Looking for Republican Party apologetics

[w1z4rd]

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20100914_GOP_says_no_deal_on_tax_cuts.html

WASHINGTON - Republican leaders in Congress on Monday backed away from a possible compromise with the Obama administration over extending expiring Bush-era tax cuts, committing both sides to an election-year battle with huge stakes for the economy.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and others distanced themselves from a statement Sunday by House Republican Leader John A. Boehner that he might agree to let tax relief for the wealthiest Americans expire, as President Obama wants, if that's politically necessary to save middle-class tax cuts.

By the end of the day Monday, Boehner issued a statement dropping his suggestion.

Obama is pushing for a permanent middle-class tax cut, but only if Bush-era cuts for top earners are eliminated. Republicans, in turn, want permanent tax relief for all levels.

The divide is rapidly becoming the marquee issue of the midterm election.

Democrats are using it to portray themselves both as champions of the middle class and as deficit hawks, because, they say, GOP proposals would depress government revenues.

Republicans say the Democrats are prepared to raise taxes on small-business owners and couples making more than $250,000 a year during a recession, which, they argue, will hamper a recovery.

Basically in a nutshell the Bush tax cuts to the uber wealthy had a large part to play in the deficit. Well that and a war or two.

It was taxing of the uber wealthy that helped America land a man on the moon and led to the development of a lot of their nuke stations. Bush being pro-rich cut the tax for the wealthy and basically screwed up the economy.

So what Obama is saying now is to give tax cuts to the middle class. Anyone with a brain knows that the better off your middle class is... the better off your economy is. The bigger the gap between the richest and the poorest, the worse off your country is.

So removing the tax cuts for the rich and giving the middle class tax breaks makes all the sense in the world. The rich are not going to suffer from the lack of tax cuts.. they really can afford it.

What the Republicans are doing is saying that will oppose tax cuts for the middle income earners if Democrats dont extend the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy!

Whats stupid about this is most of the Republican voting support comes from middle income earners. So basically people who vote Republican (unless you are a top 1% earner)... are voting against their own best interests.

Seriously now.. could a Republican apologetic please explain to me why you would be so stupid as to support the Republicans who are basically shafting their own support base?

 

[Toxin]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Silly w1z4rd. Don't you know there's more important things then having more money in the bank....... like being able to buy a gun at the local Wallmart and shoot it at people........ duh.

 

[Archer]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Silly w1z4rd. Don't you know there's more important things then having more money in the bank....... like being able to buy a gun at the local Wallmart and shoot it at people........ duh.

Shoot guns at people? Dam, Americans are weird

 

[Toxin]

At least they have their priorities straight.....

 

[w1z4rd]

Republicans and their supporters remind me so much about the ANC and their supporters. Dumb people who vote against their own best interests.

 

[Arthur]

I'm not a Republican partisan or even supporter, but there are a number of tacit assumptions that frame your question. There are many radical critiques of the staus quo, and I come from a libertarian anti-statist neo-anarchist viewpoint. (To illustrate hidden assumptions: if someone asks "Why does the moon not melt when it gets closer to the sun" because he has the unstated assumption that it's made of green cheese, then one has to do a lot more explaining about cosmology than simply saying "it never gets close enough to melt".)

Simili modo, your question makes a whole bunch of assumptions about the role of the State in economic affairs. Have you ever stopped to wonder if the current system of massive State appropriation of GDP is just, reasonable, sustainable, moral, workable, etc? You are assuming the State has a role in education, healthcare, social services, energy, economic regulation, etc. These assumptions are hotly disputed in both principle and degree. Then there's a debate about the primacy of politics vs culture (the so-called 'Culture Wars') ... liberals (Democrats, largely) assume politics is primary and place high store on State-driven engineering of society, whereas conservatives (Republicans, largely) put a higher premium on culture and would like to see a far smaller State with a minimal role in the economy. Many/most Republicans really hate the way Bush expanded State expenditure and betrayed the Party's principles in this respect, so even that part is not simple.

To answer your question briefly is just too simplistic because it means one has to buy into your assumptions about the State and economics, etc. It's like trying to explain to someone that the moon's not made of green cheese -- there's so much one has to clarify beforehand that it's hardly worth the effort. Sorry, just don't have the time to type it all out.

