Well, on the Red State blogs the theme is to improve the Repuplican brand "from the grassroots up".

Which seems quite fair, given they ground that brand into the earth by defining Conservatism as literally any and every brain fart George Bush emitted for about five years.

I'm still waiting, in all sincerity, for someone to explain to me why they did this.

Certain persons (here nameless) beat us over the heads frequently with electoral vote politics.

Well, there are now fewer that call themselves R's but more that call themselves D's. So stop thinking 2004. The world's changed a bit.

explain to me why they did this

They thought they had found the secret to a thousand year reich in Karl Rove.

They really believed God was on their side and it was the end of the Democratic party and then they got politically greedy.

explain to me why they did this:

They supported the president they had at the time... not the one they wished they had.

Look At The GREAT Job The GOP Has Done Running The White House And Congress !

-Sarge

Only a complete asshole, a la Sniper or Kuma or BL2 could identify themselves as Republicans at this point.

Hell I am embarrassed as hell to be a registered republican myself.

You should be, not to put too fine a point on it.

Now if I were Republican and retarded... Wait, I repeat myself.

Don't ask, can't spell.

Why is the Republican Party is so much trouble??

It's the economy stupid.

Not to worry kids! The "Economic Stimulus" checks are in the mail!

We're saved!!!

I have always wondered who are the 33% who approve of the job he is doing???

And how many of those 33% have someone close to them fighting in Iraq?

When the demss control Congress and the White House everything will be so much better. Dems feel your pain and are so much more enlightened than normal people.

Yes the Bush family is quite...ahem "normal"

"When the demss control Congress and the White House everything will be so much better. Dems feel your pain and are so much more enlightened than normal people."

No dummy, the Dems ARE the normal people and yes we do feel the same pain you do. And yes, things will be much better under Democratic leadership, we've proven it many times. Duh!
Republicans' only hope is to pretend that the blame for their leadership should fall on all politicians, sorry but you can't blame the Dems for the sins of the Rethugs.

Ahh. The poetic ebb and flow of the fickle sheeple. The Repubs will be back in 4 to 8 years depending on how long it takes the Dems to prove their worthlessness. The Reps will throw out campaign slogans about hope and change, and win another election someday. And then we will do this dance all over again, ad nauseum, until there is nothing left...

Well, if this is still true in November, it'll be a blood bath. However, that's a long ways away...Some of this is because there isn't an actual Dem candidate to become disgusted with yet....We'll see...

Some of this is because there isn't an actual Dem candidate to become disgusted with yet....We'll see...

Hmmm! So Obama is looking just fine compared with the republicans, glad to see your true feelings.

Ryker you are probably right that the Republicans will be back but not because of what the Dems do,it will be because of the 24/7/365 propaganda on TV and radio.

**** I have always wondered who are the 33% who approve of the job he is doing???

Posted by BigPerm ******

.......the 1% of the country that are millionaires.....

.......and the other 32% will get back to you later, they're busy talking in tongues, and rolling around the floor of their neighborhood church.....

***** Some of this is because there isn't an actual Dem candidate to become disgusted with yet...Jonryker *****

......so you are saying that its quite appropriate to be disgusted with the GOP.... ?.......

......interesting admission from our resident queer/mafia apoligist.......

Skizziks,

Make no mistake, people are disgusted with the way the GOP has spent money....That is earned, and right now, that is showing. My guess is, though, that once one of the Dem candidates actually has to show their tax and spend plans with McCane as the comparison, people will pick McCane....now, I don't know what that means for the rest of the GOPers...I don't believe people do or will like McCane enough for him to have coattails....we'll see how it works out, but I'm guessing people are not gonna vote for higher taxes or a lost war, once they have the choice....That is not to say that they will be excited about their choice...

My guess is, though, that once one of the Dem candidates actually has to show their tax and spend plans with McCane as the comparison, people will pick McCane..

No way McCain will win this election. Reps are jumping off the Titanic. In 4 to 8 years, dems will be jumping off the Hindenburg. Like I said.. Repeat ad nauseum until the end...

SKIZZOIDS!

I've gotta admit that I am still laughing about my fellow republican millionaires and their friends speaking in tonges and rolling around on the floor of their church.

I'm still rolling around in front of my computer and laughing so hard my tummy hurts.

"My guess is, though, that once one of the Dem candidates actually has to show their tax and spend plans with McCane as the comparison,"

Tax and spend is far better than borrow and spend.
Taxing and spending is known as Keynsian Economics and it is responsible for the creation of the largest middle class in history. Another term for it is wealth redistribution which really makes rich fucks angry. Makes me laugh.

Danni,

No, it's not. Taxes take money from consumers and investors....this slows the economy, jobs are lost, unemployment goes up, things go bad.

