|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 18, 2011 17:24:20 GMT -8
Peggy Noonan is a Republican moderate living in a sea of fanatical, fundamentalists Republicans (watch Morning Joe when she's on if you don't believe me). Shoot, for all I know the Republican candidate may win if the economy goes south again, but the Republican "base", read the Teabaggers, are likely going to screw it up big time in the primaries. I mean really; as it stands the Teabagger favorites are Palin an Bachmann, neither of which are electable. But then again, I'd love to see the Republicans nominate them. =Bob I've brought this up before but Alan Cranston is the perfect example. This bastion of liberalism would never have even been elected to the Senate but for fact that the extreme right wing of the Republican Party threw out their own moderate incumbent in the primary for not being "conservative enough". Yoda out... Cranston v. Max Rafferty was the perfect example of California rejecting right-wing A-Holes. Rafferty didn't understand how California demographics had changed. The radical Republican religious right could take a lesson from that election if they had enough brights to do so. Thankfully they don't and because of that refusal to learn from history they will continue to be "right, rather than be President". This is the problem with the "base" of both parties - they desire to be ideologically pure than to actually engage in the messy business that comes from governing. Ideological purity is crap. Democracy is the ugly business of compromise and because of the Southern base, the right-wing has made compromise impossible. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 18, 2011 17:26:46 GMT -8
The economy does not always bounce back in a presidential election year. It certainly did not in 1932. There was a recession in 1960, as well. AzWm Both of which, being the old fart you are, you remember well ;D. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on May 7, 2011 12:24:06 GMT -8
The only way that Obama loses is if the economy seriously double dips. Yoda out... That can be arranged, Yoda. |
|
|
|
Post by jenaztec1 on May 11, 2011 11:22:40 GMT -8
lets pray he doesnt get re-elected. he will move infront of jimmy carter for the worst president weve ever had, i dont see how he would win again.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 11, 2011 13:31:09 GMT -8
lets pray he doesnt get re-elected. he will move infront of jimmy carter for the worst president weve ever had, i dont see how he would win again. Very profound statement.  And whom might you propose to replace him from the great group of Replublican candidates? "Anyone" is not a valid answer. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 11, 2011 13:38:53 GMT -8
lets pray he doesnt get re-elected. he will move infront of jimmy carter for the worst president weve ever had, i dont see how he would win again. Very profound statement. And whom might you propose to replace him from the great group of Replublican candidates? "Anyone" is not a valid answer. Howdy Doody, Kenny Allen or Elmer Fudd would all do a much better job along with any of the declared list of Candidates from any party. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 11, 2011 14:06:42 GMT -8
Very profound statement. And whom might you propose to replace him from the great group of Replublican candidates? "Anyone" is not a valid answer. Howdy Doody, Kenny Allen or Elmer Fudd would all do a much better job along with any of the declared list of Candidates from any party. The first three you name are indeed the Republican front runners. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 11, 2011 15:29:32 GMT -8
Howdy Doody, Kenny Allen or Elmer Fudd would all do a much better job along with any of the declared list of Candidates from any party. The first three you name are indeed the Republican front runners. ;D They are all more accomplished than Obama. Kenny Allen for sure is smarter! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2011 16:25:51 GMT -8
Does anyone remember McGovern in 1972? 49 states to the GOP! I'm old enough to remember it. And what I remember is that even though most of the country was then a bit of left of center politically because of overwhelming opposition to Vietnam, McGovern was so far to the left that he got killed anyway. Even though most of the electorate is now a bit right of center politically because of Fundamentalist Muslims, if the Republicans nominate somebody like Santorum, although Obama wouldn't win 49 states, it will be a similar blowout in the number of total votes cast for the incumbent president compared to his challenger. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2011 16:27:46 GMT -8
lets pray he doesnt get re-elected. he will move infront of jimmy carter for the worst president weve ever had, i dont see how he would win again. Very profound statement. I particularly like her comment because it's supported by so many facts. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 13, 2011 13:18:45 GMT -8
Very profound statement. I particularly like her comment because it's supported by so many facts. Those are the facts!  |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 20, 2011 8:13:06 GMT -8
Jeeze, you really don't understand politics, do you? =Bob What would make you think that? Looks like some pretty good issues to build a campaign around. How is Obama going to spin those things to his advantage? If the economy comes roaring back, I could take four more years of Obama as long as the GOP made further gains in the House and Senate. The downturn occurred under a Republican administration and it was caused by their policies. If you subtract the wars, their recession, and their idiotic tax cuts we would have a f&*cking budget surplus. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 21, 2011 5:34:35 GMT -8
What would make you think that? Looks like some pretty good issues to build a campaign around. How is Obama going to spin those things to his advantage? If the economy comes roaring back, I could take four more years of Obama as long as the GOP made further gains in the House and Senate. The downturn occurred under a Republican administration and it was caused by their policies. If you subtract the wars, their recession, and their idiotic tax cuts we would have a f&*cking budget surplus. Do you mean to ignore 9/11 much as Clinton did all the events leading up to it? You have no grasp of reality! |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 21, 2011 6:49:26 GMT -8
