Thread: Here it is "GOP Pledge to America"

The "pledge" seems to me to be nothing more than them stating once again what they believe in. It is strange to me that 2 years ago when the Dems came into power, every news outlet was saying it would be decades before the GOP got their power back, and here, two years later, they are set to do it possibly in Nov.

Of course, it's the economy stupid. A really bad economy always brings changes, although not necessarily good changes. And the Party that was in power for 6 of those last 8 years do bear some responsibility for the crash of 08. And we are gonna put these jackwags back into power? The American People have such short term memory. And politics uses that to their best advantage.

This Nation is actually on really shaky grounds with the national debt and a possibility that it will become so great that we can't borrow anymore. If this happens, look out everyone! 08 will be nothing compared to what could lie ahead. And yet, the spending goes on. The Dems borrow to spend, the GOP borrows to provided tax cuts, but its all on borrowed money!! What happens when China no longer loans us the money? Crash and burn, crash and burn.

It has become so bad that Greenspan seems to be scared shitless, going by an interview I saw last night with him on public television. When he gets concerned, it makes me concerned. While many may not like him, he has more brains and knowledge than all of us here even if we added ours up. I know he got me a bit worried by what he said.

Republicans THINK that tax cuts for the rich ALWAYS EQUALS new jobs. But, it ain't necessarily so! That they don't acknowledge this makes them ingenuious to me personally, and just another reason for me to be suspicious of them. Tax cuts are not the panacea that will fix everything that has gone south in our economy. With a growing national debt, that is out of control, reducing taxes, that is effectively adding to the debt doesn't seem to be the thing to do at this point in time. We are in a conundrum actually. A growing debt with high unemployment. One has to grab onto which is the more deadly, and attack it first. And I think currently the debt and the ability to borrow in the future is the most important. If this is not under control, it will result in even a great unemployment over the long term.

I think we will reach the pont unless something changes drastically, that the dollar will be worthless. This is a huge problem we are facing today, and the worst we have seen since the G.D. It was brought about by poor regulations of the financial sector, greed, and corruption within gov't itself. Yet, this has not been addressed in any meaningful manner in reality. We are simply seeing the same old shit come down from DC today. With the newest being this "pledge" from the GOP. But, you know what? Those GOP jerks had their chance and look where it took us! To get the same thing again from them is a death nail in the coffin IMO. What has changed about the GOP? Nothing. If one repeats the same action ,expecting different results that is insanity in my book.

I think the GOP got us in the mess we are in, yet they stand a chance of getting more power in Nov? God help us. Cause they sure as hell won't. The top 400 earners in this Nation hold 90 per cent of all wealth. That is what the GOP gave us, and they will never change this. This is their WAY. Yet, working class folks tend to be Repubicans. Are these folks idiots or what? They are cutting their own throats, due to propanganda generated by the GOP. This is such an insane scenerio, yet it grows. It is unbelievable, but it is the reality of our times.

No, we SHOULD give the Dems a chance to try to solve our problems. We already tried the GOP and they sunk us like the Titanic. How can anyone expect anything different from the GOP? They showed us what they were and are. Their policies crashed this economy, yet we want to let em get back into power? I would not vote for a single one of them personally at this point. Afterall, free trade came directly from this treasonous political party. And look at what it has wrought upon the American worker. DUH.

Republicans aren't saying now, nor have they ever said tax cuts are a panacea.

It's awful funny, the economy was chugging along just fine for 6 years, then the Dems took over in '06, and completely in '08, and well......you see where we are now. You guys have been running the show for almost 4 years now. How much time should the American people give you?

Originally Posted by countryboy

Republicans aren't saying now, nor have they ever said tax cuts are a panacea.

It's awful funny, the economy was chugging along just fine for 6 years, then the Dems took over in '06, and completely in '08, and well......you see where we are now. You guys have been running the show for almost 4 years now. How much time should the American people give you?