The rich fucks can afford the taxes or lobby to get loopholes so that they don't have to pay them or put their money in offshore banks. It's the middle-class that can't avoid them. It's also the middle class who will lose their job when said rich guy takes the money out of his business and puts it in an offshore bank, or simply moves the business to another country to avoid the high taxes. You've been watching this happen and complain about the loss of jobs, but you don't seem to understand that our high corporate taxes are causing the problem...

Making your policy decisions based on your hatred of rich people is not ethically sound or economically sound. That kind of class warfare, combined with racist warfare, combined with gender warfare, is the kind of crap which ensures that the Democratic Party is, at this point in history, a destructive force in this society. The politics of the bitter.....An older term for "wealth distribution" is "theft". Hitler, another socialist friend of yours, believed in distributing the wealthy of Jews to Aryans. He also used the power of the "law" to do this. This is the same bonfire mentality you display. Not admirable....

"No, it's not. Taxes take money from consumers and investors....this slows the economy, jobs are lost, unemployment goes up, things go bad."

That's what Bush sold you, Rush sold you, Reagan sold you. It simply is bull shit, doesn't work at all with outsourcing factories to China and India.
We gave them the largest tax cut in history but the economy did not prosper, wages stagnated, can't even keep up with inflation. Don't be such a tool Jon, learn to think for yourself.

"An older term for "wealth distribution" is "theft"."

So, if you think every American president up to Bush is a thief that's your problem. It's what makes our economy work and that of every other major industrial nation. Without redistribution the wealth concentrates in too few hands and depression follows.

"Hitler, another socialist friend of yours,"

BTW, references to Hitler and the Nazis are generally frowned upon by all the folks who have any class on this site.

Tax and spend is far better than borrow and spend.
Taxing and spending is known as Keynsian Economics and it is responsible for the creation of the largest middle class in history. Another term for it is wealth redistribution which really makes rich fucks angry. Makes me laugh.

Posted by danni
* * * *

You misunderstand Keynesian economics. Keynes was all for borrowing, which explained why the Keynesians always ran deficits. So did the non-Keynesians.

If you think wealth distribution will be successful, have at it. The rich have always gotten richer, and--in America--so have the poor, just not nearly as quickly. Obama's not going to change that simply by raising some taxes. I press a button and POOF the money goes away, and will return only with preferential tax treatment.

Money and capital are like that, see. So if you plan on voting for Obama and waiting by your mailbox for the big checks, well--just don't count your chickens before they've hatched.

Bob barr is supposedly announcing as Libertarian today. We'll see who here is a Libertarian and who is just an embarrassed GOPper.

We know Barr has the serially monogamous family values vote.

"The rich have always gotten richer, and--in America--so have the poor, just not nearly as quickly."

I fully understand that RisR. The taxes that should be levied right now would be paying for infrastructure repairs, etc. and rich people do own companies to do those tasks. I don't have any problem with them becoming richer, I do have a problem with their investment dollars all going overseas. The government's role should be to take tax dollars and spend them here creating high paying jobs which force other employers to raise wages and get the economic ball rolling. The course we are on now is just one of gradual descent into second world lifestyles for the vast majority of Americans while the few become wealthy. I don't expect a check from the government but I do expect a safe bridge to drive over and I am glad that a worker will earn a fair wage making it so.

Talking about wealth redistribution... don't think they do much of that in Mexico.

Danni,

Well, they're socialists, as you seem to be. You think very similarly to them, so I try to point out to you, and other Socialistas on this site who are very quick to attack people and very slow to honestly engage in debate about issues, that there is historical precedent for your attitudes and beliefs. I'm just showing you what has already been proven to happen when people who think like you find themselves in charge of countries....It's not been to good a thing. My hope is to get you to understand that your perspective is fundamentally flawed. Like many socialists, however, you can change your mind. As a teacher, this is my goal....The fact that you don't like hear that Hitler and Stalin would agree with you is a sign that you don't like their views...That's good... Now, all you have to do is to realize that your views are theirs, react with the same horror, and change your views.

Instead, you just put your fingers in your ears and attempt to censor me....your buddies were real big on that too!

"Well, they're socialists, as you seem to be."

I'm just not a laissez fair capitalist. I think that some socialism is necessary in a compassionate society and that it actually creates a more prosperous society. My view seems to be proven out by virtually every modern industrialized nation in the world.

"Instead, you just put your fingers in your ears and attempt to censor me...."

Heavens no, I would never do that. I believe everyone should be free to make as big a fool of themselves as they wish. I was just letting you know about some of the finer points of blog ettiquette.

I'm sure there are plenty of people poorer than you, Danni. So how much should your taxes go up to redistribute your wealth to them? $500 a year? A thousand?

Oh, wait--I think I know. You think income redistribution is a good idea as long as it's someone making more than you, who will be picking up the tab?

Quit yer whinin Jerknonyer.

Jon: Hitler was a socialist? You may want to consider his financial ties and subjection of the German economy to the corporations in Germany. And just maybe his destruction of trade unions. Or is research hard on your tummy too?

