Will Republican party survive?

[PracticalMac]

Chess champions would readily sacrifice their queen when it gives them a tactical or strategic advantage.

Ann Coulter last Wednesday (Dec 5) said the House must agree on raising taxes, or suffer huge politician damage. Can't get more right wing comment then that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2249545.html
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/05...amed-on-obama/

Resistance is heavily due to the meddling of Grover Norquist, and his ancient "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", written at a time when the economy was much, much better.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...d-of-the-road/

It is very simple, if the House Republicans fail to agree to the demands Obama has been saying since 2011, then tax rates for EVERYONE goes up.
By omission, 100% of those who signed the pledge have violated it.
NOT doing something is a valid reason for criminal prosecution (negligent homicide, or instance).

Republicans can mitigate the damage by accepting tax increases and accept a little heat.
By going over the edge, as Coulter points out, they will be blamed by EVERYONE.


What I see happening is the majority (vast majority) of Republicans too scared to re-nig on the contract and upset their constituents (almost likely only a few will be at risk). To them the Fiscal Cliff is less ominous then Norquist coming down on them.

But what will people see? A party under direct control by non-political entities? Norquist is not an elected official, not controlled by any politician, yet wields enormous influence in the entire Republican party.
They might become "Do not represent me" party.

[mrkramer]

I see the Republicans hanging on for a bit longer just since there isn't any other party to replace them, and there are enough Americans who hate the Democrats no matter what that they will keep voting for the Republicans. If we do go off the fiscal cliff then I think we'll have a couple decades of mostly Democrats in charge with Republicans having minorities in congress, and over time there will either be drastic changes in the Republican party, or they'll be replaced by a new third party. However I don't see any viable alternative in the near future so the Republican party will survive.

[edk99]

I think the Obama tax cuts should go away for everyone. Time that everyone chips in and not just a select few. But spending is the bigger issue. Even if the taxes just go up for those evil rich with incomes of 200k/250k and up that will only pay for 8 days of government. You can't continue to borrow .40 cents on every dollar.

[CalWizrd]

Unless the Republican party makes some serious policy changes, it will continue in a slow death spiral into oblivion.

However, it is not their financial policies which will bring about this death... it is their absurd social policies.

I can only hope things change.

[VulchR]

I view the decline of the Republican party as a generational thing. Ironically the strong sense of moral values that the older generations have drilled in to the younger ones focuses the young-in's attention on the apparent lack of compassion in the Republicans.

[AhmedFaisal]

I want us to go over the cliff. I can live with paying more taxes and this will be the only way the infernal inflated military budget will ever get cut.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by edk99

I think the Obama tax cuts should go away for everyone. Time that everyone chips in and not just a select few. But spending is the bigger issue. Even if the taxes just go up for those evil rich with incomes of 200k/250k and up that will only pay for 8 days of government. You can't continue to borrow .40 cents on every dollar.

I agree, though I would argue for a dialing down of the tax cuts, starting with the immediate sunset of those over 250,000 and then in two years the elimination of the others. Suddenly amping up the payroll tax will hurt the economy, but doing it in two years, when the economic recovery is stronger, will help pay down the deficit.

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Unless the Republican party makes some serious policy changes, it will continue in a slow death spiral into oblivion.

However, it is not their financial policies which will bring about this death... it is their absurd social policies.

I can only hope things change.

I think the GOP's problem might be more endemic. Pick a science issue and it's nearly guaranteed that a significant part of the GOP will be on the wrong side.
At this point, substantial portions of the party appear allergic to facts that run against their basic ideology and that will have severe consequences beyond the survival of the party.

And, the social issues stem from this thinking.

At this point, I think the fiscal conservatives might be better off in the big tent of the Democratic party than the circus that is the GOP.

[bruinsrme]

I am happy to see people wanting to pay more. I say go right ahead. I care not to pay anymore than I am already paying.

[AhmedFaisal]

Originally Posted by hulugu

I agree, though I would argue for a dialing down of the tax cuts, starting with the immediate sunset of those over 250,000 and then in two years the elimination of the others. Suddenly amping up the payroll tax will hurt the economy, but doing it in two years, when the economic recovery is stronger, will help pay down the deficit.

Agreed. I also think we should get rid of all deductions, including the mortage deduction (shocker I know) and standard deduction (bigger shocker. I would simply up the tax free amount to a more reasonable level (say 40000 per income earner) and tax everyone at the same level and treat all income the same. The same applies to corporations, taxes are to be paid as a percentage of revenue, no offsetting for losses. The only thing I would maintain is a graduated tax system but it would start at a much lower level and have a lower cap as well.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by AhmedFaisal

Agreed. I also think we should get rid of all deductions, including the mortage deduction (shocker I know) and standard deduction (bigger shocker. I would simply up the tax free amount to a more reasonable level (say 40000 per income earner) and tax everyone at the same level and treat all income the same. The same applies to corporations, taxes are to be paid as a percentage of revenue, no offsetting for losses. The only thing I would maintain is a graduated tax system but it would start at a much lower level and have a lower cap as well.

I have mixed feelings about the mortgage deduction. On one hand, few people buy a house based on the deduction, but on the other hand, a relatively small tax credit for such a purchase helps the middle-class. I'd like to see the metrics on this one: how many people use it, how does it help/hurt, etc.

Moreover, I think we should work through the current deductions (and loopholes) that exist and eliminate many of them. Really, each deduction should be tested: what's the economic benefit and how much does it cost?

If we're able to eliminate deductions and thereby raise more revenue than we would by raising the tax rates, I'd be happy.