Really?
There was no huge unregulated market in derivatives in 2006?
No real estate bubble ready to pop?
No massive deficits?

All that happened beginning with legislation passed by Democrats beginning in 2007?

Is that your theory?


Can you identify the specific legislation, passed by Democrats beginning in 2007, that created these problems?

Originally Posted by countryboy

Republicans aren't saying now, nor have they ever said tax cuts are a panacea.

It's awful funny, the economy was chugging along just fine for 6 years, then the Dems took over in '06, and completely in '08, and well......you see where we are now. You guys have been running the show for almost 4 years now. How much time should the American people give you?

It MIGHT take 6 years to "fix" what the Repubs took 6 years to destroy. Generally when this Nation engaged in war, and in this case not 1 but two, like WW2, we usually tax at a higher rate to PAY for those wars. It was total fiscal irresponsibility to DROP taxes during a long war(s). Instead, THEY borrowed money to finance em. NOW, I am not defending the Dems, but we already know WHAT the Repubs "do" as a matter of political and economic philosophy. Like the Dems they are completely predictable. And point me to the last Republican President who actually shrunk the size of gov't. Who lowered spending. Bush rode in on Clinton's coat tails, enjoyed the fruit of Clinton's labor and then along with the Republican controlled Congress fucked up the who pie. Who was in office when the crash occurred? Who had controlled policy for 6 of the 8 years of the last Bush Admin? Since the crash is attributed in part to relaxed or unenforced financial policy, this originated from the GOP camp. Who's bright idea was it to give tax breaks to companies that offshored production? Who's bright idea was it to allow corporations to move to use slave labor? The fact is, the largest two contributors to a weak economy and the crash resides not with the Dems. You can duck and cover and hem and haw but that is the reality of the matter.

The GOP was so PRO BUSINESS as to gut American industry, which benefitted drastically the rich, and devastated the working class. The winners were the rich the losers the working folks. And this is what I have come to expect from the GOP. What is good for business is good for America, which may have some validity, IF not for the offshoring of labor and production. Today what is good for business is BAD for the working class, a large segment of our population. So, overall it is BAD for this Nation, unless of course you are in the upper 10 per cent of earners. This upper 10 per cent is the only constituent the GOP represents. If others just happen to reap some droppings from that table, it is purely by coincidence. And I think that anyone that can look objectively at this deal would see the same thing as I see.

The biggest joke in all of this are the tax rates. There is the tax rate on the books, and then theres the effective or actual tax rate. For most folks that pay taxes, the book tax rate is basically the effective tax rate. For the top 10 per cent, the book rate is close to twice the effective tax rate. How? Loopholes, provided in some cases consciously by Congress.

For years I heard that when the tax rates go up on the rich, the tax revenue drops. The reason is, not that they make LESS income, due to the effect of tax rates on the economy, but rather higher tax rates sends the rich into using methods to hide income. Effective laws COULD take away the tools for hiding income, so that a tax rate increase on the rich would yield more tax reciepts. And how hard would it be for the IRS to keep up with 400 people? That this hiding income has never been addressed in a meaningful way shows me the power of money in DC. Hell, back in the 70's there were even special tax codes to give one person a special tax exemption that others did not get. This is the reality of the matter.

Which party is more apt to turn a head to this? Well, surely this resides on the GOP side of the aisle. Who always wants less taxes on the rich? Even when involved in two very expensive wars? Hell, if the GOP and its current philosophy had been in power right after WW2, we would have never gotten out of the mess we were in. The huge war debt that FDR, Truman and Ike was paying for with a tax rate of 90 per cent upon the rich, would have never been paid off using the GOP current model. We probably would not have seen a huge growth in the middle class either, as most of the money would have went right to the top, as it has for the last decade.