I'm guessing Osama is a jew, too?

My view seems to be proven out by virtually every modern industrialized nation in the world.

Whose times are running out...

Northguy,

NAZI = International German Workers Party - socialists...if you don't believe the title, read their charter...if you don't believie their charter, look at what they did and all the state control they asserted...the fact that the German corporations joined him and became willing tools just made it easier...the state did control the means of production....they were even controling breeding and systematic, government controlled, mass-murder programs.....that is as socialist as it gets, boys.. He did hate Jews, though, which I detect in your artificial link of Osama and Jews....hmmmm.....

I don't believe Osama is ethnically a Jew, but certainly religiously he claims to be a Muslim...he is all for Islamofascist control of everybody's lives, so in that sense, he's a socialist.

"Whose times are running out..."

They have been saying that since before I was born and....I'm pretty old.

RisR, I pay taxes, right now they probably "redidstribute" a higher percentage of my income than yours and definitely a higher percentage than those earning capital gains.
There is a law of diminishing returns though so we won't take ALL of your money....just enough to make the economy start working again. Approx. 1.5 trillion over ten years ought to do nicely, well maybe not because now we also have that pesky war to pay for too.

I see. So you think $1.5 trillion distributed "should do nicely."

Well, let's work through the math. I presume you want to tax, say, the upper one-third of American households, and distribute the money to the lowest two-thirds.

There are 300 million Americans. So if you take $1.5 trillion from the top 100 million and give it to the botton 200 million, that works out to . . . (drum roll) . . . $7,500 for each lucky winner, spread out over ten years at $750 a year.

Hope they don't spend it all in one place.

They have been saying that since before I was born and....I'm pretty old.

Clearly.. It takes a long time to destroy an empire like ours. Look how long it took to ruin Rome. Doesn't mean it isn't and won't happen.. Doesn't mean we aren't getting closer by the day.

It's the economy stupid.

Posted by danni

What is wrong with the economy? Did you loose your job while we are having record employment? Did you take a second on your $150k home for $200k? Are you paying as much for fuel as you did when Carter was president?

What is your problem?

Record employment?

Are you for real?

Record employment?

Are you for real?

Sorry about the double post. I was laughing my ass off at you.

What is wrong with the economy?

Any idea what we owe.. I mean total including future entitlement programs?

It is more than we can ever pay without massively reducing the size and scope of our government and military...

I have a hard time believing that so-called jonryker is anything beside an agent provocateur.
I've never seen a more consistent pattern of posting absolute hogwash.

"...references to Hitler and the Nazis are generally frowned upon by folks who have any class..."

Danni, I am one of your fondest admirers, but if I couldn't compare the Rykers, BLT, 101s and their ilk to Hitler and the nazis, what would be left to post about. In the context of where the righties here wan t to take us, Hitler/Nazis are most appropriate. herm

Or RisR you could take some of that money and create 100,000 good paying jobs fixing things that need fixing. That 100,000 employees would come from some other jobs paying less so those employers would be forced to ante up higher wages or not have enough employees. Then all of those employees now earning more money would begin paying in more taxes which would fix more infrastructure and begin paying down the debt. AT the same time since we weren't just printing more money we would begin to solve the inflation problem. The thing is anyway, the Democrats won't need to "do" anything, just wait for Bush's tax cut for the rich to expire. That is why this election is so important. John McCain knew that tax cut was far too excessive and said so at the time but now he wants right wing REpublican support so he says he would make the cuts permanent....he really lost the respect of many people when he said that.

"It is more than we can ever pay without massively reducing the size and scope of our government and military..."

If the Bush tax cut for the wealthy expires everything will eventually get paid for just as it did under Clinton.

just wait for Bush's tax cut for the rich to expire.

That will be awesome since I am far from rich and will be paying more in taxes again.. Fuck it, let's go ahead and punish the middle and lower classes so you can pay for your social programs.. I have challenged you repeatedly to discuss cutting the size of government and you won't. Clearly you believe that government must be involved in every facet of our lives and the only way to pay for it is to tax the shit out of everybody...

If the Bush tax cut for the wealthy expires everything will eventually get paid for just as it did under Clinton.

Your grasp on our finances is frightening..

"NAZI = International German Workers Party - socialists"

Wow, JonRyker, are you still spouting this crap? Was the Deutsche Democratische Republic a democracy? How about the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea? Nazis were the ultimate ultra-nationalists, total fascists. "Deutschland uber alles" was the core of their program. Whatever it took to accomplish that was used by them. Their "socialist" "beliefs" was a political platform to counter the communists platform and to garner the support of the German people and thus gain power. Period. Once they took power their real agenda was revealed. At that point is when their actions can be used to reflect their true label.

For being our nation's foremost teacher, you sure don't believe in doing much research or analysis.

If the Bush tax cut for the wealthy expires everything will eventually get paid for just as it did under Clinton.

