The future of the GOP

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: I'd love to know who these 47% are.  My guess is we're talking 6 year old girls and 98 year old men who pay no federal income tax.  Damn those 6 year olds thinking they can get a free ride.   But you know my feelings about that, if we're talking actual working people who are paying no federal income tax dollars, then the fault lies with the employers for not paying their employees enough where they actually pay income tax.  Nope.  Not talking about kids and nearly dead men who do not file returns.  We're talking about people who actually file returns. I gave you IRS data. Chester, do you understand our tax code? Two employees can work for the same company for the same wages.  One employee is married and has three children.  He gets back $4000.  Another employee is single and has no children.  He pays $700. Sadly, I know that all too well.    Single/no kids really sucks in America.  But, I just find it hard to believe that 47% pay no taxes.  I'd like to see demographic data as to who these people are.  Income, number of children, etc.

That chart comes from IRS data for the year 2009.  Even NBC confirms this number (though they use the 2011 figure of 46%).  Most of the people who fall into this percentage have their taxable income reduced to zero through credits (Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit, the Making Work Pay Credit).

The counterargument that much of the 47% is elderly (not saying they are, but just supposing) is probably moot if a comparable percentage of the top 50% of income earners is elderly (Warren Buffet is 82; even Donald Trump is 66).

All of this indicates that the "fair share" rhetoric that has gained so much currency these days (no pun intended) is ludicrous once you look at the numbers: If six people went out to eat, three of them would already be paying 97.7% of the bill.  And liberals rail against these three people, demanding that they pay "a little more."  Is this fair?

The T wrote: I think the future of the GOP would be much simpler if it just got back to its actual name. Republican Party, stands for "republic", the party of limited government, of a guiding law that protects rights that can't be violated, the party of the rule of rights and constitution. Leave it to the democrats the goal of usig democracy or the rule of the majority to create, destroy, or modify rights. Democrats will always believe in power through the majority, in democracy, which can easily turn into tyranny. Leave Democrats be democrats. Republicans should start being republicans and stand for the republic, leaving aside their current addiction to religion, war and personal decisions. It should be the Republican party, on the side of freedom, defending people making their own choices, not the democrats who even in their party's name show their only goal as being the road to power. Yet republicans have just become the more religion-based side of an endless quest for power. I understand that to defend the very idea of natural rights it was conceived that they are given by God. The republicans shouldn't give up on their values but should understand that there has been a shift in society and it should be possible to defend natural rights without hammering religion as the only reason. The republican party should defend a republic and a minimal government but it can't do that by tryingto regulate what people do in their bedrooms, what they put in their bodies, etc. Where's the small government if it is so big that it enters into people's private lives? That sound kind of like "turn the republican party into a libertarian party" but really, all they have to do is go back to liberalism, real liberalism of freedom and enterprise (not the American version of the term that basically describes social democrats and left progressives). Republicans allowed liberalism as a word be kidnapped by the left, and as a concept by a fringe minority in the party while the majority became the party of religion, lack of personal freedom and war. Ridiculous.

The Doctor wrote: Only tangentially related, because it's a party that must have once faced a very uncertain future itself, and on a lighter note.  I was surprised to find out just about 20 minutes ago that there is still an active Prohibition Party in this country, whose platform is stricter alcohol, drug, gambling and pornography laws.  Apparently their candidate received 519 votes during the presidential election.

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: I'd love to know who these 47% are.  My guess is we're talking 6 year old girls and 98 year old men who pay no federal income tax.  Damn those 6 year olds thinking they can get a free ride.   But you know my feelings about that, if we're talking actual working people who are paying no federal income tax dollars, then the fault lies with the employers for not paying their employees enough where they actually pay income tax.  Nope.  Not talking about kids and nearly dead men who do not file returns.  We're talking about people who actually file returns. I gave you IRS data. Chester, do you understand our tax code? Two employees can work for the same company for the same wages.  One employee is married and has three children.  He gets back $4000.  Another employee is single and has no children.  He pays $700. Sadly, I know that all too well.    Single/no kids really sucks in America.  But, I just find it hard to believe that 47% pay no taxes.  I'd like to see demographic data as to who these people are.  Income, number of children, etc.

