why would cutting costs create jobs? They will be happy to give you specifics on things to cut, but I have no idea why you seem to think that that will create jobs. (nobody but Rand Paul has given specifics, and obviously his idea to cut defense spending and end the war in Afghanistan won't go over well....we'll here that we are "surrendering" over and over again)

 

#5 So you want to remove troops, threatening all the gains (if any) so far, just to score cheap political points? Nice. (is our country safer since 9/11? i don't think so, but capturing Obama might come close to guaranteeing Obama a 2nd term)

 

#6 sounds like a Clinton tactic, co-op the other sides ideas and make them your own. Clinton wasn't as bad a President as some make him out to be, but he was kinda scummy. I met him once and shook his hand, can see whay people like him.

 

#7 Never happen

 

#9 That's pretty funny. But he can always get spray-on tan.

 

#8 The dirty secret none of the politicians wil tell you is that unless the government is hiring, they can't create 'jobs'. They can just get the hell out of the way and let businesses create jobs. Make the climate favorible for them to do so, remove obsticles, etc. But unless they hiring themselves, they can't do jack. (once again, besides lowering every tax ever developed, what's the magic bullet idea here? how has that worked under Reagan, Bush and Bush? all it has done has increased the average amount of a CEO salary 10X the rate of the average middle mgmnt worker compared to the 70's while real wages for the middle class are increasing as are hours)

 

#10 Young people get a real shock to the system when they finally leave mommy's house and get outr on thier own. Taxes take on a whole new meaning when you see your already small paycheck being cut in half to fund all these things that make you 'feel good'. (most of the money in taxes goes to entitlements in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and interest payments on the debt....specifically, what programs are you going to cut and how? if you're going to go back to scratch on Obamacare, how are you going to save $700,000,000 and ALSO be able to cover at least 30,000,000 Americans without health insurance currently....explain)

 

#10a Why don't they? (because they don't dare to alienate Hispanic voters....the same reason Rubio has already flip flopped, and why McCain did so)

 

[StrangeSox]

Those 30,000,000 people without insurance obviously don't deserve it. See, our economy is really just a sorting algorithm for human value. Poor? Can't afford medicine? Well, you probably did something to deserve that!

[caulfield12]

Why not read some actual criticisms of capitalism instead of straw man versions? There's a lot of question begging in those sentences.

 

 

 

If this straw man was true, Democrats wouldn't hold the Senate and the WH.

 

Also, who that has a small paycheck is getting taxed 50%?

 

 

But I read Ayn Rand and know who John Galt is, lol.

 

I can't wait for that movie.

 

Perfect timing, lol.

[Chisoxfn]

Why not read some actual criticisms of capitalism instead of straw man versions? There's a lot of question begging in those sentences.

 

 

 

If this straw man was true, Democrats wouldn't hold the Senate and the WH.

 

Also, who that has a small paycheck is getting taxed 50%?

A small paycheck coming out and you will get taxed pretty good when you add in state income tax and your FICA. Not quite 50% but it is still a pretty significant chunk. It was like my first job I had at a grocery store. I got my small paycheck and had it reduced by Union dues.

 

I was so f***ing pissed.

[StrangeSox]

A small paycheck coming out and you will get taxed pretty good when you add in state income tax and your FICA. Not quite 50% but it is still a pretty significant chunk. It was like my first job I had at a grocery store. I got my small paycheck and had it reduced by Union dues.

 

I was so f***ing pissed.

 

Arguably, your pay was higher and you were protected from abuses by management/ownership because of the union.

 

Anyway, I make decent money for someone in their 20's. My total paycheck deductions, including 401k and health insurance, doesn't amount to 50%. Someone making less is certainly going to be taxed less.

[caulfield12]

Those 30,000,000 people without insurance obviously don't deserve it. See, our economy is really just a sorting algorithm for human value. Poor? Can't afford medicine? Well, you probably did something to deserve that!