Did we have baby boomers under Clinton? A war in Iraq? The department of homeland security? What was FEMA's budget back then? What was the NSA's budget? Danni, you really have some learning to do...

Your grasp on our finances is frightening.....to REpublicans because the smart ones know I'm telling the truth.....though they don't like the truth.

Ok, Sprague, some of the additional costs to the government enacted by Bush might not be completely covered, I will go along with that. Additional taxes, at some point will be required to pay for additional departments, wars, etc.
Our parent's generation paid for WWII with income taxes and didn't whine or call the president a communist....they shouldered the responsibility so that their children would not have to. All I am saying is that our generation should be willing and happy to do the exact same thing.
It makes me angry when I think of the MILLIONS who graduated from college in the sixties and early seventies after attending FREE universities, at least in California and today those same FREELOADERS are the loudest whiners about paying taxes. I have a couple of brothers who fit that description to a T.

If the Bush tax cut for the wealthy expires everything will eventually get paid for just as it did under Clinton.

Posted by danni

National debt 1990 was 3.2 t
National debt 2000 was 5.7 t

Bill did real well. He brought the debt under control didn't he. For thoes of you who are number challenged that is an increase of over 78%.

to REpublicans because the smart ones know I'm telling the truth.....though they don't like the truth.

No you aren't telling the truth... All of your politics are based on emotion and cockeyed dreams, not the truth.. For starters, I am not a Republican..

Additional taxes, at some point will be required to pay for additional departments, wars, etc.

Once again, you refuse to even consider cutting the size and scope of our bloated government.. That is where you are just plain wrong...

Our parent's generation paid for WWII with income taxes and didn't whine or call the president a communist....

Totally ignorant.. Other than the very rich, some of whom were paying up to 98% in taxes, what percentage were the middle and lower classes paying?

It makes me angry when I think of the MILLIONS who graduated from college in the sixties and early seventies after attending FREE universities, at least in California and today those same FREELOADERS are the loudest whiners about paying taxes.

It makes me angry that you believe that those of us who paid (still do) for our own college, work 90 hours a week, and give up well over 50% of what we make as self-employed individuals aren't doing enough to take care of your apparenly broken ass. Meanwhile, I we get very little out of the taxes we pay (I can be much more specific if you like).. You must be retired or plain lazy to espouse the attitudes that you do.

FYI,

The Nazi Party was named before they took power and was a true reflection, as was Mein Kampf, of their ambitions. Nevertheless, I gave you other routes of acceptance, should you wish to ignore the name and party charter.

Fascists were also socialists, if you know anything about Mussolini's Italy, from which the name was taken. This was the model for Hilter's government, and he admired Mussolini as long as El Duce was alive, even sending his best commandos in to break him out of prison.

Their agenda, once they took power through democratic elections, albeit crooked ones, was to maximize the power at the state at the expense of the individual, gain government control of the means of production, and kill off opponents to the growth of that government power. That, my friend, is socialism in theory and in practice.

The fact that they were also racists and used this government power to further their racist ends does not mean they were not socialists...it simply means they were racist socialists...Of course, so was Stalin, and traditionally so is the Democratic Party in the US. Those are historic accidents, though...you don't have to be a racist to be a socialist....it just often happens that way.

Who paid for WWII?

National debt 1940 was 45.5B
National debt 1945 was 263.5B
National debt 1960 was 310.0b

WTF over?

Tell me who paid for WWII. Dosen't look to me like anyone did.

****** Skizziks,

Make no mistake, people are disgusted with the way the GOP has spent money....That is earned, and right now, that is showing. My guess is, though, that once one of the Dem candidates actually has to show their tax and spend plans with McCane as the comparison, people will pick McCane....now, I don't know what that means for the rest of the GOPers...I don't believe people do or will like McCane enough for him to have coattails....we'll see how it works out, but I'm guessing people are not gonna vote for higher taxes or a lost war, once they have the choice....That is not to say that they will be excited about their choice...

Posted by jonryker ******

.........at first glance I couldn't believe that mis-spelled McCain's name over and over.......

.........don't tell me.......the White House is subcontracting their clandestine P.R. work to India ??........

.......your real name is Jopur Rekeepunder and you are paid 12 rupees per day to shill for the queer/mafia administration.......

.......but on the substance of the debate......the Republicans have always spent more than the Democrats, they just don't believe in having to pay for their spending........

.......passing on the payments to the grandchildren only works for so long.....sooner or later any country can go belly up........

........and Jopur.......go back to pulling rickshaws.......its more honorable than shoveling shit for this administration......

passing on the payments to the grandchildren only works for so long.....sooner or later any country can go belly up.

Agreed, but what is your solution? Are you like Danni and want to increase our already ridiculous taxes, or do you think that finally cutting spending is in order?

is this report all that surprising? Republicans are no longer Republicans of old, they are just a slower moving version of the Democrat socialists. Republican in name only. They are just as much a socialists are every single democrat is now and the folks are fed up with it. spend more tax more, that's all government does now.

