The brainwashing is wearing off: America is returning to the GOP!

[Full of Win]

Yep, the brainwashing that America has been exposed to looks to be wearing off. Republican affiliation is now the same as democratic, according to Gallup.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

When can be break out the ‘under new management’ signs for the House and the Senate in 2011?

[MacHipster]

When can be break out the ‘under new management’ signs for the House and the Senate in 2011?

As soon as the GOP changes from being the party of Greed, Torture, and Bigotry.

[Full of Win]

As soon as the GOP changes from being the party of Greed, Torture, and Bigotry.

...and become what, the Party of fiscal ineptitude and who care more about the emotions and feelings of terrorist than they do about the lives of Americans?

Thanks but no thanks.

[blackfox]

OP - your name seems to be off by the letter "D".

Even if the Democrats are as horrible as you state/imply - it does not necessarily follow that the GOP is any improved over their former state, or better than the Democrats.

This, of course, is true both ways - but I didn't start a thread with such an obvious, fallacial and inane point to begin with.

[Queso]

...and become what, the Party of fiscal ineptitude...
What do you mean "become"?

[rdowns]

Link (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx)

GOP Losses Span Nearly All Demographic Groups

Only frequent churchgoers show no decline in support since 2001

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush's presidency in 2001, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/scv9ciumeumvortf2puoqg.gif http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bokf-xurl0ge5oytpzai7w.gif

So far in 2009, aggregated Gallup Poll data show the divide on leaned party identification is 53% Democratic and 39% Republican -- a marked change from 2001, when the parties were evenly matched, according to an average of all of that year's Gallup Polls. That represents a loss of five points for the Republicans and a gain of eight points for the Democrats.

[SactoGuy18]

I think if President Obama wants to be more popular again, he needs to announce as soon as possible that there will soon be MASSIVE changes to our income tax system so it encourages more personal savings and capital investment in the USA.

Here's one problem: we now have around US$2 trillion running in the underground economy just about beyond the reach of the IRS. And we have an even worse problem: American citizens and businesses have funneled somewhere between US$12 and US$17 TRILLION out of the USA to various offshore financial centers located in places like the Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Nauru, Panama, Switzerland, and so on for tax reduction reasons.

Can you imagine what would happen to the US economy if we can end these practices under better tax conditions and bring back anywhere between US$14 and US$19 TRILLION to flow in the US financial system? Our economic crisis would be OVER in a matter of weeks! :D

So how about it, Mr. President?

[leekohler]

I think if President Obama wants to be more popular again, he needs to announce as soon as possible that there will soon be MASSIVE changes to our income tax system so it encourages more personal savings and capital investment in the USA.

Here's one problem: we now have around US$2 trillion running in the underground economy just about beyond the reach of the IRS. And we have an even worse problem: American citizens and businesses have funneled somewhere between US$12 and US$17 TRILLION out of the USA to various offshore financial centers located in places like the Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Nauru, Panama, Switzerland, and so on for tax reduction reasons.

Can you imagine what would happen to the US economy if we can end these practices under better tax conditions and bring back anywhere between US$14 and US$19 TRILLION to flow in the US financial system? Our economic crisis would be OVER in a matter of weeks! :D

So how about it, Mr. President?

You mean like the Bush tax cuts that did absolutely nothing to help? And don't worry- the GOP has a lot of apologizing to do before they become the majority again.

[iShater]

Yep, the brainwashing that America has been exposed to looks to be wearing off.

What brainwashing is that? Been listening to Hagee or something?

[SactoGuy18]

You mean like the Bush tax cuts that did absolutely nothing to help? And don't worry- the GOP has a lot of apologizing to do before they become the majority again.

What I'm talking about is a complete, systemic change to our national taxation system. Our current taxation system--even with the Bush tax cuts in 2003--still encouraged Americans to "offshore" their assets to keep them out of the reach of the IRS. Why do you think the amount sitting outside the country even during the last Presidency has reached possibly as high as US$17 TRILLION? :eek:

In short, if President Obama wants real change to bring our economy back, all that money "offshored" should be back in the USA under better tax circumstances.

[iShater]

^^^ or we take away the tax breaks for companies that stash stuff off shore. That will address some of the issues.

[leekohler]

^^^ or we take away the tax breaks for companies that stash stuff off shore. That will address some of the issues.

Bingo- anyone dong that should be penalized.

[Rodimus Prime]

Well I would not be surprised by this. I except support for the democrats to drop like a rock over the next 4-8 years.