Were most of us better off after 8 years of a Republican as President with the same party controlling the Congress 6 of those 8 years, or were we worse off? I was worse off, and everyone that I know was worse off. Nuff' said as far as I am concerned. Yet we want this same party to get power again? We already know where their path leads. Let's try something else for awhile. We already know what the GOP is capable of, they had their chance and they dropped the ball. Let another guy run with the ball for awhile. We know the first one can't run across the goal line. No matter how much he hollers to the coach to "give me the ball".

A new analysis of the Bush tax cuts has put the cost to our treasury at $2.74 Trillion.

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

The tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion in the first eight years, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, whose reliability the last administration went out of its way to praise. Those cuts were heavily weighted toward the people candidate George W. Bush famously called "haves and the have-mores . . . some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

In the two years since 2008, the cuts' total cost grew to $2.3 trillion, the Tax Policy Center estimated.

One of every eight dollars of the tax cuts went to the 1 in 1,000 taxpayers in the top tenth of 1 percent, the annual threshold for which was in the $2 million range throughout the last administration.

Bush wasn't kidding when he talked about his base, making his tax cuts permanent is catering to the financial base of the GOP.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

It MIGHT take 6 years to "fix" what the Repubs took 6 years to destroy. Generally when this Nation engaged in war, and in this case not 1 but two, like WW2, we usually tax at a higher rate to PAY for those wars. It was total fiscal irresponsibility to DROP taxes during a long war(s). Instead, THEY borrowed money to finance em. NOW, I am not defending the Dems, but we already know WHAT the Repubs "do" as a matter of political and economic philosophy. Like the Dems they are completely predictable. And point me to the last Republican President who actually shrunk the size of gov't. Who lowered spending. Bush rode in on Clinton's coat tails, enjoyed the fruit of Clinton's labor and then along with the Republican controlled Congress fucked up the who pie. Who was in office when the crash occurred? Who had controlled policy for 6 of the 8 years of the last Bush Admin? Since the crash is attributed in part to relaxed or unenforced financial policy, this originated from the GOP camp. Who's bright idea was it to give tax breaks to companies that offshored production? Who's bright idea was it to allow corporations to move to use slave labor? The fact is, the largest two contributors to a weak economy and the crash resides not with the Dems. You can duck and cover and hem and haw but that is the reality of the matter.

The GOP was so PRO BUSINESS as to gut American industry, which benefitted drastically the rich, and devastated the working class. The winners were the rich the losers the working folks. And this is what I have come to expect from the GOP. What is good for business is good for America, which may have some validity, IF not for the offshoring of labor and production. Today what is good for business is BAD for the working class, a large segment of our population. So, overall it is BAD for this Nation, unless of course you are in the upper 10 per cent of earners. This upper 10 per cent is the only constituent the GOP represents. If others just happen to reap some droppings from that table, it is purely by coincidence. And I think that anyone that can look objectively at this deal would see the same thing as I see.

The biggest joke in all of this are the tax rates. There is the tax rate on the books, and then theres the effective or actual tax rate. For most folks that pay taxes, the book tax rate is basically the effective tax rate. For the top 10 per cent, the book rate is close to twice the effective tax rate. How? Loopholes, provided in some cases consciously by Congress.

For years I heard that when the tax rates go up on the rich, the tax revenue drops. The reason is, not that they make LESS income, due to the effect of tax rates on the economy, but rather higher tax rates sends the rich into using methods to hide income. Effective laws COULD take away the tools for hiding income, so that a tax rate increase on the rich would yield more tax reciepts. And how hard would it be for the IRS to keep up with 400 people? That this hiding income has never been addressed in a meaningful way shows me the power of money in DC. Hell, back in the 70's there were even special tax codes to give one person a special tax exemption that others did not get. This is the reality of the matter.