Welcome to the Socialist republic of America people!

Are you like Danni and want to increase our already ridiculous taxes

1913-1915: 1%-7%
1916: 2%-15%
1917: 2%-67%
1918: 6%-73%
1919-1920: 4%-73%
1921: 4%-73%
1922: 4%-56%
1923: 3%-56%
1924: 1.5%-46%
1925-1928: 1.5%-25%
1929: 0.375%-24%
1930-1931: 1.125%-25%
1932-1933: 4%-63%
1934-1935: 4%-63%
1936-1939: 4%-79%
1940: 4.4%-81.1%
1941: 10%-81%
1942-1943: 19%-88%
1944-1945: 23%-94%
1946-1947: 19%-86.45%
1948-1949: 16.6%-82.13%
1950: 17.4%-84.36%
1951: 20.4%-91%
1952-1953: 22.2%-92%
1954-1963: 20%-91%
1964: 16%-77%
1965-1967: 14%-70%
1968: 14%-75.25%
1969: 14%-77%
1970: 14%-71.75%
1971-1981: 14%-70%
1982-1986: 12%-50%
1987: 5 : 11%-38.5%
1988-1990: 15%-33%
1991-1992: 15%-31%
1993-2000: 15%-39.6%
2001: 5 : 15%-39.1%
2002: 6 : 10%-38.6%
2003-2007: 10%-35%

"That, my friend, is socialism in theory and in practice."

JonRyker, no, most esteemed teacher, it is not. Socialism is an economic theory wherein, very simplistically, the government controls the means of production and distribution. There is a reason the political spectrum has fascism at one end and anarchism at the other. That reason is the focus of the political philosophy, that is, how governance exists. Socialism is not part of the political spectrum and forcing it in there is where you make your utmost mistake. And there is therefore no such entity as "racial socialism". Racism and socialism exist in two different spectrums.

Socialism is blind to nationality. It can work in polyglot societies and mono-national ones. The essence of the Nazis was that they were building a paradise for _Germans_. No other nationalities need apply. Jews and gypsies were to be expelled (or eliminated). Slavs were to be the serfs.

Stalin and Lenin, btw, were communists, not socialists. They were very big on exterminating socialists because the socialists' beliefs did not include having Russia at the head of the Soviet Union.

Yav,

What do you and Danni want?

What do you and Danni want?

0-15,000: -10%
15,001-25,000: 0%
25,001-35,000: 5%
35,001-45,000: 15%
45,001-60,000: 30%
60,001-85,000: 45%
85,001-110,000: 55%
110,001-200,000: 65%
200,001-300,000: 75%
300,001+: 95%


Plus a 10-fold increase in all entitlement spending.


How close was I?

Nice table, but there are a couple of things it doesn't show:

1) What proportion is the middle class shouldering in each year?
2) What portion of the lower class is exempt in each year?
3) Although, not specifically stated, my comments were directed at the notion of total tax burden on Americans. What were property taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes, payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, alcohol and cigarette taxes, estate taxes, utility taxes, FCC taxes, etc, etc...?

Nice table, but there are a couple of things it doesn't show:

1) What proportion is the middle class shouldering in each year?
2) What portion of the lower class is exempt in each year?
3) Although, not specifically stated, my comments were directed at the notion of total tax burden on Americans. What were property taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes, payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, alcohol and cigarette taxes, estate taxes, utility taxes, FCC taxes, etc, etc...?

FYI,

This was my point. Being racist has nothing to do with socialism. However, once you gain control of the means of production and distribution, you end up with so much power that the system will unavoidably become totalitarian. People, being human, don't like to give up power for the betterment of others as a rule, so totalitarianism ends up being the direction these states go, should they have the economic resources at the start to pull it off. So, it is the very economic theory of socialism, espoused by people who believe in their core that group rights trump individual rights, that lead to the industrial totalitarian states.

You think the two are seperate, as did Marx, but you were both equally wrong. The people making the supposedly purely economic decision for socialism are handing authority to a government which, because it is made up of humans and not economic-simulations, invevitably misuses the power, or rather, uses the power to create more power. So, it is no accident that the most terrible industrial-age regimes were all socialist ones.

Capitalism reigns in government power by denying it control of the means of production. The market controls the means of production, and the market is about maximum efficiecy at lowest cost, which is in everybody's interest, not just a few people who think they're smarter than everyone else.

It is important to reign these in, as history dictates repeatedly, by preventing the rise of monopolies or something near it, as this puts too much control of the means of production in the hands of too few who might take their business interests ahead of the nation's as a whole. We struggled with that in the early 20th Century, and we're having the same struggle on an international scale now.