Reason for this is look over the course of history at which party was in control. It goes back and forth over any given time span. For a few years Rep have a huge amount of control. then the dems have it for a few year. The power will switch back to the rep. Honestly I do not like one party having near complete control over presidents and congress. Not just a slight control but near a complete control like they have now. The federal government is suppose to be slow and that is one of it checks and balances is how slow things move though it. Instead they are shoving things threw in record time buy passing all those checks nad not giving thing time to cool off a little. When things go flying though you get so much extra pork and pet projects add to bills.

[barkomatic]

A refreshed Republican party would be pretty much neutral on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Let people decide on their own about those things and neither support nor oppose them. They would embrace fiscal responsibility, opportunity, personal freedoms, low taxes etc.

Instead, Republicans essentially stand for the opposite of all those things now. The Democratic party has been judged by the American people as the least damaging--though imperfect--route.

[Desertrat]

Didn't I start hollering, way back, that Dubya was not a conservative in the old usage of the word? "Statist" was my view of the whole Neo-Con deal. The Republican party got all splintered between statism and social stuff and got away from its roots.

If there is a true return to conservative principles of reduced government interference in daily life, and less do-goodism of more and more so-called entitlements, the party might come back to pre-Bush status.

The Democrats' problem is that a coalition can win elections but it cannot govern. Competing factions with different agendas in governance create splintering--which we see right now with leftist backlash against some of Obama's decisions on things like the Afghanistan "Surge" and Gitmo.

One factor in the present backlash is the Internet with its rapidity of flow of information. There's a helluva lot more learning experience about economics and monetary policy, now, than ever was available in the past--and the flaws in the administration's ideas are becoming ever more apparent.

Dunno how it will all play out. If the present Republican leadership just keeps on keeping on, they won't really get it together. I don't see anybody who's really stepping up as a real leader, with any sort of clean track record or a record of success in life who has "the fire in his belly".

'Rat

[Beerfloat]

Hopefully the right wing policies of the Obama administration will continue to alienate people from the spoiled and egoistic attitude of the small fringe of American voters who would benefit from Republican policies. This could be a stepping stone towards a more benign and responsible United States which is more in line with the rest of the democratic world.

[paddy]

...and become what, the Party of fiscal ineptitude and who care more about the emotions and feelings of terrorist than they do about the lives of Americans?

Thanks but no thanks.

And you support the mad feckers who destroyed your economy and buried you in debt????

It was the GOP that caused the unnecessary deaths of over three thousand Americans, not the democrats.

[Full of Win]

And you support the mad feckers who destroyed your economy and buried you in debt????

Gentleman - this is from the Congressional Budget Office

http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/obama+record+deficit.gif

Notice the long bar on the right? Yep, that is the reckless spending when the DEMOCRATS are in charge! I'll grant the Republicans did spend more than was taken in, but on an annual bases relaitve to the current junta, it pales. Its scary to think what the en masse creation of money from the DEMOCRATS will do to the economy, I just think God that I have a little gold put away.



It was the GOP that caused the unnecessary deaths of over three thousand Americans, not the democrats.

There was noting "unnecessary" about it. Moreover, the democrats have been in change of funding the war for the past 2.5 years, and they could have stopped spending on the conflict if they choose to. They did not.

[leekohler]

Gentleman - this is from the Congressional Budget Office

http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/obama+record+deficit.gif

Notice the long bar on the right? Yep, that is the reckless spending when the DEMOCRATS are in charge! I'll grant the Republicans did spend more than was taken in, but on an annual bases relaitve to the current junta, it pales. Its scary to think what the en masse creation of money from the DEMOCRATS will do to the economy, I just think God that I have a little gold put away.





There was noting "unnecessary" about it. Moreover, the democrats have been in change of funding the war for the past 2.5 years, and they could have stopped spending on the conflict if they choose to. They did not.

It was completely unnecessary. Hussein was contained and no threat. Now, because of W's ineptitude and egomaniacal desire to go after his Daddy's nemesis, we have a huge mess on our hands in Afghanistan. Ya know- that place where Osama bin Laden's been hiding?

[yellow]

Yep, the brainwashing that America has been exposed to looks to be wearing off.

Funny, I kind of figured Americans were being snatched off the streets and "re-educated" by Dick Cheney in a seedy motel off the interstate. Let the Spinmachine™ begin anew!

[paddy]

Gentleman - this is from the Congressional Budget Office

Notice the long bar on the right? Yep, that is the reckless spending when the DEMOCRATS are in charge! I'll grant the Republicans did spend more than was taken in, but on an annual bases relaitve to the current junta, it pales. Its scary to think what the en masse creation of money from the DEMOCRATS will do to the economy, I just think God that I have a little gold put away.

