How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

[Drachen]

lol

[ElNono]

You could confiscate ALL the 1%'s wealth and it still wouldn't be enough.

Wouldn't be enough for what?

[spursncowboys]

it was an honest question. I was showing that they do the same thing. except they aren't getting the money from profit because of them have sing a better product and making a profit. Unions usually make people pay dues. So no it's not quite the same thing.

[spursncowboys]

lol

lmao.

[ElNono]

it was an honest question. I was showing that they do the same thing. except they aren't getting the money from profit because of them have sing a better product and making a profit. Unions usually make people pay dues. So no it's not quite the same thing.

It doesn't really matter how they make their money for what we're discussing. The fact that more money enables to buy more power is what the issue is here.

[spursncowboys]

Right. And what do you think should be the solution?

[ElNono]

Right. And what do you think should be the solution?

Reforming the system in such a way where money isn't as influential?
The campaign financing law that was struck down a while back was a good start. Now we're back to square one.

[boutons_deux]

"Now we're back to square one."

nah, Citizens United has moved us way, way back behind square one. And the Senate Repugs will block any legislation to reverse it.

Corporate-Americans' money = free speech? G M A F B

[spursncowboys]

Reforming the system in such a way where money isn't as influential?
The campaign financing law that was struck down a while back was a good start. Now we're back to square one.

The campaign finance law allowed the media to have way too much power. It took away someone's ability to fight against slander.

[ElNono]

The campaign finance law allowed the media to have way too much power. It took away someone's ability to fight against slander.

Uh? How is that? It actually did the exact opposite. Now you don't have a way to know who's funding what. If that's not taking away someone's ability to fight slander, what is it?

Now you just setup a front company and a bunch of anonymous donors, and you're good to go. De able.

[ElNono]

McCain said it best, tbh...

"there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Can you expand on exactly what you are asking?

What sentence in the quote has you describing an action a third person? I will give you a hint: look at the subjects of each sentence and which of them are third person. Its a good start.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The campaign finance law allowed the media to have way too much power. It took away someone's ability to fight against slander.

WTF are you even talking about?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what other way is more fair? a union rep who makes three times as much as the people paying his budget?

Votes and polls do not dictate policy or have you not been paying attention? They are supposed to represent every citizen equally. Instead they represent 'persons.'

A better system? How about only US citizens can contribute to campaigns. if you own a business and want to sway political activity then have the company pay you and then contribute it. Same with any other organization.

[Trainwreck2100]

Uh? How is that? It actually did the exact opposite. Now you don't have a way to know who's funding what. If that's not taking away someone's ability to fight slander, what is it?

Now you just setup a front company and a bunch of anonymous donors, and you're good to go. De able.

280 million in '10 congressional spending 191 of it went to republicans. We don't see it here cause we are not a battleground state

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't say unions weren't corrupt, I've said plenty of times here. They are just as corrupt as the corporations that spawned them.


How many union jobs have you had?

Four.

[RandomGuy]

There were also TONS of deductions. , ALL interest was deductible including credit card interest (not just mortgage interest) Sales tax was deductible "hobby" losses were deductible (example, you could buy a ranch and run it as a business and deduct your "losses" every year...)...the trade off for giving up all those deductions (which actually resulted in a much lower effective rate) was a lower base rate.

Now, you still want to do away with all those deductions and go back to the higher base rate.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Tax receipts as a percent of the total economy have fallen to levels not seen since before the Korean War – nearly 20 percent below the historical average. "Taxes are ridiculously low!" says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. "And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So – where's the ****ing growth?"

[RandomGuy]

We have a spending problem more than a revenue problem. Politicians have simply promised more than they can afford to deliver. You could confiscate ALL the 1%'s wealth and it still wouldn't be enough.

Debunked. A lot.

1) No one has suggested such a thing.
2) No one thinks it is feasible or desirable, outside a few uber-lefties.

This kind of argument is misleading and unhelpful.

[RandomGuy]

You are just buying into that same old left wing bull stereotype and I personally find it offensive...

------------------------------------------

Where does the jealousy for successful people end?

In other words, you are a jealous little that thinks you are en led to share in their success...I get it.

"Anyone who wants to raise taxes on the wealthy = jealous"

... is not a stereotype?