We're also in the US having a lot of trouble with our major media companies being motivated by something other than first and accurate in the news. This is bad, because an INFORMED citizenry is vital to a functioning democratic republic. The media companies need to be busted up as Standard Oil was. The experiment in deregulation has failed.

So, keep studying. I know you can do it!

Although, not specifically stated, my comments were directed at the notion of total tax burden on Americans. What were property taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes, payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, alcohol and cigarette taxes, estate taxes, utility taxes, FCC taxes, etc, etc...?

A much better point. I agree.

Jeff, given where my taxes would be based on that, no. I'd like some sanity. There are some basic principles I have and I live with that I believe the Gov't should be using.

Don't go to war on a credit card.
Don't raid social security and pretend it's income.
Get competitive bids for any project or service (Medicare Part-D anyone? Halliburton? KBR?)
Keep true to the basics before you take more on - Democracy here before exporting Democracy there. (McCain scares me with his wanting to broaden this to exporting religious freedom.)
Be fair on taxation.

crud - work calls again. not a complete list.

Nice table, but there are a couple of things it doesn't show:

1) What proportion is the middle class shouldering in each year?
2) What portion of the lower class is exempt in each year?

Posted by jsprague

Does it matter? Why should the middle class support the entire country?

You tell me just exactly how much the richest democrats in government realy paid. Raising the taxes on Teddy K doesn't mean shit because he doesn't very much at all. He lives like a king on the money his father made running booze from Canada and he pays like a pauper.

FYI,

Communists are a type of agrarian socialist. They were only called communists because of their method of farm collectivization...state takes over farms and lots of peasants live on them, don't own the farms, but get to eat...sometimes. Socialism, all the same.....Both big fans of Marx....If you study more and wast less time on other situations you only know a word or two about, you'll get there. I'm confidant....FOCUS...

Yav,


given where my taxes would be based on that, no. I'd like some sanity.

I figured that was likely the case. I was sort-of trying to be funny with my chart.


Don't go to war on a credit card.

That's a bit simplistic. Going to war is only part of government spending. I could just as easily say, don't fund entitlement programs on a credit card.


Don't raid social security and pretend it's income.

I agree and disagree. I think privatization of a portion of SS would have been a good thing. However, we had a window of opportunity to do so and that window closed long before Bush came into office. The privatized deferrments would have started to kick in just as boomers began retiring en masse thus creating a funding shortfall right when demand was peaking.



Get competitive bids for any project or service (Medicare Part-D anyone? Halliburton? KBR?)

That's actually done, but on a timetable. Halliburton bidded for its no-bid status during the Clinton administration. I don't have it in front of me, but Halliburton's no-bid status will sunset, and they'll have to again compete for no-bid status.




Be fair on taxation.

What is 'fair' and who gets to define what is 'fair'?

Does it matter? Why should the middle class support the entire country?

They shouldn't.. That was actually my point.. The table of taxes above only shows the minimum and maximum taxes. It doesn't show who is shouldering the brunt of those taxes as a whole, nor does it show how many poor people were able to avoid them altogether in each year. That was entirely my point to people like Danni that would love to increase taxes on the middle class (who, in her world, are rich)...

Jon,

So if racism has nothing to do with socialism, then, ipso facto, the connection of one with the other is a happenstance, not a philosophy. And has as much impact as "racist capitalist". Fluff.

Your entire premise is that socialism is intrinsically totalitarian at the end of the day. And capitalism is intrinsically good because it is anti-totalitarian. Your theory doesn't seem to apply to Europe, most of which has much socialism yet all countries are, at least technically, democratic republics. Ergo, since your fundamental statement is wrong, so is most of the rest of what you wrote. Also, please note that capitalism exists in China, very much a communist country.

Your unquestioning faith in the market is most touching. Unfortunetly, like most of your opinions, it conveniently overlooks reality. Unbridled (which is the prism of your view of socialism), it is about the creation of at least oligarchies, if not monopolies. Neither of which are especially interested in "maximum efficiency at lowest cost". Yet another of your opinions bites the dust.

Economic philosophies exist outside of politics. Your inability to understand that is a flaw you need to remedy asap if any of your opinions are to have any validity. And reductio ad absurbum will get you in trouble with Goatman.

You _really_ need to stop your nonsensical equating of someone's opinion with an obvious evil. Whether or not Marx thought what I do, so did Jesus, so did Aristotle, etc. Your arguments lose whatever validity they have when you introduce such comparisons.

What exactly do you teach, homeroom?

"I'm guessing people are not gonna vote for .... a lost war, once they have the choice....

Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-12 09:34 AM"

You really think the majority of voters favor "staying the course" in Iraq? I hope the GOP strategists are as dense as you appear to be.