Well they have to do something to prevent the economy from going into nosedive. Who left them with the mess they have? Are you suggesting they start cutting the budget now? At this time??

[/QUOTE]There was noting "unnecessary" about it.[/QUOTE]

Yes, sure glad they found those WMDs. World's a lot safer without them.

Moreover, the democrats have been in change of funding the war for the past 2.5 years, and they could have stopped spending on the conflict if they choose to. They did not.

For Gods sake, the republicans were in charge of war spending for how long? 10 years?

No they could not have just 'stopped war spending'. Unless you want to completely destroy Iraq (even more than it is now anyway) you have to phase withdrawal.

Do you even see your double standards? Where were you when W was raiding the Treasury to pay for his wars?

[Zombie Acorn]

You mean like the Bush tax cuts that did absolutely nothing to help? And don't worry- the GOP has a lot of apologizing to do before they become the majority again.

They did those tax cuts back in 2001 because they were worried about the economy dipping into a recession. If we would have put a lid on what was going on in the financial/housing sector back then we would have been much better off.

I don't see where people get off criticizing NOT taxing people to the hilt. I would rather everyone's taxes were the minimal amount possible to sustain a functioning government. Tax cuts help the rich more than the poor, the rich pay more money in taxes and are the entities giving investment capital for business.

As for the thread, i am not happy with either party and not sure that i would label myself either republican or democrat at this point. Talk about a lousy 8 years and rolling.

[mactastic]

LOL... Sounds like the brainwashing has just started then.

Although in reality, those numbers don't mean the GOP is coming back. As was noted by Ron Brownstein, GOP strength in the South has masked their weakness everywhere else. Being a rump regional party isn't going to provide a path to salvation.

And speaking of governing coalitions, the GOP has discovered that the have their own battle ongoing for their heart and soul. Their leaders are urging that they take a turn hard to the right -- as if there's much room left there -- and that will save them. But going further right alienates the moderates and independents they need to grow their numbers. And moderating their positions on social issues to appeal to those moderates and independents guarantees the alienation of their base.

No, the GOP has more time left in the political wilderness before they return -- if they ever do.

[Zombie Acorn]

LOL... Sounds like the brainwashing has just started then.

Although in reality, those numbers don't mean the GOP is coming back. As was noted by Ron Brownstein, GOP strength in the South has masked their weakness everywhere else. Being a rump regional party isn't going to provide a path to salvation.

And speaking of governing coalitions, the GOP has discovered that the have their own battle ongoing for their heart and soul. Their leaders are urging that they take a turn hard to the right -- as if there's much room left there -- and that will save them. But going further right alienates the moderates and independents they need to grow their numbers. And moderating their positions on social issues to appeal to those moderates and independents guarantees the alienation of their base.

No, the GOP has more time left in the political wilderness before they return -- if they ever do.

The GOP has been off in la-la land for the last 8 years, they do need to return to the foundation of the right (the republican name is probably so tainted at this point they might as well change it). Even California is voting down big tax bills. I see minimal differences between the parties anymore, especially since the republicans do the exact opposite of what they say. They are all a bunch of politicians who couldn't give a **** less about the people they are governing.

Instead they will focus on issues like gays/abortions and religion. If/when they do they will fail.

[Eraserhead]

Gentleman - this is from the Congressional Budget Office

http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/obama+record+deficit.gif

Notice the long bar on the right?

Notice the small section where the bars go up rather than down? Yep that was under Clinton, that well known Republican president.

[Teh Don Ditty]

^Clinton was a Democrat.

[Eraserhead]

^Clinton was a Democrat.

I know, it was bad sarcasm :o.

[Teh Don Ditty]

I know, it was bad sarcasm :o.

I'll say :p

[BoyBach]

Gentleman - this is from the Congressional Budget Office

http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/obama+record+deficit.gif


How much of that 2009 bar is a result of Dubya's bailout of the stricken financial sector?


As for the suggestion that the US is returning to the GOP, that rotten failure has resoundingly been told to ***** off by the US electorate (which is something that Pres. Obama would do well to remember.)

[Thomas Veil]

Honestly I do not like one party having near complete control over presidents and congress. Not just a slight control but near a complete control like they have now.Now? Were you were equally skittish from 2001-05, when the Republicans controlled both of those branches of government? Were you really perturbed from 2005-07 when the Republicans got the Supreme Court as well?