 

[w1z4rd]

I'm not a Republican partisan or even supporter, but there are a number of tacit assumptions that frame your question. There are many radical critiques of the staus quo, and I come from a libertarian anti-statist neo-anarchist viewpoint. (To illustrate hidden assumptions: if someone asks "Why does the moon not melt when it gets closer to the sun" because he has the unstated assumption that it's made of green cheese, then one has to do a lot more explaining about cosmology than simply saying "it never gets close enough to melt".)

Simili modo, your question makes a whole bunch of assumptions about the role of the State in economic affairs. Have you ever stopped to wonder if the current system of massive State appropriation of GDP is just, reasonable, sustainable, moral, workable, etc? You are assuming the State has a role in education, healthcare, social services, energy, economic regulation, etc. These assumptions are hotly disputed in both principle and degree. Then there's a debate about the primacy of politics vs culture (the so-called 'Culture Wars') ... liberals (Democrats, largely) assume politics is primary and place high store on State-driven engineering of society, whereas conservatives (Republicans, largely) put a higher premium on culture and would like to see a far smaller State with a minimal role in the economy. Many/most Republicans really hate the way Bush expanded State expenditure and betrayed the Party's principles in this respect, so even that part is not simple.

To answer your question briefly is just too simplistic because it means one has to buy into your assumptions about the State and economics, etc. It's like trying to explain to someone that the moon's not made of green cheese -- there's so much one has to clarify beforehand that it's hardly worth the effort. Sorry, just don't have the time to type it all out.

Your post made me smile You folk are just precious.

 

[Archer]

snip

Sorry, just don't have the time to type it all out.

WTF? That was just a bunch of big words and complete avoidance of the question posed in the OP. Glad you have the time to type all that jazz, but not enough time to answer a simple question.

 

[w1z4rd]

WTF? That was just a bunch of big words and complete avoidance of the question posed in the OP. Glad you have the time to type all that jazz, but not enough time to answer a simple question.

You can spot the Republican in him

 

[Alan]

reminds me of this.....

Most Americans celebrated as the ball fell in Times Square New Year's Eve. But for auto dealers this new year is especially sweet. January 1 marked the expiration of the federal luxury tax on cars, the last vestige of the destructive luxury tax package in the infamous 1990 budget deal," the Wall Street Journal says.

"Starting in 1991, Washington levied a 10 percent tax on cars valued above $30,000, boats above $100,000, jewelry and furs above $10,000 and private planes above $250,000. Democrats like Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share and privately about convincing President George H.W. Bush to renounce his 'no new taxes' pledge," the newspaper said in an editorial.

"But it wasn't long before even those die-hard class warriors noticed they'd badly missed their mark. The taxes took in $97 million less in their first year than had been projected — for the simple reason that people were buying a lot fewer of these goods. Boat building, a key industry in Messrs. Mitchell and Kennedy's home states of Maine and Massachusetts, was particularly hard hit. Yacht retailers reported a 77 percent drop in sales that year, while boat builders estimated layoffs at 25,000. With bipartisan support, all but the car tax was repealed in 1993, and in 1996 Congress voted to phase that out too. January 1 was disappearance day.

"The end of any federal tax is such a rarity that it's well worth celebrating. And the luxury-tax lesson of economic damage is worth keeping in mind as politicians begin to wail that President Bush's new tax proposals aren't punitive enough on the rich."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819936/posts

Republicans and their supporters remind me so much about the ANC and their supporters. Dumb people who vote against their own best interests.

Which is why the ANC is infested with good comrade socialist liberals like yourself

 

[w1z4rd]

reminds me of this.....



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819936/posts






Which is why the ANC is infested with good comrade socialist liberals like yourself

Is that you malema?

 

[Nerfherder]

Did anyone see the new Michael Moore movie ? Its about Capitalism and the Bush administration.

An absolute gem.

 

[w1z4rd]

Did anyone see the new Michael Moore movie ? Its about Capitalism and the Bush administration.

An absolute gem.

Capitalism.. A love story? Brilliant!

Expect Michael Moore character attacks and a complete lack of debate about the actual stuff covered in the documentary.

 

[zippy]

From the UK perspective, I find it interesting that there is this obsession with all things American in South Africa. When I was living SA, I used to watch CNN much more than I watched BBC or even SABC or E-tv(i found the production qualities of e-tv painful. Has this improved ?)

Having lived in the UK now for almost 3 years, I find the going-ons in the US largely irrelevant. Which is strange, because actually what happens in the US is even less relevant to South Africa than to the UK, which is arguably, the most significant ally to the US. I have worked with many yanks in London, and they are largely dismissive of some the things that seem to get South Africans so hot under collar. I think this is because this type of debate is normal and is something they are used to. I think American society thrives on it. In the UK, they have a similar culture of debate, but it is much more understated, but no less vigorous, if that makes sense.