Our parent's generation paid for WWII with income taxes and didn't whine or call the president a communist....they shouldered the responsibility so that their children would not have to. All I am saying is that our generation should be willing and happy to do the exact same thing.
* * * * *

Preposterous. They had Buy Bonds drives all the time, where you were considered unpatriotic if you didn't lend the government a bigger and bigger share of your paycheck at rates that were below that of inflation. What's more, there was strict rationing on meat and sugar and butter and gasoline. The coinage wasn't even with real copper or silver.
You'll have to peddle your nonsense elsewhere, methinks.

"Communists are a type of agrarian socialist."

JonRyker,
Communism was two things. In theory, it was the promotion of the idea of a "classless" society. In reality, it was a political application of a combination of socialism and totalitarianism. Socialism was an economic, not political, philosophy which centralized the control of production and distribution in one place.

You really should take a course in political philosophy, also one in economics, so you could reflect a faint resemblence to facts in your pronouncements.

"That was entirely my point to people like Danni that would love to increase taxes on the middle class (who, in her world, are rich)..."

I never ever said that. I want to raise taxes on the rich and you know very well that is what I said.
The planned cut off will be $250,000 per year for increased taxes and yes, I do think those folks can afford it. They have made out quite well these past six years paying only half the tax on their capital gains that us workers pay on our labor.

"You'll have to peddle your nonsense elsewhere, methinks."

And they willingly went along with all of it INCLUDING the extremely high income tax rates during and after the war. Don't even try to tell me different it is too easily linked to proof. All of those sacrifices were patriotically made by our parents generation while during the current war/occupation Bush LOWERED taxes, people bitch about the price of gas for their SUVs, etc.
Comparing our generation to theirs is a losing proposition for ours. Boomers = Whiners. No let me correct that: Boomers = Greedy Whiners.

Danni,

They have made out quite well these past six years paying only half the tax on their capital gains that us workers pay on our labor.


You may disagree with the philosophy behind it, but here it is nevertheless:

The reason that the tax on capital gains was lowered was to encourage increased investment. Investment is always a risk and lowering the tax makes the potential payoff for taking said risk more rewarding, thus more investment. Capital investment is a major driving force within the economy. It spurs growth and job creation. Without capital investment the economy would crumble faster than you can say 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky'.



Granted, I recognize that the driving forces behind economic growth are more than just capital investment. However, I encourage you to look upon capital investment as a positive thing.

All of those sacrifices were patriotically made by our parents generation

You understand that wouldn't have a chance in hell of being accepted today.

Rationing? War bonds? nobody would be willing to give up anything and nobody saves any money anyway.

Danni,

60% of American workers own stock. Those capital gain tax cuts helped them too.

"However, I encourage you to look upon capital investment as a positive thing."

I do, if it is investment within the United States.
Investment in China does not help the American worker. If you want to invest in a factory in AMerica then you should get a tax break, if you want to invest in a factory in China then you should not.

"60% of American workers own stock. Those capital gain tax cuts helped them too."

the majority own stock through their 401Ks, they do not earn capital gains. They take their gains when they retire and they pay no tax on that income but they can't touch it until then. The people who get capital gains are not investing through a 401k.

And they are not being gouged in fees as are those who make contributions to a 401k.

"You understand that wouldn't have a chance in hell of being accepted today."

Exactly my point. Our generation is a bunch of whiners. Hey, I'm probably as guilty as the next person. I have grown a great deal of respect for my parents generation these past few years that I didn't have before the Iraq war.

They take their gains when they retire and they pay no tax on that income but they can't touch it until then.

Actually all of it is considered ordinary income when they take it out because it is deferred income and will be subject to whatever tax rates they get at the time of withdrawal.

You can get to it before then but it might trigger a penalty and, of course, you will pay ordinary income taxes.

The people who get capital gains are not investing through a 401k.

I pay capital gains and I invest into a 401K.

thing is Eberly, either we begin doing as our parents did or we will watch the nation they built crumble around us. We will watch as we become a second world nation. Our kids will be burdened with debt and crumbling infrastructure so that we can live in air conditioned McMansions and drive Lexus 450s but our kids go to substandard schools, can't afford college, look forward to a shrinking job market, and we make enemies around the world.
It is not surprising that our greatest time of growth and accomplishment was before the Reagan Revolution.

"I pay capital gains and I invest into a 401K."

But you aren't in the majority of workers contributing to a 401K. And what does that prove anyway except that you earn money on capital gains and pay less than we pay on our labor. Sorry but labor should not be taxed at a higher rate.

"Actually all of it is considered ordinary income when they take it out because it is deferred income and will be subject to whatever tax rates they get at the time of withdrawal."

Is that right??? I could be mistaken but I believe that if you leave it in til you are 65 you get to take it out tax free, otherwise what's the benefit of leaving it in??
Personally I don't like the idea of a 401K anyway. I don't like giving my money to third person to manage and leaving me helpless in a time of panic to do anything about it. I always thought that it was a scheme to funnel retirement dollars through companies who make $$$ and invest our funds more for their benefit than ours.

Danni,


I could be mistaken but I believe that if you leave it in til you are 65 you get to take it out tax free, otherwise what's the benefit of leaving it in??