Gentleman - this is from the Congressional Budget Office

http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/obama+record+deficit.gif

Notice the long bar on the right? Yep, that is the reckless spending when the DEMOCRATS are in charge!You mean the spending that we wouldn't be doing right now if the Republicans hadn't let the free market get so out of control?

We had a surplus under Clinton vs. this huge mess that Bush left us with. There's no way you can convince anyone that Republicans are models of fiscal responsibility.

[Iscariot]

Notice the long bar on the left? Yep, that is the reckless spending when the REPUBLICANS were in charge!

[MacHipster]

Notice the small section where the bars go up rather than down? Yep that was under Clinton, that well known Republican president.

Clinton was the best Republican President since Eisenhower.

[Full of Win]

Notice the long bar on the left? Yep, that is the reckless spending when the REPUBLICANS were in charge!

Bravo, comparing 5 - 7 years vs. 1 year. How weak.

[Iscariot]

Bravo, comparing 5 - 7 years vs. 1 year. How weak.

You're right, the budget deficits the Democrats have cooked up are pretty weak. They need to listen to the GOP more if they really want to run the country into the ground!

[obeygiant]

Gentleman - this is from the Congressional Budget Office

http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/obama+record+deficit.gif

But, but, but..... Its Bush's fault!!! LOL


hmmmm, I guess it could be. :)

[Macky-Mac]

clearly the best thing (maybe the only thing???) the GOP has going for them at the moment is that they're the only opposition party we have

[Sun Baked]

No it isn't wearing off, you can never get these stains out in cold water.

And some fool printed on the side of their heads.

"Brainwash in cold water to prevent shrinkage."

[.Andy]

...and become what, the Party of fiscal ineptitude and who care more about the emotions and feelings of terrorist than they do about the lives of Americans?
http://i43.tinypic.com/hreyrb.jpg

[63dot]

Dunno how it will all play out. If the present Republican leadership just keeps on keeping on, they won't really get it together. I don't see anybody who's really stepping up as a real leader, with any sort of clean track record or a record of success in life who has "the fire in his belly".

'Rat

It's usually just an 8 year short cycle in recent history since the depression with a rock solid guarantee for one party or the other.

FDR - 12+ years
Truman - 7+ years
Ike - 8 years
Kennedy and Johnson - 8 years
Nixon and Ford - 8 years
Post Watergate outsider, Jimmy Carter - 4 years
Old guard GOP Reagan - 8 years
Neo-Con, "compassionate conservative" Bush - 4 years
Blue Dog Dem Clinton - 8 years
Christian Right Bush Jr. - 8 years
Obama - at least one term, maybe two...*hopefully two

People trade off parties who vote in the middle, then expect a lot of positive change, and when they don't see it just go for the other party.

One day we may see a Green or an Independent, Reform, or Libertarian of some sort. I am not of the belief that both major parties are exactly identical, but in some areas, America needs change which neither party has given us. Why can't we stop being the policeman of the world? Why is such a modern country like the US unable to have universal healthcare? Why do both parties become beholden to entrenched lobbyists?, etc...

[bradl]

Bravo, comparing 5 - 7 years vs. 1 year. How weak.

So let's compare 20 years instead. Notice how for a period of 16 years, there wasn't a single blue line above zero. Out of those 16 years, 12 were during the time your GOP was in office. Keep in mind that Bush didn't take office until 2001, so he was left a near $200 billion Surplus. Clinton didn't take office until 1993, and was left a near $250 billion deficit. Obama takes office and is left with a near $500 - $600 billion deficit, with almost $1 billion given to banks and car manufacturers with no oversight..

For all intents/purposes, 20 years total that the GOP was in office, and not a single budget surplus.

That's sad, pathetic, and weak. If Lincoln were alive today, he'd probably shoot himself from seeing what his party has become.

BL.

[Rodimus Prime]

Now? Were you were equally skittish from 2001-05, when the Republicans controlled both of those branches of government? Were you really perturbed from 2005-07 when the Republicans got the Supreme Court as well?


umm the Supreme court I have made my stance here before on my view and that is it should be left balance at all times. 3 left, 3 middle and 3 right. I did not like how bush screwed with that set up.

Now going back to 01-05 I did not really follow that much back then and did not start really tracking things to 2006-2007.

So please do not think that I just complaining because Dems are in complete control. I did not like how under Bush stuff was rushed threw. I hate it even more watching the Dems rush thing after thing threw because there is no one to even slow them down.