The downturn occurred under a Republican administration and it was caused by their policies. If you subtract the wars, their recession, and their idiotic tax cuts we would have a f&*cking budget surplus. Do you mean to ignore 9/11 much as Clinton did all the events leading up to it? You have no grasp of reality! Please link the events in Iraq to 9/11. If you can, I will be impressed. But, that is only one leg of the failure to see the truth stool. You do not mention the tax cuts and the recession, which occurred under George Bush. If theses things did not occur, there would be no deficit. You claim to be up in arms about the deficit, but you are not investigating the proximate causes of it, nor are you interested in fixing it. The reason? Well, I think Republicans don't care about the deficit, really. They are using it as an excuse to reduce the power of their adversaries and regain total power. Where, just like with Bush, all deficit talk will disappear and the giveaway to Republican enablers will continue apace. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 21, 2011 7:01:40 GMT -8
Do you mean to ignore 9/11 much as Clinton did all the events leading up to it? You have no grasp of reality! Please link the events in Iraq to 9/11. If you can, I will be impressed. But, that is only one leg of the failure to see the truth stool. You do not mention the tax cuts and the recession, which occurred under George Bush. If theses things did not occur, there would be no deficit. You claim to be up in arms about the deficit, but you are not investigating the proximate causes of it, nor are you interested in fixing it. The reason? Well, I think Republicans don't care about the deficit, really. They are using it as an excuse to reduce the power of their adversaries and regain total power. Where, just like with Bush, all deficit talk will disappear and the giveaway to Republican enablers will continue apace. This has all been gone over till it is tiring. If you don't "get it" the first few dozen times it is covered, what would lead me to believe that you would "get it" were I to enlighten you again? I won't say much about the tax issues as I am thinking that something should be done on the revenue side but only after deeps spending cuts are in place. We really don't have a revenue problem, but to just cut spending without looking to the tax code would be a wasted opportunity. Cutting out most if not all subsidies that appear in the tax code along with making sure there is no double taxation would make it simpler. A little more regressive if not a flat tax would help. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 21, 2011 7:15:03 GMT -8
Please link the events in Iraq to 9/11. If you can, I will be impressed. But, that is only one leg of the failure to see the truth stool. You do not mention the tax cuts and the recession, which occurred under George Bush. If theses things did not occur, there would be no deficit. You claim to be up in arms about the deficit, but you are not investigating the proximate causes of it, nor are you interested in fixing it. The reason? Well, I think Republicans don't care about the deficit, really. They are using it as an excuse to reduce the power of their adversaries and regain total power. Where, just like with Bush, all deficit talk will disappear and the giveaway to Republican enablers will continue apace. This has all been gone over till it is tiring. If you don't "get it" the first few dozen times it is covered, what would lead me to believe that you would "get it" were I to enlighten you again? I won't say much about the tax issues as I am thinking that something should be done on the revenue side but only after deeps spending cuts are in place. We really don't have a revenue problem, but to just cut spending without looking to the tax code would be a wasted opportunity. Cutting out most if not all subsidies that appear in the tax code along with making sure there is no double taxation would make it simpler. A little more regressive if not a flat tax would help. Win, we had one of the lowest income tax rates in the industrialized world in 1999. Why would you be in favor of taxation that favors those with means? My point is that spending was not out of control, until Bush did what he did. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then you must acknowledge that balancing the budget is not the real goal of the Republican party, because a reasonable fix is there and only requires no action. Double taxation is coding for letting the well to do get away with it. Spending cuts are the Republican way of saying allocate resources to my priorities. I noticed that all of the cuts the Republicans mention avoid burdening their constituencies. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 21, 2011 7:23:05 GMT -8
This has all been gone over till it is tiring. If you don't "get it" the first few dozen times it is covered, what would lead me to believe that you would "get it" were I to enlighten you again? I won't say much about the tax issues as I am thinking that something should be done on the revenue side but only after deeps spending cuts are in place. We really don't have a revenue problem, but to just cut spending without looking to the tax code would be a wasted opportunity. Cutting out most if not all subsidies that appear in the tax code along with making sure there is no double taxation would make it simpler. A little more regressive if not a flat tax would help. Win, we had one of the lowest income tax rates in the industrialized world in 1999. Why would you be in favor of taxation that favors those with means? My point is that spending was not out of control, until Bush did what he did. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then you must acknowledge that balancing the budget is not the real goal of the Republican party, because a reasonable fix is there and only requires no action. Double taxation is coding for letting the well to do get away with it. Spending cuts are the Republican way of saying allocate resources to my priorities. I noticed that all of the cuts the Republicans mention avoid burdening their constituencies. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. That should be fixed. You can read what you want into what I say, but the facts are that a simple more flat tax system would benefit just about all of us. Might get some of the "takers" to join the "payers" in advocating an even better tax system. "Soaking the Rich" is a way to get the Rich to leave. Then who is left holding the bag? |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 21, 2011 7:44:20 GMT -8