[spursncowboys]

Debunked. A lot.

1) No one has suggested such a thing.
2) No one thinks it is feasible or desirable, outside a few uber-lefties.

This kind of argument is misleading and unhelpful.

the
How is it debunked? Have the dems kept their word and maintained the "pay-go' stance they promised in 06?

[scott]

the
How is it debunked? Have the dems kept their word and maintained the "pay-go' stance they promised in 06?

lol politicians keeping promises

[scott]

We have a spending problem more than a revenue problem. Politicians have simply promised more than they can afford to deliver. You could confiscate ALL the 1%'s wealth and it still wouldn't be enough.

1) I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that our deficit problem is one of spending rather than one of income. Can you explain the methodology used to draw this conclusion?

2) Politicians always promise more they can deliver, all the way back to the election for Class President in elementary school. Try to remember all the promises your class president nominees made back then. My school featured a platform of "Shorter School Days" and "Arcade Games in the Cafeteria."

3) Not that I'm actually suggesting this, but the combined AGI of the top 1% of earners is around $1.3 Trillion/year. In March 2007, American Billionaires alone (that's only 946 people, where as the Top 1% is made up by 1.4 million people) had a combined net worth of $3.5 Trillion. Whereas it is estimated that the total Net Worth of all Americans is ~$55 trillion (2009 date) and the top 1% are estimated to hold 35% of that (2007 data, when total US net worth was actually quite higher) - then the top 1% has a combined net worth of $19.25 Trillion. So, it actually "would make a difference" if we confiscated all of their wealth. [A reminder: this is actually a terrible idea]

[Spurminator]

The meme that "taxing all of the top 1%'s income won't cover our deficit" is the logical equivalent of opposing each proposed spending cut because it won't magically erase the debt all by itself.

[scott]

1) I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that our deficit problem is one of spending rather than one of income. Can you explain the methodology used to draw this conclusion?

2) Politicians always promise more they can deliver, all the way back to the election for Class President in elementary school. Try to remember all the promises your class president nominees made back then. My school featured a platform of "Shorter School Days" and "Arcade Games in the Cafeteria."

3) Not that I'm actually suggesting this, but the combined AGI of the top 1% of earners is around $1.3 Trillion/year. In March 2007, American Billionaires alone (that's only 946 people, where as the Top 1% is made up by 1.4 million people) had a combined net worth of $3.5 Trillion. Whereas it is estimated that the total Net Worth of all Americans is ~$55 trillion (2009 date) and the top 1% are estimated to hold 35% of that (2007 data, when total US net worth was actually quite higher) - then the top 1% has a combined net worth of $19.25 Trillion. So, it actually "would make a difference" if we confiscated all of their wealth. [A reminder: this is actually a terrible idea]

Found some updated date, the total income pool for the top 1% is $2.1T/year.

[CosmicCowboy]

1) I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that our deficit problem is one of spending rather than one of income. Can you explain the methodology used to draw this conclusion?

2) Politicians always promise more they can deliver, all the way back to the election for Class President in elementary school. Try to remember all the promises your class president nominees made back then. My school featured a platform of "Shorter School Days" and "Arcade Games in the Cafeteria."

3) Not that I'm actually suggesting this, but the combined AGI of the top 1% of earners is around $1.3 Trillion/year. In March 2007, American Billionaires alone (that's only 946 people, where as the Top 1% is made up by 1.4 million people) had a combined net worth of $3.5 Trillion. Whereas it is estimated that the total Net Worth of all Americans is ~$55 trillion (2009 date) and the top 1% are estimated to hold 35% of that (2007 data, when total US net worth was actually quite higher) - then the top 1% has a combined net worth of $19.25 Trillion. So, it actually "would make a difference" if we confiscated all of their wealth. [A reminder: this is actually a terrible idea]

Scott, this is not a republican or democrat issue and all are to blame. It is just human nature for politicians to promise more than they can feasibly deliver and kick the can of how to pay for it down the road.

I have repeatedly said I would support tax increases if they were paired with a multiple of REAL spending reductions.

To get this shut under control it's going to take a combination of revenue increases, military cuts, and en lement cuts. Pain all the way across the board. They don't really have a lot of options left with discretionary spending. I seriously am beginning to believe that our political system will never have the will to confront the problem.