[Eraserhead]

But, but, but..... Its Bush's fault!!! LOL


hmmmm, I guess it could be. :)

Given the banks imploded under Bush and the Republicans allowed them to become as unregulated as they were and he'd been president for 8 years that is a fairly reasonable assumption.

[hulugu]

The Gallup poll gives some very interesting data.

For instance:

In November 7-10, 2004 Republicans were 38, Independents 27, and Democrats 35.

In January 7-9, 2005 Republicans were 35, Independents 29, and Democrats 36.

The instance of George W. Bush becoming inaugurated again shifted Gallup responses three points.

Also, 2008 Nov 7-9, 2008 Republicans were 28, Independents 37, and Democrats 37. But, by inauguration Jan 9-11, 2009 Republicans were 30, Independents 33, and Democrats 36.

Without a moment of actual policy, responses shifted by two points in Republican's favor in early 2009.


So, just from these few instances it seems that party affiliation swings like a pendulum regardless of party.




Also, on the CBO data. Here's another chart:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10086/fig9.gif

Notice that since 1965 we've maintained an almost constant budget deficit until 1997. The budget maintains a surplus until 2001. Also, notice by 2015 that the budget is projected to return to levels slightly higher than 2004.

[Eraserhead]

Also, 2008 Nov 7-9, 2008 Republicans were 28, Independents 37, and Democrats 37. But, by inauguration Jan 9-11, 2009 Republicans were 30, Independents 33, and Democrats 36.

Without a moment of actual policy, responses shifted by two points in Republican's favor in early 2009.

Its probably just noise, the change isn't significant enough...

[solvs]

Uhhh, if one really looks at the polling, it isn't that the GOP is gaining, because they really, really aren't (just look at the Gallup poll, among others, showing only around 20% of people actually call themselves Republican) it's just that people are already upset with the Dems. And can you blame them, but it seems to mostly be about the fact that they aren't regulating enough (see the AIG bonuses), aren't defending the consumer enough (see the last credit card bill before the recent one that passed, though still lacking, and the defeated bill that would have helped people keep their homes), and aren't doing enough with the wars and detainees. Among other things. Things I also don't think anyone would be happy with the GOP dealing with. And haven't. See the last elections.

And as for the idea that Bush wasn't fiscally conservative enough, well duh (neither was Reagan if you really look, even when raised - yes raised - taxes a couple of times), but you lot supported him while he was acting not so fiscal, and ignoring the rest of us warning you of that fact, so you have only yourselves to blame.

[Zombie Acorn]

Uhhh, if one really looks at the polling, it isn't that the GOP is gaining, because they really, really aren't (just look at the Gallup poll, among others, showing only around 20% of people actually call themselves Republican) it's just that people are already upset with the Dems. And can you blame them, but it seems to mostly be about the fact that they aren't regulating enough (see the AIG bonuses), aren't defending the consumer enough (see the last credit card bill before the recent one that passed, though still lacking, and the defeated bill that would have helped people keep their homes), and aren't doing enough with the wars and detainees. Among other things. Things I also don't think anyone would be happy with the GOP dealing with. And haven't. See the last elections.

And as for the idea that Bush wasn't fiscally conservative enough, well duh (neither was Reagan if you really look, even when raised - yes raised - taxes a couple of times), but you lot supported him while he was acting not so fiscal, and ignoring the rest of us warning you of that fact, so you have only yourselves to blame.

From my knowledge Reagan didn't cut spending anyway, he just lowered taxes, not really that conservative if you ask me. The point of conservatism is to save now to be prosperous later. Instead we either tax alot and spend alot or tax a little and spend a lot.

[kindablue09]

Gentleman - this is from the Congressional Budget Office

http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/obama+record+deficit.gif


Did anyone actually read the bar graph? The two colors represent January projection and January revision. Based on that it seems that the graph was produced around Dec 2008 through Jan 2008. Meaning they are estimates on the month, before or maybe even while they are happening.

Plus its probably a prediction of all the spending Obama would be doing. We knew about that; he was constantly saying how he would immediately begin funding programs and measures to put the economy back on track.

Now wether you agree with his financial policy is another story, but seriously stop misusing figures. It helps no one make an informed decision about political affairs; in fact it just hurts everyone.

[it5five]

From my knowledge Reagan didn't cut spending anyway, he just lowered taxes, not really that conservative if you ask me. The point of conservatism is to save now to be prosperous later. Instead we either tax alot and spend alot or tax a little and spend a lot.

Conservatism never fails, it can only be failed.

[Desertrat]

ZombieAcorn, if you want more income to the federal treaury, you reduce the tax rates. That's historical. It held for JFK, Reagan and Bush II.