Is this because, actually South Africans aren't used to this kind of vigourous debate ? Im not trying to knock anyone, just making an observation.

 

[w1z4rd]

From the UK perspective, I find it interesting that there is this obsession with all things American in South Africa. When I was living SA, I used to watch CNN much more than I watched BBC or even SABC or E-tv(i found the production qualities of e-tv painful. Has this improved ?)

Dont know, I tend to watch BBC more than any of the other networks. I follow American politics because they are the most powerful country in the world. Im less interested in British politics ... well .. because... theyre boring. Im sure you have heard the saying "when america coughs the world catches a cold"? Yah... anyways, trying to explain the importance of politics in the worlds most powerful nation to someone who is not interested in politics of the worlds most powerful nation is pretty pointless.

Having lived in the UK now for almost 3 years, I find the going-ons in the US largely irrelevant. Which is strange, because actually what happens in the US is even less relevant to South Africa than to the UK, which is arguably, the most significant ally to the US. I have worked with many yanks in London, and they are largely dismissive of some the things that seem to get South Africans so hot under collar. I think this is because this type of debate is normal and is something they are used to. I think American society thrives on it. In the UK, they have a similar culture of debate, but it is much more understated, but no less vigorous, if that makes sense.

Actually we are following what the "yanks" are getting hot under the collar about...... theyre the ones making the news and having the major debates... Im guessing your American friends are not interested or ignorant of their own politics.

Is this because, actually South Africans aren't used to this kind of vigourous debate ? Im not trying to knock anyone, just making an observation.

No, it means that people are interested in subjects and topics of conversation that you are not... and you cant understand this.

 

[noxibox]

When last did the Republican Party in the US favour small government in practice?

 

[w1z4rd]

When last did the Republican Party in the US favour small government in practice?

Probably the last time the Dems were in control. I dunno tbh.

 

[Ou grote]

reminds me of this.....



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819936/posts






Which is why the ANC is infested with good comrade socialist liberals like yourself

So basically, taxing the rich ends up costing middle class people their jobs.

 

[Alan]

So basically, taxing the rich ends up costing middle class people their jobs.

It's not a problem since they all go onto welfare which of course is paid for by taxing the rich further.....

The rich are the gift that keeps on giving. Money grows on trees after all

 

[Arthur]

Some USA tax stats you may not know (fiscal 2007):

* The top 1% of individual taxpayers (1.4 million people) pay 40.1% of all income taxes (in 1987 this was 24.8%).
* The same top 1% pay more taxes than the bottom 95% combined.
* According to the OECD, the top 10% of taxpayers in the USA pay a greater percentage of income taxes than in any other nation on earth (including Sweden and France).
* The same OECD annual surveys show that the bottom 20% of taxpyers in the USA have the lowest tax rate of any nation on earth.

[2005 figures were latest available to author Steven Malanga]
To consider how the landscape has changed, it’s worth looking at taxes paid by various income groups over time, via data crunched by the IRS. In 1980, with Jimmy Carter still as president, the top 1 percent of filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19 percent of all federal income taxes. That was actually less than the total tax share of people collectively in the 11th to 25th percentiles, that is, middle income taxpayers making roughly between $24,000 and $35,000 (in 1980 dollars), and also less than the total share of those earning between $13,000 and $24,000, who represented the 26th to 50th percentiles.

A decade later, despite tax cuts in the 1980s that many critics claimed benefited the rich, our top 1 percent of filers were paying more of the total--25 percent of the country’s tax bill—than anyone else. The portion of taxes paid by the top filers continue to grow throughout the 1990s and into the new century, pausing only for recessions, which are generally periods in which the share of taxes paid by the rich falls because their incomes tend to decline the most. By 2005, the most recent year data are available, our top 1 percent of filers were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. Every other group saw its share of the tax bill decline, sometimes substantially. Those taxpayers in the 26th to 50th percentile (that is, with an adjusted gross income roughly between $31,000 and $62,000) paid 11 percent of all federal income taxes, down from 20 percent back in 1980, while those in the 11th to 25th percentiles (earning between $62,000 and $104,000 today), paid 16 percent of the federal tax bill, down from 24 percent in 1980.

Ever read Atlas Shrugged?