 

 

It's actually something like 47-50,000,000 now.

 

But I was pretty sure not every single American would be getting coverage, but a large majority of those remaining.

 

Would have to double check the stats. It might be 35-40/47,000,000 or something like that.

 

But same thing is true with unemployment, it's 9.6% but actually closer to 15-20% in reality.

[Balta1701]

It's actually something like 47-50,000,000 now.

 

But I was pretty sure not every single American would be getting coverage, but a large majority of those remaining.

 

Would have to double check the stats. It might be 35-40/47,000,000 or something like that.

 

But same thing is true with unemployment, it's 9.6% but actually closer to 15-20% in reality.

In the original House bill, the CBO estimate was that it would be well over 40 million who would get coverage. The Senate bill however pared back on that, and the final CBO estimate was that it would expand coverage by about 30-32 million people, with the remainder basically choosing to pay the opt-out fees.

[caulfield12]

I see both sides of the union argument.

 

On one hand, I've been a member of the teacher's union, it can protect teachers who don't deserve to keep their jobs. On the other hand, working in China, you can see how many advantages your employer or the government has over workers here....and your rights are almost ZERO. If you want to know more specifically, start reading about Foxconn (maybe it's Foxcon) and all the workers who have committed suicide in the last couple of years by jumping off the roof? Something like 13, they actually had to erect netting to keep workers from killing themselves.

 

China will have unions in the next 10-20 years too, they're already beginning to institute steps for foreign companies/multinationals.

 

As much as some bemoan unions, would we rather be working at Wal-Mart and be treated like their employees?

 

The funny thing is that I was listening to CSPAN and all these voters were complaining about the unions and the costs of doing business in America, but I didn't hear a single person call in to complain about the bankers and their bonuses. Not one. It's a good trick, that the GOP has workers (middle class) turning on each other but completely ignoring the real bandits who are pilfering the system.

[EvilMonkey]

Iwill respond 1 point at a time, since I am at work and keep getting interupted with people actually wanting me to do my job.

In regards to #4, I believe I misread it, and so my reply to you didn't make sense, likewise yor reply to what I said left me scratching my head. I believe you had 2 different points, one being tell us what you would cut and two, tell us how passing this new bill would create jobs. If that is what you had meant, then my reply is this. They will be all to happy to tell you just what they want to cut, so you shouldn't have to worry about that. As for what jobs wil be created by each new bill, I already pointed out to you that government can't 'create' jobs unless they themselves are hiring. All they can do is stimulate others to do so by incentivizing them, removing obsticles or just getting out of the way.

 

And in regards to the paycheck, I threw half out there because it sounds good. Don't take it so literaly. It still sucks when you realize that 24% to 31% of your check is gone for taxes and things like social security which most may never ever see a penny of. You may notcare about those things at 15, but when you start getting a paycheck, you do.

[StrangeSox]

And in regards to the paycheck, I threw half out there because it sounds good. Don't take it so literaly. It still sucks when you realize that 24% to 31% of your check is gone for taxes and things like social security which most may never ever see a penny of. You may notcare about those things at 15, but when you start getting a paycheck, you do.

 

I'm a working adult who realizes that, in order to have a functional society and things like infrastructure and education and non-starving-and-homeless-elderly, we have to pay some taxes. The conservative meme of the only people who don't care about taxes are people without real jobs or poor people is insulting.

 

Fabricating numbers that are roughly double the real numbers makes your argument look weak and disingenuous.

Edited November 4, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Rex Kickass]

And in regards to the paycheck, I threw half out there because it sounds good. Don't take it so literaly. It still sucks when you realize that 24% to 31% of your check is gone for taxes and things like social security which most may never ever see a penny of. You may notcare about those things at 15, but when you start getting a paycheck, you do.