The "Reagan Deficits" came during a time when the Democrats controlled the House Appropriations Committee, which has ultimate control over the federal budget. It is not correct to say "Reagan Deficits". It is correct, however, to speak of "Bush II Deficits", as the Republicans had control of the House Appropriations Committee.

Back to the thread subject: Any gains in polling by the Republicans, in my opinion anyway, are from fear of Obama's monetary policies as well as such things as the takeovers of investment banks and the car companies. Too much misuse and waste of tax dollars, too much racking up of incredible deficit numbers, and too much unconstitutional breach of contract.

'Rat

[63dot]

So let's compare 20 years instead. Notice how for a period of 16 years, there wasn't a single blue line above zero. Out of those 16 years, 12 were during the time your GOP was in office. Keep in mind that Bush didn't take office until 2001, so he was left a near $200 billion Surplus. Clinton didn't take office until 1993, and was left a near $250 billion deficit. Obama takes office and is left with a near $500 - $600 billion deficit, with almost $1 billion given to banks and car manufacturers with no oversight..

For all intents/purposes, 20 years total that the GOP was in office, and not a single budget surplus.

That's sad, pathetic, and weak. If Lincoln were alive today, he'd probably shoot himself from seeing what his party has become.

BL.

Excellent points.

I was once a staunch Republican, but when Reagan outspent Carter and veered somewhat from the Barry Goldwater model, I got worried. When Bush Sr. came in and made friends with neo-Con big government spenders, then I registered Democrat and was that way, officially, since 1990.

I think in the last several decades, America has been an evenly split country right after the 20 year reign of FDR and Truman. The reason Obama and many Democrats won was because a lot of those Republicans were angry at their own party and voted for the Democrats.

The registration seemed equal, and remains that way today, but the voting ended up being a landslide in favor of the Democrats via moderate Republicans ditching Bush and others like him.

The GOP won't really lose membership and will be half of America, but I don't see the GOP standing any chance in 2010 or 2012. Obama would have to really mess up in a huge way for the GOP to get any traction back that soon. The bad taste that W left with us will not soon be forgotten.

[mactastic]

ZombieAcorn, if you want more income to the federal treaury, you reduce the tax rates. That's historical. It held for JFK, Reagan and Bush II.
Are you once again attempting to suggest that tax cuts can pay for themselves?

[.Andy]

Are you once again attempting to suggest that tax cuts can pay for themselves?
For proponents of the laffer curve the only position they are able to conceive is to the right of apex.

[zap2]

But, but, but..... Its Bush's fault!!! LOL


hmmmm, I guess it could be. :)

Well its certainly not a dems fault...yes, it had a lot to do with the life style American(and others) were living, but government regulations could have help us avoid this! Who undid regulation in the past fews years? GOP

[DoNoHarm]

Link (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx)



http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/scv9ciumeumvortf2puoqg.gif http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bokf-xurl0ge5oytpzai7w.gif

I think the college grad bar is off the scale there.

ZombieAcorn, if you want more income to the federal treaury, you reduce the tax rates. That's historical. It held for JFK, Reagan and Bush II.

do you mean the treasury or treaury?

I learned all about that in college.....

[armoguy94]

Yep, the brainwashing that America has been exposed to looks to be wearing off. Republican affiliation is now the same as democratic, according to Gallup.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

When can be break out the ‘under new management’ signs for the House and the Senate in 2011?

Unfortunately, the People of America are brainwashed and are being brainwashed in so many more ways than this..

[Zombie Acorn]

ZombieAcorn, if you want more income to the federal treaury, you reduce the tax rates. That's historical. It held for JFK, Reagan and Bush II.


I think this depends on what is taxed and how expendable the product is. Obviously taxes create a deadweight loss, so in theory taxing a smaller amount could actually drive demand to a point where it would make up for the lost revenues.

[63dot]

do you mean the treasury or treaury?

I learned all about that in college.....

As CNN put it eloquently, it's something called the SEC. ;)

And then there was this dude, some chairman of nasdaq ... well, anyway google it ;)

[mactastic]

I think this depends on what is taxed and how expendable the product is. Obviously taxes create a deadweight loss, so in theory taxing a smaller amount could actually drive demand to a point where it would make up for the lost revenues.
I suppose I'll ask you as well: Are you suggesting that tax cuts can pay for themselves?

[Desertrat]

Yes, mac, as I once before hunted up a URL to a dot-gov site that showed federal income, year by year.