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: I'd love to know who these 47% are.  My guess is we're talking 6 year old girls and 98 year old men who pay no federal income tax.  Damn those 6 year olds thinking they can get a free ride.   One of them was me last year. This year I have been a little luckier, but not much. Chester, I'd like to bring a little common ground to a thread which has at times been overly nasty and heated. I believe you are a sincere and thoughtful guy (I'm not sure if I could say the same about Slarti or dtguitarfan) and I believe your motives are noble. Unless I am mistaken, you would list the following among your goals for society. - you want equality of opportunity - you want people to be able to earn a comfortable living - you don't want to see people dying because they can't afford food or medicine - you want each generation to be better off than the previous one I believe that you want all these things and that you support the policies that you think will best bring them about. The question I have for you is: are you willing to believe that I do the same? I think there is a gross lack of understanding by the left of the conservative/libertarian position (granted, we have not done a good job of explaining it.) We are not evil, we are not greedy and we are not selfish. The truth is, we want the same things as you, and we support the policies that we think will best achieve them. The only thing we really disagree on is method. I do not believe that big government policies will ever result in the goals outlined above, because they rob people of the incentive to innovate and take risks, which is what causes an economy to grow, which is what makes people better off. I don't believe they work, because you eventually run out of other people's money to spend. I do not believe they work, because they have been tried. California is bankrupt. Greece is bankrupt. Ireland is bankrupt. Spain is bankrupt. Portugal is bankrupt. Italy is bankrupt. The other social democracies in Europe may not be collapsing, but neither are they thriving. They manage to stave off disaster by keeping just enough capitalism and freedom around to prevent them from turning into Greece. I don't think it works, and I would like to see them go another way. Can we at least agree that we both want what is best for our country and for the people in it, even though we disagree about how to achieve it?

I think you do want what you think is best for the country, and I believe that about Rob and most of the posters on here.  And I think to at least a certain degree we want the same outcomes.  Although I do think we might disagree on some of the details of what is actually best for the country as well.  But I don't think you, Rob or most of the other conservative/libertarian posters on here are bad, greedy people.  Perhaps a bit misguided, but not bad.  Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time talking with you.   

That does not stop me from thinking that there are greedy, evil people in this country that are exploiting the poor and middle classes and the whole damn system for their own personal gains in wealth and power, but I don't think any of you are those people.  Actually, you think there are greedy, evil people exploiting the country for their own gain as well, we just disagree about who those people are.  

The Doctor wrote: I'd love to know who these 47% are.  My guess is we're talking 6 year old girls and 98 year old men who pay no federal income tax.  Damn those 6 year olds thinking they can get a free ride.

One of them was me last year. This year I have been a little luckier, but not much.

Chester, I'd like to bring a little common ground to a thread which has at times been overly nasty and heated. I believe you are a sincere and thoughtful guy (I'm not sure if I could say the same about Slarti or dtguitarfan) and I believe your motives are noble. Unless I am mistaken, you would list the following among your goals for society.

- you want equality of opportunity
- you want people to be able to earn a comfortable living
- you don't want to see people dying because they can't afford food or medicine
- you want each generation to be better off than the previous one

I believe that you want all these things and that you support the policies that you think will best bring them about. The question I have for you is: are you willing to believe that I do the same?

I think there is a gross lack of understanding by the left of the conservative/libertarian position (granted, we have not done a good job of explaining it.) We are not evil, we are not greedy and we are not selfish. The truth is, we want the same things as you, and we support the policies that we think will best achieve them. The only thing we really disagree on is method.

I do not believe that big government policies will ever result in the goals outlined above, because they rob people of the incentive to innovate and take risks, which is what causes an economy to grow, which is what makes people better off. I don't believe they work, because you eventually run out of other people's money to spend. I do not believe they work, because they have been tried. California is bankrupt. Greece is bankrupt. Ireland is bankrupt. Spain is bankrupt. Portugal is bankrupt. Italy is bankrupt.

The other social democracies in Europe may not be collapsing, but neither are they thriving. They manage to stave off disaster by keeping just enough capitalism and freedom around to prevent them from turning into Greece. I don't think it works, and I would like to see them go another way.

Can we at least agree that we both want what is best for our country and for the people in it, even though we disagree about how to achieve it?

I'd love to know who these 47% are.  My guess is we're talking 6 year old girls and 98 year old men who pay no federal income tax.  Damn those 6 year olds thinking they can get a free ride.  

But you know my feelings about that, if we're talking actual working people who are paying no federal income tax dollars, then the fault lies with the employers for not paying their employees enough where they actually pay income tax. 

House of cards.

Who's the joker?

Doesn't matter.  Blame whomever you like.

$22.6 Trillion in 2016.

Oh and to your last question, yes I will, for giving everything away to the wealthy and corporations.  It wasn't until Reagan introduced his massive tax cuts for the wealthy and got us more heavily into military spending (which has been continued by both sides since, Democrat and Republican) that the debt became such an issue.  So there will be some blame for Democrats too, for not standing up to trickle down nonsense.

The Doctor wrote: Finnforest wrote: Yeah Logan, I've thought the same thing.  Step aside, and let them do anything they want.  Let them pass EVERYthing they want.  Zero obstruction.  Let them go all California on our ass.  Then we'll see in a few years if the public is truly in love with their economics.  I thinks it's pretty amusing watching all of the media proclaim conservatism dead.....we're talking about a 2% point victory here.  It's a loss, the Dems did a great job, but it's hardly the end of the story. Overreach Dems, I'm begging ya.....see if you're as immune to the pendulum as you think you are.  We don't think we're immune to the pendulum.  Far from it.  The pendulum's been stuck on right-wing for the past 30 years, even the Dems have gone all centrist.  I'm still waiting for the pendulum to swing back the other way.  The only thing this election did was keep the pendulum from moving even further to the right.

Funny thing about sixteen trillion dollar debts and trillion dollar deficits:

They don't swing your way.