As I said in another thread, "Nice try Jack".

Please don't tell me you believe in space aliens like the "Nobel Peace Prize" winning economist, Paul Krugman.

 

That's it? You know, I'm really a lousy debater, but you make it so easy! You just can't help proving what I say, can you? (Re-read and THINK, Frank! Humor! Does it begin to make sense now?)

I honestly feel sorry for you Frank. You're such an easy target.

- Jack

 

That's where we differ. I don't see someone else as a "target" even though I may not agree with someone's views.

 

I couldn't let this pass. I don't expect anything I type to change your mind since you have obviously decided what Republicans believe without having full knowledge.

NOBODY loves war. Even the military doesn't love war. Very few people like violence and almost nobody loves violence. What Republicans do realize, is often it is necessary to defend ourselves and our friends from people attempting to do us harm and that might involve violence. We see it in our own society with the criminal element. Often the only reason criminals stay in check in the presence of the police is from the fear of physical pain. In the old days that was simply a whack with a night stick or fist. As criminals became more brazen the tools officers use to inflict pain have had to get more effective. In modern times it is primarily a TASER or pepper spray. As always the ultimate "pain" is being shot with a firearm. EDITED TO ADD: The military is composed of people ready, willing, and able to fight for you. It is no different than having police officers ready, willing and able to fight for you. If there were no police officers or military composed of those people then you'd be left to defend your property and life on your own from the animals in society. The Republicans are just more willing to employ the necessary tools to fight the animals in the street before they become a huge problem. Democrats want to try to understand the animals and why they do the things they do. Kind of like funding a study to determine why pigs stink. Who cares just know they stink.

I know of nobody who hates the poor. I know of many people who hate the criminals often associated with lower income neighborhoods. I know of many people who dislike people taking advantage of a system that encourages them to stay on welfare when they are perfectly capable of paying their own way through life. I struggle daily with this issue with my son. His is just now coming out the childhood socialism phase. I have never heard of anybody wanting to kick truly needy people off welfare. However what are these truly needy people doing to better their lives? Often times all they are doing is sitting in their living rooms watching Oprah, Judge Judy, and Judge Joe Brown. I can't count the number of people I've had kicked off housing assistance because they were scamming the system. In the area I used to patrol the rule was simple disclose all household income to determine eligibility for the programs. Often these people would disclose their only income (which was all welfare money because they had no job). because of that they received free housing. Inevitably we would be called to their apartments and discover they had a live in boyfriend who was not on the lease. Everyone of these were reported to the housing authority and everyone of them was kicked off subsidized housing for 2 years. I'll bet everyone of them blamed me for them violating the program and claim I hate poor people. How about having drug testing for those on welfare? I mean if you are attempting to make a better life for yourself then you won't be doing drugs. That won't pass because it is claimed the law is against the person's constitutional rights. I have to go in for random drug tests and I WORK for the government not sit in my living room watching TV. It isn't a violation of my rights, but it is a violation of their rights?!?! EDITED TO ADD: What about my right to not have my tax dollars squandered to pay for people who are perfectly able to support themselves, but refuse to do so.

I have never heard of a Republican saying we need to do away with all regulation. I have heard many Republicans say we need to loosen regulations. The BP spill is a perfect example. If all of the companies involved had followed the regulations on the books, the spill would not have happened. The regulations were not enforced and the spill happened. So what is Congress' response? We need more laws. If the laws were being enforced and followed the spill would not have happened in the first place. What needs to be done is laws need to be enforced not more being enacted. As for the banks, the cause of the housing melt down was not banks they are strictly regulated it was mortgages made by non-banking entities that did not have to comply with many of the regulations banks had to comply with. Those toxic loans were then sold off to banks causing problems.

As long as you have religious people in political office you will have religion in politics. It cuts both ways Republican and Democrat. There are two things that will motivate a politician. Money and their deeply held beliefs. We can do things about their money, but not the deeply held beliefs. Technically if your supposition were correct we would be a communist country. Look at the dogma of the Christian beliefs it is all about communal living. Give to your brother so they will have enough to survive. There is a place for that and it is a private concern not government. If the Republicans were so inspired by their religion then would we not have a legal mandate to give to our brothers by force of law?

 

This is a very clear summary of what is happening.

The left does get upset due to someone making a profit.
The one that puts in the risk, gets the reward is how it works ( or has worked in the past and how the process works ).
The left wants the reward to go to everyone ( some distribution ratio that is inversely proportional to risk or proximity to the risk) , regardless of who actually took the risk. One the other hand, the loss of the risk not working out is all on the one that took the risk.

Same logic is applied to taxing corporations, some do not think that a tax on a corporation is going to be paid by the population.

That additional cost ( be it a tax or a cost increase on materials to make the widget ) is passed onto the consumer, else wall street will punish them with the lowered profits by trading down the price of the stock.

From what I see, the same people that say tax corporations, they can afford it, are also the same ones that complain when their 401(k) takes a hit from the price of a stock trading down due to lowered profits.

 

^ Good post SSCULLY, as usual

 

I had this same discussion the other day with a person I work with. they were all about increasing the taxes on corporations. Their logic was that the argument against increasing corporations was it would inhibit job creation and the companies weren't hiring now anyway so it wouldn't make any difference. I tired to explain that there are only three responses a corporation can have to increased taxes. They eat the increase. They restructure lowering cost, or they raise prices. If corporations are greedy (see my post you quoted) they are not going to eat the loss. If a corporation is not going to eat the loss that means they will reorganize (read fire a bunch of people) or increase prices. Neither is good for the economy. EDITED TO ADD: People seem to forget that the whole basis of a capitalist society is that everyone acts in their own best interest. Government has a role to protect the extremely small from the extremely large, but nothing more. The farther we go from that road the more dysfunction is introduced into the system. We are so far from the road right now, we couldn't hear a diesel truck at 4 in the morning without a muffler.