When tax rates are lowered, whether on wages or capital gains, economic activity increases as there is more money remaining in the private sector for investment. More activity means more taxes. Dunno why that's so hard to understand--as well as being a fact of history.

The easiest to see is for capital gains: If the rate is high, people with large amounts of assets hang on to them and do less selling. When the rates are lowered, as happened in the 1970s, sales of assets rose, the money got reinvested, and federal tax income increased.

Shifting emphasis: Remember the "Luxury Tax" deal on big-ticket items like yachts and suchlike? Those with their "soak the rich" notions apparently had no idea that people were actually employed in building toys for the wealthy. Oops! Thousands went unemployed, and the unemployment benefits were greater than the tax take from the few remaining sales.

While not tax-oriented, the brouhaha over CEOs flying to DC to appear before Congress has led to foregone purchases and cancelled orders in executive jet manufacturing. So far, it's about 10,000 high-paid blue-collar manufacturing jobs lost.

The politics of envy never helps the working folks. Not in my lifetime, anyway.

'Rat

[zap2]

Yes, mac, as I once before hunted up a URL to a dot-gov site that showed federal income, year by year.


Can you post that?(not saying I don't believe you,I'd just like to see it, and a quick google didn't show it)

[DakotaGuy]

It always goes back and forth. If the Republican party really wants to attract new members then they need to be more moderate on social issues and focus on the spending.

As far as spending goes I don't think we have seen anything yet. With the D's having total control over Congress and Obama who appears to be having a great time with an open checkbook I think his first 4 months is just a little taste of what is coming down the line.

I thought Bush was out of control on spending too. Heck the most conservative spender we had in the White House was Bill Clinton.

I don't know though, I'm not an economist, maybe we can just keep printing more money and spending it. It seems though eventually something bad is going to happen if we keep going down the same path with record deficits. I don't see any decent plan where Obama plans to get our budget balanced or at least close to balanced. If someone can show me where that is going to happen I'm all eyes and ears.

[zap2]

With the D's having total control over Congress and Obama who appears to be having a great time with an open checkbook I think his first 4 months is just a little taste of what is coming down the line.

I'm not sure how you can think that, the bailouts were big spending, but those were extreme circumstances. Everything else Obama has done and said looks to be towards curbing reckless spending. Admittedly we're in a big whole, but he way he's looking looks much better then Bush did


I don't see any decent plan where Obama plans to get our budget balanced or at least close to balanced. .


To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from "winding down the war" in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes continued spending on "overseas military contingency operations" throughout Obama's presidency, the official said, but that number is lower than the nearly $190 billion budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011. That means the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent.

Obama also proposes "a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement" that would target corporate loopholes, the official said. And Obama's budget seeks to tax the earnings of hedge fund managers as normal income rather than at the lower 15 percent capital gains rate.

Overall, tax collections under the plan would rise from about 16 percent of the economy this year to 19 percent in 2013, while federal spending would drop from about 26 percent of the economy, another post-World War II high, to 22 percent.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/21/AR2009022100911_pf.html

Cut in half looks mighty good to me!

[DakotaGuy]

I'm not sure how you can think that, the bailouts were big spending, but those were extreme circumstances. Everything else Obama has done and said looks to be towards curbing reckless spending. Admittedly we're in a big whole, but he way he's looking looks much better then Bush did

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/21/AR2009022100911_pf.html

Cut in half looks mighty good to me!

Personally I'd like to see it balanced. Some people will argue that maybe running big deficits doesn't matter, but I do think it is going to catch up with us sooner or later if we keep going down this path. There eventually has to be a very negative effect on the value of the dollar when you are printing money the way we are right now.

I hope he is successful with his plan to reduce the deficit. I understand that it is a very bad thing on the MR message board to be conservative and heck I am not even a Republican, but I do consider myself a moderate that wants to see fiscal responsibility. Tax and spend (well I should say borrow and spend) is something I would like to see addressed by someone before it is too late.

[mactastic]

Yes, mac, as I once before hunted up a URL to a dot-gov site that showed federal income, year by year.

When tax rates are lowered, whether on wages or capital gains, economic activity increases as there is more money remaining in the private sector for investment. More activity means more taxes. Dunno why that's so hard to understand--as well as being a fact of history.

The easiest to see is for capital gains: If the rate is high, people with large amounts of assets hang on to them and do less selling. When the rates are lowered, as happened in the 1970s, sales of assets rose, the money got reinvested, and federal tax income increased.
Well 'Rat, as I once before showed you, it is simply not the case the lowering tax rates can be shown to pay for themselves.