Win, we had one of the lowest income tax rates in the industrialized world in 1999. Why would you be in favor of taxation that favors those with means? My point is that spending was not out of control, until Bush did what he did. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then you must acknowledge that balancing the budget is not the real goal of the Republican party, because a reasonable fix is there and only requires no action. Double taxation is coding for letting the well to do get away with it. Spending cuts are the Republican way of saying allocate resources to my priorities. I noticed that all of the cuts the Republicans mention avoid burdening their constituencies. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. That should be fixed. You can read what you want into what I say, but the facts are that a simple more flat tax system would benefit just about all of us. Might get some of the "takers" to join the "payers" in advocating an even better tax system. "Soaking the Rich" is a way to get the Rich to leave. Then who is left holding the bag? ". . . is a way to get the Rich to leave. . ." Prove that the rich would leave. Prove that corporations would leave. Prove it. That was not true in 1999 when we had those "horrible" rates. That was not true when the rates were even higher. Why would it be true now? I would be affected by the return to the previous rates and I have no intention of moving. I tried that when Bush was president. Canada said I was too old.  While corporations have a 35% income tax rate, that is not the entire story. You fail to talk about deductions, depletion and credits. I seem to have read that several large corporations have paid no tax and they are making profits hand over fist. Why do you defend the powerful and denigrate the weak? The flat tax is a bad idea. I know my taxation, Win. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 21, 2011 8:06:17 GMT -8
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. That should be fixed. You can read what you want into what I say, but the facts are that a simple more flat tax system would benefit just about all of us. Might get some of the "takers" to join the "payers" in advocating an even better tax system. "Soaking the Rich" is a way to get the Rich to leave. Then who is left holding the bag? ". . . is a way to get the Rich to leave. . ." Prove that the rich would leave. Prove that corporations would leave. Prove it. That was not true in 1999 when we had those "horrible" rates. That was not true when the rates were even higher. Why would it be true now? I would be affected by the return to the previous rates and I have no intention of moving. I tried that when Bush was president. Canada said I was too old. While corporations have a 35% income tax rate, that is not the entire story. You fail to talk about deductions, depletion and credits. I seem to have read that several large corporations have paid no tax and they are making profits hand over fist. Why do you defend the powerful and denigrate the weak? The flat tax is a bad idea. I know my taxation, Win. Why are really rich people moving out of New York and California? It is happening and Florida and Texas are destinations. Why is that? You failed to read all that I said about taxes on corporations. Were you one of those like those Hollywood types who said they would move to Canada if Bush was elected and then did not follow through? We could make the tax code a lot simpler and fairer by getting rid of most all deductions and going to a flat rate or maybe three simple tiers at the most. |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on May 21, 2011 10:43:01 GMT -8
". . . is a way to get the Rich to leave. . ." Prove that the rich would leave. Prove that corporations would leave. Prove it. That was not true in 1999 when we had those "horrible" rates. That was not true when the rates were even higher. Why would it be true now? I would be affected by the return to the previous rates and I have no intention of moving. I tried that when Bush was president. Canada said I was too old. While corporations have a 35% income tax rate, that is not the entire story. You fail to talk about deductions, depletion and credits. I seem to have read that several large corporations have paid no tax and they are making profits hand over fist. Why do you defend the powerful and denigrate the weak? The flat tax is a bad idea. I know my taxation, Win. Why are really rich people moving out of New York and California? It is happening and Florida and Texas are destinations. Why is that? You failed to read all that I said about taxes on corporations. Were you one of those like those Hollywood types who said they would move to Canada if Bush was elected and then did not follow through? We could make the tax code a lot simpler and fairer by getting rid of most all deductions and going to a flat rate or maybe three simple tiers at the most. The established corporate tax rates have little to do with the effective amount they pay. You are oversimplifying a complex process, a process corporations use to astonishing success, with a discussion about the arbitrary figure of 35%. Corporations are not overtaxed. I understand better than you, my friend. They seem to like it here just fine. I would ask you to think about why they do not follow up on all this angst about taxation, by moving out, but never mind. I could explain what I mean about the rich paying too little and the absurdity of "trickle down", but you would not listen to me, anyway. You refuse to acknowledge that the groups you support are already at an overwhelming advantage. I cannot debate with a wall. I cannot debate with a wall. So my stubborn friend, I'll let a rich guy tell you what I think: ". . .But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it." Warren Buffet--rich guy Read more: www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/warren_buffett.html#ixzz1N0pBU1XA"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on." Warren Buffet--Rich guy Read more: www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/warren_buffett_2.html#ixzz1N0pWt0m1From: www.brainyquote.com/All this, of course, will not change your mind. But, the fact of the matter is without the wars, the recession and the tax cuts, THERE WOULD BE NO DEFICIT. You cannot dispute that fact. I could provide literally dozens of citations, but it will do me no good. Republicans do not want to balance the budget, they want people that they think are freeloaders to become economically self sufficient, even if it kills them. If they had wanted to balance the budget, they would not have done what they did when Bush was in office. Republicans have an agenda and it is not the deficit. |
|