 

I've been getting paychecks for over a decade now and I haven't had a problem with the taxes that were taken out, except for when the accountant was accidentally withholding double what he was supposed to on my check.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I'm a working adult who realizes that, in order to have a functional society and things like infrastructure and education and non-starving-and-homeless-elderly, we have to pay some taxes. The conservative meme of the only people who don't care about taxes are people without real jobs or poor people is insulting.

 

Fabricating numbers that are roughly double the real numbers makes your argument look weak and disingenuous.

WHen I was 16 and making $5 per hour, having $45 of my $200 gone before I even got the check seemed like more than half. I didnt' pay too much attention to taxes and stuff back then, and I was quite unhappy about it at the time. I realize that taxes of some kind are a necessary evil, but it seems to be the level of taxes and what is done with the money that is the issue. What's insulting is the idea that I am not only my brothers keeper, but your brothers, and everyone elses brothers while you are at it. What's insulting is that you and people like you thik that because I make X amount of money, that I can afford to just give Y away to the government and should thank them for taking it from me. I made the money, not you. It is the fruits of MY labor. What's insulting is people like you who think that I don't care about government waste spending when my party is in power, or when it involves the military. Waste is waste. I hate $800 hammers as much as I hate Medicare fraud. What's insulting is when people who don't pay taxes tell me that I don't pay enough taxes.

[StrangeSox]

WHen I was 16 and making $5 per hour, having $45 of my $200 gone before I even got the check seemed like more than half. I didnt' pay too much attention to taxes and stuff back then, and I was quite unhappy about it at the time. I realize that taxes of some kind are a necessary evil, but it seems to be the level of taxes and what is done with the money that is the issue. What's insulting is the idea that I am not only my brothers keeper, but your brothers, and everyone elses brothers while you are at it. What's insulting is that you and people like you thik that because I make X amount of money, that I can afford to just give Y away to the government and should thank them for taking it from me. I made the money, not you. It is the fruits of MY labor. What's insulting is people like you who think that I don't care about government waste spending when my party is in power, or when it involves the military. Waste is waste. I hate $800 hammers as much as I hate Medicare fraud. What's insulting is when people who don't pay taxes tell me that I don't pay enough taxes.

 

And everything in place to facilitate you making that money. You can't ignore the many, many external factors--a lot of which are taxpayer funded through infrastructure, subsidies, grants, tax credits, etc.

 

[EvilMonkey]

And everything in place to facilitate you making that money. You can't ignore the many, many external factors--a lot of which are taxpayer funded through infrastructure, subsidies, grants, tax credits, etc.

Yeah, the NEA really helped me in my job. That monkey masterbation study sure helped me deliver that letterhead to the customer on time. The bridge to nowhere sure got me......well....no where. I did mention that i realized the necessary evil of taxes for SOME things. The issue is where does that list stop. Or did you read right over that?

 

And while we are at it, why do you hate the rich so much that you want to steal more from them than from everyone else? What have they done to you? Why shold they be singled out for more taxes than you or me?

[StrangeSox]

"When did you stop beating your wife?!?! Or are you saying you HAVEN'T stopped beating your wife!"

 

They're "singled-out" for paying more taxes because they make significantly more money, can afford to pay those taxes, and aren't going to experience an adverse change in lifestyle from paying a few extra thousand a year. Have you seen the wealth and income gaps in this country lately? Do you want the government that only the poorest Americans can afford?

 

Taxation isn't theft. The ability to generate that wealth relies heavily upon services provided by tax dollars. Without a strong, stable government, how prosperous do you think we'd be?

Edited November 4, 2010 by StrangeSox

[EvilMonkey]

"When did you stop beating your wife?!?! Or are you saying you HAVEN'T stopped beating your wife!"

 

They're "singled-out" for paying more taxes because they make significantly more money, can afford to pay those taxes, and aren't going to experience an adverse change in lifestyle from paying a few extra thousand a year. Have you seen the wealth and income gaps in this country lately? Do you want the government that only the poorest Americans can afford?

So you are saying from each, according to their ability..................