You are mistaken.

It is taxed upon being taken out, regardless of one's age.

The benefit of leaving it in is two-fold, depending on the meaning of your question:

1. It continues to grow tax-deferred

2. It's pleasurable to leave it in

Danni,


You may be confusing a traditional IRA/401K with a ROTH IRA.

Could be. The main advantage I know of though is the employer contributions. That's like free money. That is one part I do like about them. Unfortunately, I had to borrow against my a couple of years ago and I can't contribute more into my account, and neither can my employer, until the loan from myself is paid back. That seems a little too restrictive and sort of a Catch 22 to me.

"if you leave it in til you are 65 you get to take it out tax free, "

Danni, if you have a Roth Ira, that is partially true. However, IRA (ibid 401K) withdrawals are considered income until the day you die. Which is my major complaint, that people are very willing to support abolishing the estate tax and other similar taxes, but no one ever talks about IRAs.

Sorry, Jeff already explained better than moi.

Danni,


I always thought that it was a scheme to funnel retirement dollars through companies who make $$$ and invest our funds more for their benefit than ours.


Ever hear of the 'win-win' scenario?

2. It's pleasurable to leave it in

I'm feeling juvenile but that is funny.

Danni,

I also have respect for that generation and, like you, that appreciation only grows. My grandmother passed away last weekend at age 97. 2 of her brothers died in WW2 defending this country. She told me in vivid detail what she experienced throughout the great depression and WW2 and the sacrifices they had to make.

Personally I don't like the idea of a 401K anyway.

The IRS created it and you don't have to participate in one. There are many people who are "misusing" the 401K because of what tax bracket they are in currently.

"I can't contribute more into my account, and neither can my employer, until the loan from myself is paid back."

Danni, are you sure about that? When I was repaying my loan, that wasn't true. I merely had to repay like any other loan.

"Ever hear of the 'win-win' scenario?"

It will be a few more years before I can make that judgement. I would imagine it will be different for everyone depending upon how the stock market is doing at your time of retirement. Fortunately I don't have to concern myself because...I won't ever be able to retire.

Danni,


Countless investment companies exist and they all compete for dollars. It is a very powerful argument for any one of these companies to be able to provide documented proof that their fund managers attain a rate of return that is higher than industry average. In order to be able to make that claim, they have to attract the best possible talent and pay accordingly.

"Danni, are you sure about that? When I was repaying my loan, that wasn't true. I merely had to repay like any other loan."

I'm just going on what I was told by my company on that.

JEFF do you think you could handle your own investment better or worse than the people handling your 401K?

Danni,


Almost all investments are restrictive.

Try prematurely cashing in a low-yield CD.


What's important is that we consumers understand the restrictions and invest accordingly based upon our own personal situation.

Sometimes, for reasons unanticipated, an investment goes bad. That's life.

JEFF do you think you could handle your own investment better or worse than the people handling your 401K?


Worse.


That's what these people do for a living.

IMO I have a fairly decent grasp on economics and if I devoted a lot of time to it, I could probably invest reasonably well. The problem is, I don't have a lot of time to devote to it and even if I did, I'd be willing to bet that RiR, or my own financial advisor, would get a better rate of return on my investments.

The financial investment field exists for a reason, Danni.

"The financial investment field exists for a reason, Danni."

I'm not arguing that, I was just wondering about you specifically. That link I put up about 401Ks has some interesting points though including the number of fees associated with 401Ks and more importantly about the reaction of the stock market when millions of boomers are all selling off their stocks at the same time. Not to mention the possibility of a higher tax rate at the time we take out our money than what it was when we put it in.

"I can't contribute more into my account, and neither can my employer, until the loan from myself is paid back."

Danni, I found this: "_some_ (my emphasis) plans will allow or even require that you reduce or eliminate new contributions to the 401k plan while you have a loan outstanding". Sounds like your plan.

"IMO I have a fairly decent grasp on economics and if I devoted a lot of time to it, I could probably invest reasonably well.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-05-12 04:01 PM"

Given the fact that you still think Bush was the better choice in 2000 and 2004, I don't think you have the mentalicular fortitude required, Jeff.

Well, on the Red State blogs the theme is to improve the Repuplican brand "from the grassroots up".

ZED

When you've used 'scorched earth' politics for so long, it's going to take a lot of time for the ground to even be capable of growing grass roots again.

I hope the GOP has learned W's lesson: "There's an old saying in Tennessee, no wait, Texas, no, Tennessee. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me again....can't get fooled again".

Using divisiveness such as bigotry and wedge issues that don't affect many citizens to win elections is, I hope, a thing of the past. There are too many important issues that have been neglected for too long as a result.

Could be. The main advantage I know of though is the employer contributions. That's like free money. That is one part I do like about them.

Posted by danni

There ain't no free anything. What the hell is wrong with you?