The other part that seriously irritates me is that corporate profits get taxed twice, but nobody seems to care. They are taxed when the company earns the money, then they are taxed again when the dividends are disbursed to the share holders. For those who think that doesn't effect you. What do you think is in your 401(k)? That's right stocks that pay dividends. You might not pay taxes on that money now, but when you withdraw it in retirement, you will pay taxes on the dividends. The only account where you don't get taxed on dividends is a Roth IRA.

 

1depd - two excellent posts. I honestly don't find myself disagreeing with any of your major points. I would question your conclusions about Democrats, because you are talking about them the same manner which you correctly took Silver to task over. But, I suspect you know that and are just talking about a stereotype, which is fine. But then too, I suspect Silver was generalizing about a stereotype also.

It's interesting, when I first registered to vote, about 50 years ago, as a Republican, it seemed to me the Republican party was the party of "reason". The Democrats seemed to be the party of "emotion". But, oddly enough, in the 80s, that seemed to reverse somehow. I began to hear more and more emotion from the Republican side and less and less from the Democrats. I certainly see that now, with charges that Obama is not emotionally in tune with the citizenry, and John Boehners's public weeping.

But, of course, I'm "generalizing" too. I know there are intelligent, reasoning people on both sides of the isle. And there are emotional fools on both sides. Personally, I want the ones who can "reason" to be leading our Country.

Anyway, I liked your thoughts.

- Jack

 

Got to love the logic with this one.
They are not hiring anyway, so jack up the tax rate.

They are not hiring at the current rate ( or more correctly, completed the hiring they did when the temp tax cut took effect back with Bush ), what would logic dictate ?
Lower the ETR so job creation can happen again organically, not by force of govt money.

This is the same person that thinks extending an existing temp tax cut is the same as a tax cut.
It is leaving the tax rate where it is, does not matter that the tax cut was temp with an expiration date on it, not extending it is increasing taxes.

In general the MSM did not help the situation by reporting it as a tax cut. The misrepresentation of the tax cut coming to a close and returning to the previous rate if not extended.
Thanks MSM for yet again misrepresenting the facts.

 

I am just as guilty of this stereotype, but the stereotype had to start somewhere.
The GOP is presented as the pro War, pro big business type ( and other things as of late that is involved white hoods ) as the stereotype, and I would agree with this.
Business are what keep the money coming into the US Treasury, why not try to figure out how to run all these programs that have been passed and are funded by taxes ?
If business start to exit the US ( CAN has a stair step down tax program in underway for businesses that will have the rate down to 15% ), where is the money going to come from ?

Is there a better way of referring to this group that I can use ?

It is hard, if you say left, that almost like like inferring something.

I can say ( with 98% certainty ), someone that thinks extending an existing temp tax cut is the same as a tax cut did not vote for McCain.

 

Calvin Coolidge was right when he said the business of America is business. Without it, our nation cannot and will not have the prosperity it has had in the past.

Geesh, sounds a lot like what is happening right now. Business has fled America due to onerous taxation/regulations and landed in places like China and other parts of Asia. And mark this down: when Obamacare is fully implemented, we will have even fewer jobs in this country. It will become more sound to employ fewer people and work them more hours. I speak as a business owner and as someone who employs.

Anyone who runs/has run a business can tell you it is getting more and more difficult (not less) to turn a profit in the United States.

 

If you are referring to my generalization of the Dems trying to understand the animals, I was simply stating what my observations have been over the 20 years in the industry in addition to the theories taught in my college education. The studies to understand crime and criminals have pretty much all been started by liberals (for their time). So you are correct, I should have used liberal instead of Democrat. As long as it doesn't get in the way of actually enforcing laws on the books, I have no problem attempting to understand crime and criminals. I do have a problem with studies getting in the way of enforcing laws and placing the rights of criminals over the rights of victims or law obeying citizens.

I should also point out that many of those liberals from way back would be considered a right wing nut jobs now a days.

 

Guess I will throw in my .02 though I doubt it is worth even that. So much is posted about Dems and Reps and how one hates the other. To me, that is ridiculous. From my perspective it is more a liberal or conservative question and not the party. I just can not stand politicians or anyone else taking a stand or voting according to party. Every bill should stand on it's merit and be voted according to wherther it is good for the people and the country.

I am very conservative and I have found that generally, but not always, the Rep party takes the position I favor. That does not make me a Rep. I have voted for a Dem candidate and expect to again. Here in Texas, we have some Dems that are more conservative than their Rep opponent. I vote for the individual.

I just can't stand to see a post that says all Rep stand for this and and such, so I hate Rep. Same goes for a vice versa post about Dems. That shows extreme narrow mindedness and a total lack of common sense to me.

Ok, rant over.

 

Nice sig pic, Jim! Oh, I vote the way you do too. Don't always get it right, but I try.

- Jack

 

When I post in this forum it's typically because I am angry. I arrive angry and I do post without full knowledge, I just post what I am thinking. I've read some article somewhere or I find that I can't sell my house and I am beside myself and I just want to say something extreme and anonymous (for the most part) about those I think have had a role in making me miserable.

You post seems to want me to come back to the Center and I hear you. I am just very angry. The Center is where I would rather be anyway. I've only drifted far Left recently.

This forum is good therapy for me. I like everyone here.

Now that Nikki Haley.... Hmm. Maybe I'll start a thread about our SC Governor.