Which party is more apt to turn a head to this? Well, surely this resides on the GOP side of the aisle. Who always wants less taxes on the rich? Even when involved in two very expensive wars? Hell, if the GOP and its current philosophy had been in power right after WW2, we would have never gotten out of the mess we were in. The huge war debt that FDR, Truman and Ike was paying for with a tax rate of 90 per cent upon the rich, would have never been paid off using the GOP current model. We probably would not have seen a huge growth in the middle class either, as most of the money would have went right to the top, as it has for the last decade.

Were most of us better off after 8 years of a Republican as President with the same party controlling the Congress 6 of those 8 years, or were we worse off? I was worse off, and everyone that I know was worse off. Nuff' said as far as I am concerned. Yet we want this same party to get power again? We already know where their path leads. Let's try something else for awhile. We already know what the GOP is capable of, they had their chance and they dropped the ball. Let another guy run with the ball for awhile. We know the first one can't run across the goal line. No matter how much he hollers to the coach to "give me the ball".

BD, it seems your take on Repub/Dem is similar to your Biblical interpretations.

I was much better off after eight years of GW, and so was just about everyone I know. So what, anecdotal evidence means very little in the grand scheme of things.

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

I've read a few posts:

It's sad, when that's the sort of critique anyone can make. "Liberal this" and "liberal that."

Wow.

I'm dumstruck.

Please, tell me more. Can you tell me why, philosophically, this is why you feel the way you do? Or is this some emotionally charged thing you do.

Don't think I'm picking on you.

There are others. But, at least when they throw around the word "liberal," they know what the fuck they mean. They have an argument to back it up, and it ain't no vague interpretation as to what they mean.

You, I feel, like you think a liberal is anyone who fucking disagrees with you. Only because you use it in such a sweeping fashion.

Steve ... he knows I hate him, but he knows that I can (sometimes) respect his opinions) ... he can be a dick, but he's a dick with a purpose. What are you?

"Liberal this, liberal that"

Oh, and don't think I'm one:

This is what I think of Liberals (yes, it is broadbrush, and I understand that not everyone of them is like this):

"A liberal is the guy who leaves the room when a fight starts."
- Big Bill Haywood

I'm not the enemy of liberals - I dig some of what they stand for, but they aren't my allies on some things either - especially their belief in capitalism.

If you've indeed read just a few posts, you might have missed the ones where I describe conservatives as well, where I contrast liberals, moderates, and conservatives.

The post of mine you replied to, regarding racial and ethnic alliance of southern border illegals with American citizens and legal immigrants, is one of well-regarded political fact in relationship to liberal pandering. I presented that fact in reply to another who wrote as if that wasn't an issue. There's really no more to say about it.

For more information, read the link in my signature.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

It MIGHT take 6 years to "fix" what the Repubs took 6 years to destroy. Generally when this Nation engaged in war, and in this case not 1 but two, like WW2, we usually tax at a higher rate to PAY for those wars. It was total fiscal irresponsibility to DROP taxes during a long war(s). Instead, THEY borrowed money to finance em. NOW, I am not defending the Dems, but we already know WHAT the Repubs "do" as a matter of political and economic philosophy. Like the Dems they are completely predictable. And point me to the last Republican President who actually shrunk the size of gov't. Who lowered spending. Bush rode in on Clinton's coat tails, enjoyed the fruit of Clinton's labor and then along with the Republican controlled Congress fucked up the who pie. Who was in office when the crash occurred? Who had controlled policy for 6 of the 8 years of the last Bush Admin? Since the crash is attributed in part to relaxed or unenforced financial policy, this originated from the GOP camp. Who's bright idea was it to give tax breaks to companies that offshored production? Who's bright idea was it to allow corporations to move to use slave labor? The fact is, the largest two contributors to a weak economy and the crash resides not with the Dems. You can duck and cover and hem and haw but that is the reality of the matter.