Tax cuts may spur economic growth, but they do not spur enough economic growth to offset their cost. Not even the tax cutting proponents of the Bush administration were willing to make that claim.

[zap2]

Well 'Rat, as I once before showed you, it is simply not the case the lowering tax rates can be shown to pay for themselves.

Tax cuts may spur economic growth, but they do not spur enough economic growth to offset their cost. Not even the tax cutting proponents of the Bush administration were willing to make that claim.

Again, if you could post the links backing that up?(or was it based of 'Rat's numbers?)

[63dot]

Well 'Rat, as I once before showed you, it is simply not the case the lowering tax rates can be shown to pay for themselves.

Tax cuts may spur economic growth, but they do not spur enough economic growth to offset their cost. Not even the tax cutting proponents of the Bush administration were willing to make that claim.

:)

[hulugu]

We've had this argument about taxation and federal income before, however could both 'Rat and Mac' provide your links please?

[mactastic]

This notion that tax cuts will spur sufficient economic activity to offset the loss of tax revenue at the higher rate with the taxes paid on increased economic activity is straight out of the realm of conservative fantasy. Of course, it makes for an excellent sound bite, as GWB and 'Rat can both attest to -- since both chose to employ the rhetoric. And it's possible both of them actually believe it to be true. As 'Rat says, "More activity means more taxes. Dunno why that's so hard to understand".

But, as is often the case, the grasp of the differences in scale is entirely missing from his analysis. Sure, more activity means more taxes. And yes, that translates into more tax revenue. But the amount of tax cuts needed to ignite such activity is many magnitudes higher than the gains realized by increased activity. To whit: (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=477)
he Treasury analysis concludes that making the President’s tax cuts permanent — and paying for the tax cuts with future reductions in spending — may ultimately increase the level of economic output (national income) in the long run by as much as 0.7 percent. (An increase in the level of economic output of 0.7 percent — the Treasury’s best-case scenario — in 20 years would represent an increase of about 4/100ths of one percentage point in the annual growth rate of the economy.)
Even if an increase in the level of economic output of 0.7 percent ultimately were to result from making the tax cuts permanent (the Treasury analysis concedes that the effect would be much smaller if the tax cuts are not paid for by cuts in spending[5]), and were to occur much sooner than Treasury seems to assume (it is not clear what the Treasury means by long-run, but it probably is considerably more than 10 years), the effect of this assumed additional economic growth would be to offset only a tiny fraction of the cost of the President’s tax cuts. For instance, a 0.7 percent increase in the economic output that the Congressional Budget Officehas projected for 2016 would represent an additional $146 billion.[6] If new revenues equaled as much as 20 percent of the additional output, the increase in revenues resulting from making the tax cuts permanent (assuming Treasury’s best-case assumptions) would be $29 billion. That amount represents less than 10 percent of the $314 billion that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates extending the tax cuts will reduce revenues in 2016 (not counting the effects of extending Alternative Minimum Tax relief).
Thus, even if the Treasury’s most optimistic assumptions are accepted (and the dynamic effect is assumed to happen much more quickly than even Treasury seems to assume), the cost of the tax cuts in 2016 — taking into account “dynamic” effects — would still be more than 90 percent of the cost of the tax cuts under the standard cost estimates.
So, while it is true that you can spur an increase in economic activity through tax cuts, you shouldn't expect that increased activity level to come anywhere close to equalling the amount of tax money forgone in order to get that activity.

[solvs]

For anyone still wondering:

The 2003 "Jobs and Growth" Plan (Tax Cuts) Didn't Work (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/01/the-2003-jobs-and-growth-plan-tax-cuts-didnt-work.html)

[leekohler]

For anyone still wondering:

The 2003 "Jobs and Growth" Plan (Tax Cuts) Didn't Work (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/01/the-2003-jobs-and-growth-plan-tax-cuts-didnt-work.html)

Don't confuse conservatives with facts. That's just not fair! :rolleyes:

[solvs]

Don't confuse conservatives with facts. That's just not fair! :rolleyes:

I've noticed.

Didn't used to be like that.



Edit: And looking at recent polls, most prefer Powell to Cheney or Rush:

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/25/cnn-poll-powell-tops-cheney-limbaugh/

[mactastic]

We've had this argument about taxation and federal income before, however could both 'Rat and Mac' provide your links please?
No problem! :p

[Counterfit]

Edit: And looking at recent polls, most prefer Powell to Cheney or Rush:

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/25/cnn-poll-powell-tops-cheney-limbaugh/

That shouldn't be a surprise. Most people prefer reasonable people to liars.