Reply With Quote
If Frothy ever got nominated, that would be the death of the GOP.... actually, that doesn't sound like such a bad outcome
oh andejaculate & fecal matter coming in 3rd place
He's my first choice to win the Republican primary. I want me some froth.
If Frothy ever got nominated, that would be the death of the GOP.... actually, that doesn't sound like such a bad outcome
He'll never sniff another primary, is my bet.
tbh I have a hunch the GOP is gonna get taken for a ride by its base in the 2016 primaries and we'll see a bible thumping Islamaphobic theocon make tons of noise and maybe even winIf Frothy ever got nominated, that would be the death of the GOP.... actually, that doesn't sound like such a bad outcome
Similar to China forcing its best male and female basketball player to reproduce in order to get Yao Ming, I want the GOP to force Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum to reproduce just so we could see the ultimate tea party mutant.
I thought that was Gabriel tbh.tbh I have a hunch the GOP is gonna get taken for a ride by its base in the 2016 primaries and we'll see a bible thumping Islamaphobic theocon make tons of noise and maybe even win
Similar to China forcing its best male and female basketball player to reproduce in order to get Yao Ming, I want the GOP to force Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum to reproduce just so we could see the ultimate tea party mutant.
I am going to repsond as if this is a legitimate post.tbh I have a hunch the GOP is gonna get taken for a ride by its base in the 2016 primaries and we'll see a bible thumping Islamaphobic theocon make tons of noise and maybe even win
Similar to China forcing its best male and female basketball player to reproduce in order to get Yao Ming, I want the GOP to force Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum to reproduce just so we could see the ultimate tea party mutant.
The GOP base is split between 4 factions. Social conservatives who only care about banning abortion and banning gay sex. Traditional conservatives who believe in the above but are way more concerned about fiscal issues. Third, neo-coservatives who want perpetual war. Fourth, libertarian leaning conservatives who may or may not give a about abortion, but generally are socially liberal and economically conservative.
The social conservatives will never vote Democrat because they love talking about the dead fetus. You can now ignore them. Unlike Reagan...little compromise is needed for their vote. Neo-conservative thought is dying. So now comes the two most important blocks. Traditional and libertarian. Right now, at least, they are united in fiscal issues, and that aint changing soon, because both groups see it as the most important. Which means the stage is set for a conservative message that actually appeals to the youth vote. And a message that appeals to minorities as well.
Now understand that this message is is only sucessful at the federal level. Because traditional conservatives (the main voting block) can now accept a libertarian conservative because of their belief in the 10th Amendment.
Frankly, it will be tough for a libertarian conservative such as Rand to win the primary. But if he does, you liberal s better be scared. Because a conservative message without the religious stupidity....that will be hard to beat.
ter McGee
Supply side economics and lower taxes for rich people doesn't apply to the youth vote or minorities at all.
Really? I think the idea that I will get none of my social security whithout massive inflation does apply
No, I think means testing and extending the age will help.
The only way your glorious welfare state works, and by looking at much of Europe we can see it often does not, is when another country is subsidizing your entire military...like we still are for the whole of Europe.
As much as liberals try to make cutting spending sound extreme, they can't. Because people with any ounce of common sense don't think we should be spending more money than we take in.
As far as cutting taxes on the rich, think about it for a second. If a rich person hoards their money then it sits in accounts, and that money is now used to make loans to poor people. If they spend it, then they create jobs, either directly or indirectly.
ter McGee
So you wanna cut military spending and stop subsidizing Europe.......and you think the Republicans agree with that
Well George Bush and Ronald Reagan think we should. Liberals also aren't the ones who pretend decreasing military spending will be the death of America.
Then money sits at the top and the rich's share of the wealth in this country becomes bigger and bigger which inherently weakens the middle class. It's a mathematical reality Republicans don't accept.....heavily taxing the rich and investing the money in infrastructure and other domestic projects that create jobs is the only way to create a sustainable middle class. The rich don't inherently let their wealth trickle down for the middle class. Doing everything you can to maximize your wealth is a natural human behavior Republicans ignore because it alone proves trickle down economics doesn't work.
I don't think there is a need for means testing if we just double the minimum amount of income which people can be taxed on.....there is no shortage of credit in the SS trust fund, so there is no need to raise the minimum age.....what we really need is a more efficient health care system for seniors...think means testing and extending the age will help
We'd be better off making SS and medicare a flat tax that applies to all income, regular or capital gains and with no upper contribution limit. It's a wildly regressive tax people who make all of their money off cap gains don't have to contribute anything to.
Some of the reasons we 'subsidize' other countries with our military are self serving too.....for instance, if we help NATO provide global security we also secure our currency and credit in the financial markets...we protect the international waterways for free trade for many of the same reasons...The only way your glorious welfare state works, and by looking at much of Europe we can see it often does not, is when another country is subsidizing your entire military...like we still are for the whole of Europe.
Well, I don't think we need to go that far with it...even at current funding levels we won't be borrowing from taxes to pay SS for another 30 years and even then it's just for a few years till the baby boomers kick off....then the fund starts increasing again....doubling the cap would help insure that we are never paying SS with taxes...
I really don't think making it an actual flat tax isn't going very far. There's no reason why capital gains income should be exempt from social security contributions.
Since SS and Medicare is no longer treated like an insure, I say yes. Remove the cap. I say also increase the rate as necessary to pay for social related programs like welfare. The percentage changes for all wage earners making it a fair part of our tax system. When we finally elect a congress and president that starts to run true surpluses, then we can lower the "social tax" rates again.
If your right it won't be because of the policies of any tea-bagger President like Rand Paul, it will be because of the leadership and wise spending of the Obama administration which could run surpluses by 2016 or a little after according to some projections...
Well, I agree we need to raise the capital gains tax, but not for the SS trust fund...we also need a financial transaction tax to help regulate transaction on this world wide poker game we call the stock market...
If you understood the difference between gross national debt and net national debt, you'd know Clinton really did leave office with a national surplus.
LOL...
Really? You think Obomba and the current congress would ever try for a surplus?
Do you live in fantasy land?
No he didn't. Period. The national debt increased all eight years of his budgets.
The gross national debt did, he had the net national debt going down. If you knew the difference between the two you'd know net national debt is actually what matters.
I do know the difference. Part of that debt is spending the Social Security excess because there is no trust fund.
So you agree the gross national debt went up each year. Good.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