The GOP was so PRO BUSINESS as to gut American industry, which benefitted drastically the rich, and devastated the working class. The winners were the rich the losers the working folks. And this is what I have come to expect from the GOP. What is good for business is good for America, which may have some validity, IF not for the offshoring of labor and production. Today what is good for business is BAD for the working class, a large segment of our population. So, overall it is BAD for this Nation, unless of course you are in the upper 10 per cent of earners. This upper 10 per cent is the only constituent the GOP represents. If others just happen to reap some droppings from that table, it is purely by coincidence. And I think that anyone that can look objectively at this deal would see the same thing as I see.

The biggest joke in all of this are the tax rates. There is the tax rate on the books, and then theres the effective or actual tax rate. For most folks that pay taxes, the book tax rate is basically the effective tax rate. For the top 10 per cent, the book rate is close to twice the effective tax rate. How? Loopholes, provided in some cases consciously by Congress.

For years I heard that when the tax rates go up on the rich, the tax revenue drops. The reason is, not that they make LESS income, due to the effect of tax rates on the economy, but rather higher tax rates sends the rich into using methods to hide income. Effective laws COULD take away the tools for hiding income, so that a tax rate increase on the rich would yield more tax reciepts. And how hard would it be for the IRS to keep up with 400 people? That this hiding income has never been addressed in a meaningful way shows me the power of money in DC. Hell, back in the 70's there were even special tax codes to give one person a special tax exemption that others did not get. This is the reality of the matter.

Which party is more apt to turn a head to this? Well, surely this resides on the GOP side of the aisle. Who always wants less taxes on the rich? Even when involved in two very expensive wars? Hell, if the GOP and its current philosophy had been in power right after WW2, we would have never gotten out of the mess we were in. The huge war debt that FDR, Truman and Ike was paying for with a tax rate of 90 per cent upon the rich, would have never been paid off using the GOP current model. We probably would not have seen a huge growth in the middle class either, as most of the money would have went right to the top, as it has for the last decade.

Were most of us better off after 8 years of a Republican as President with the same party controlling the Congress 6 of those 8 years, or were we worse off? I was worse off, and everyone that I know was worse off. Nuff' said as far as I am concerned. Yet we want this same party to get power again? We already know where their path leads. Let's try something else for awhile. We already know what the GOP is capable of, they had their chance and they dropped the ball. Let another guy run with the ball for awhile. We know the first one can't run across the goal line. No matter how much he hollers to the coach to "give me the ball".

So true. Economies don't turn on a dime. But this one comes as close to that as possible if GDP growth is any indication.

Econoday Report

And with other reforms that have been passed this year the upward trend is sure to continue, unless of course, an impatient and gullible electorate changes lanes in November and puts us back on the road to ruin.

All this BS talk from the GOP of deficits says a lot about those to buy into it. Wars are extremely costly, and using history as a guide, our current deficit will not be paid for within my lifetime (unless I live to be about 115 years old.)

Our total debt is getting close to $56 Trillion, there's no chance in hell that the GOP will make much of a dent in that, if they hold to their pledge, and various campaign promises, it will only get worse. Unless, they let the Bush tax cuts sunset.

Income disparity in this country is at historically staggering levels, and this can only be expected to get even worse under Republican policies.

Americans have an annoying lack of patience and resolve, like rushing into war after 9/11, and now it appears Americans want to change direction in the middle of a new administration, even though there are indications that the downward spiral is slowing.

The GOP is proposing a reset with their "Pledge," the problem is the water has already passed under the bridge, and the hands of time don't go backwards. Democrats are trying to move this country forward with sweeping reforms to health care, our financial system, consumer protections, and immigration.

What are Republicans offering?

A pledge to undo that progress, and put a halt to any and all further progress.

We don't need an alternative right now, what we need is patience and resolve to stay the course to give this administration's policies time to take effect. We should have a clearer picture of the progress of this administration's reforms by the 2014 congressional elections. My hope is that Americans will give this administration at least until then to pass judgement, as I am confident we will all be better off, as long as we remain patient, resolute, and stay the course.

Offering gridlock, amendments to take away our rights, proposals to take health care away from our veterans, and unconstitutional social reforms should be disincentive enough for Americans to keep Republicans out of control. But my faith in the electorate isn't very strong.

If the GOP takes both houses in November, it will just be another day where I scratch my head and say: "WTF!?"

Originally Posted by Angry American

If the GOP takes both houses in November, it will just be another day where I scratch my head and say: "WTF!?"

Get ready to say "WTF!"

Your chart shows that just seeing the coming Democrat/socialist take over the economy just stopped in the second half of 2008... you guys (as it's clear you are on the side of the leftists) drove the economy off the cliff and have kept it there... from your own site:



Some recovery you got there sparky...

Originally Posted by tsquare

Get ready to say "WTF!"

Your chart shows that just seeing the coming Democrat/socialist take over the economy just stopped in the second half of 2008... you guys (as it's clear you are on the side of the leftists) drove the economy off the cliff and have kept it there...

I know you want to blame the financial collapse on the Democratic congress, that's obvious. But a tad naive, and overlooks the major turnaround in real GDP growth since Obama took office.

Originally Posted by tsquare

from your own site:



Some recovery you got there sparky...

Didn't say we are in a recovery yet. But as you can see from the chart, unemployment has stabilized.

GM is still alive, thanks to this administration, and no thanks to Republicans, yet they still take credit for it. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Angry American

...major turnaround in real GDP growth since Obama took office.

Really?

LINK

The Commerce Department on Friday downgraded the nation's economic growth in the second quarter, providing the most important evidence yet that the recovery has stalled.

The anemic annualized growth rate of 1.6% was down from last month's estimate of 2.4%. The drop was slightly less than many economists had predicted, but the report still put an exclamation point on a week of bad economic news that has raised fears the nation could plunge into another recession.

You can't legitimately give Obama any credit for GDP anyway. This chart GDP Chart shows a pretty stable curve upwards since about 1975.

If you insist on giving Obama credit for GDP growth, lets look at Bush vs Obama in their first year in office...
Bush 2000: 9951.5 billion
Bush 2001: 10286.2 billion
Increase of 334.7 billion

Obama 2008: 14441.4 billion
Obama 2009: 14258.2
Decrease of 183.2 billion

If you want to another year (2002 vs 2010)...

Bush 2000: 9951.5 billion
Bush 2001: 10286.2 billion
Bush 2002: 10642.3 billion
Increase of 690.8 billion

Obama 2008: 14441.4 billion
Obama 2009: 14258.2
Obama 2010: 14623.9
Increase of 182.5 billion

I don't think you can credit either one with the changes on GDP. But if you do, then the math says Bush was better for GDP growth.

Originally Posted by Angry American

I know you want to blame the financial collapse on the Democratic congress, that's obvious. But a tad naive, and overlooks the major turnaround in real GDP growth since Obama took office.

Do you not think your tendency to exonerate the Dems from any culpability is a tad bit naive as well?

Originally Posted by MaybeNextYear

Really?

LINK


You can't legitimately give Obama any credit for GDP anyway. This chart GDP Chart shows a pretty stable curve upwards since about 1975.

If you insist on giving Obama credit for GDP growth, lets look at Bush vs Obama in their first year in office...
Bush 2000: 9951.5 billion
Bush 2001: 10286.2 billion
Increase of 334.7 billion

Obama 2008: 14441.4 billion
Obama 2009: 14258.2
Decrease of 183.2 billion

If you want to another year (2002 vs 2010)...

Bush 2000: 9951.5 billion
Bush 2001: 10286.2 billion
Bush 2002: 10642.3 billion
Increase of 690.8 billion

Obama 2008: 14441.4 billion
Obama 2009: 14258.2
Obama 2010: 14623.9
Increase of 182.5 billion

I don't think you can credit either one with the changes on GDP. But if you do, then the math says Bush was better for GDP growth.

From your source:

That looks like a turnaround to me.