[AhmedFaisal]

Originally Posted by hulugu

I have mixed feelings about the mortgage deduction. On one hand, few people buy a house based on the deduction, but on the other hand, a relatively small tax credit for such a purchase helps the middle-class. I'd like to see the metrics on this one: how many people use it, how does it help/hurt, etc.

Moreover, I think we should work through the current deductions (and loopholes) that exist and eliminate many of them. Really, each deduction should be tested: what's the economic benefit and how much does it cost?

If we're able to eliminate deductions and thereby raise more revenue than we would by raising the tax rates, I'd be happy.

See I am of the position that when it comes to financial matters people should make those decisions for the right reasons and not for some incentive. I.e. you want to get married and a partner stops working, go ahead but don't expect the government to carry the tab. You want to have kids, again, go ahead but it's not the government's job to give you a benefit for it. Same goes for corporate business decisions.
As for services, I see healthcare as something instrumental for a healthy workforce and economy so I say it's better situated with the government to ensure access and lower costs than with for profits. Same goes for education. I believe in a globalized world education is the best way to keep people of the unemployment rolls so again, government is better suitable for providing rather than creating a barrier through public costs. But there are other programs that I feel are not a very effective use of public funds.

[mrkramer]

Originally Posted by AhmedFaisal

I want us to go over the cliff. I can live with paying more taxes and this will be the only way the infernal inflated military budget will ever get cut.

I somewhat agree with this as I think it's worth the short term hit to the economy to bring about cuts in the military budget, but I somewhat think that one of the first votes after the fiscal cliff hits will be to restore funding for the military. I'm not confident that we'll get off that easy...

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by mrkramer

I somewhat agree with this as I think it's worth the short term hit to the economy to bring about cuts in the military budget, but I somewhat think that one of the first votes after the fiscal cliff hits will be to restore funding for the military. I'm not confident that we'll get off that easy...

Presumably Obama would veto that without tax rises...

[AP_piano295]

Originally Posted by bruinsrme

I am happy to see people wanting to pay more. I say go right ahead. I care not to pay anymore than I am already paying.

Unfortunately, you live in a society, a collective where you obey certain rules and regulations which you may or may not always enjoy.

If you don't wish to live within the systems of this particular collective I suggest you go elsewhere. But I don't really care if you wan't to pay more or not, if you're making more than 250,000 dollars a year you can certainly afford it.

[mrkramer]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Presumably Obama would veto that without tax rises...

Hopefully, although he's been pretty supportive of the military so I wouldn't put it past him. And I think it's more likely that the Republicans would tie it with restoring the Bush tax cuts for the middle class which Obama wouldn't veto.

[zioxide]

I just hope President Obama continues to stand firm on this issue like he has said he did.

The tax hike to people making over $250,000 a year was THE central issue to this past election campaign. The people spoke.

They already compromised enough with it now being "the first $250,000 of everyone's income will be taxed at the lower rate."

Obama should tell the Republicans to either pass that deal through or he should take us right over the cliff. These clowns need to learn they are in the House of REPRESENTATIVES and they are supposed to represent the will of the people, not their own bank accounts.

[Zombie Acorn]

The backlash won't be for Republicans alone... If taxes are going to be hiked I think its fair to ask everyone to pony up. Bring some of the 47% into the fold and when its their money being spent they might have something more to say. Its easy to spend other peoples money.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by zioxide

I just hope President Obama continues to stand firm on this issue like he has said he did.

The tax hike to people making over $250,000 a year was THE central issue to this past election campaign. The people spoke.

They already compromised enough with it now being "the first $250,000 of everyone's income will be taxed at the lower rate."

Obama should tell the Republicans to either pass that deal through or he should take us right over the cliff. These clowns need to learn they are in the House of REPRESENTATIVES and they are supposed to represent the will of the people, not their own bank accounts.

+1 well said

As to the question as to whether the GOP will survive, they will only go slightly up or down on different issues but with small changes to the right or left, they will stay on representing conservative social policy, and to some degree conservative fiscal policy. They built their base on fiscal policy and until they realize this, they will lose elections with their increasingly bizarre social policy. There is more than one game plan and if they are pressed to do so, they could mold into a more moderate presence in the next election and make like they were never out to lunch on social issues. Both parties are good at reinventing themselves when they have to and the short memory of the populace allows for this.

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

The backlash won't be for Republicans alone... If taxes are going to be hiked I think its fair to ask everyone to pony up. Bring some of the 47% into the fold and when its their money being spent they might have something more to say. Its easy to spend other peoples money.

As was pointed out countless times during the election, more than half of that 47% pays payroll taxes. With the rest being mostly retirees, students, and the low income households. And it disproportionately reflects red states.

[63dot]

There are a couple of things I could gather from Mitt's damaging 47% percent comment. It could be that he is an elitist who just doesn't get the point of view of the common man, or it could be his take on struggling entrepreneurs.

From this election, the way his comment came out seemed to hurt him.

But taking it from a point of view at looking at struggling entrepreneurs, who shoulder much of the tax burden in the US, I understand. He just never showed America that's what he meant.

I have a former boss who owned a small local market and the gross income was rather big, and a number unfamiliar and seemingly large to most people who work for somebody or some company. However, after the cost of rent, food, liquor, licenses, employees, taxes, and everything else, her gross income being in that top tier doesn't amount to much after expenses and in some months actually amounts to a loss. The last thing she would need as somebody who grosses more than $250,000 on her business is more taxes. One of my doctors makes even more but then has nine office spaces to pay in rent plus quite a payroll including another doctor. His take after it's all paid for is not all that much. We could go all the way to Mr. Trump where we have seen years where he ended up with a loss, and as much as losing $750,000 dollars a month at the Taj Mahal during his worst times when he went bankrupt.

Even though I know my friend suffered a lot of financial loss during her time owning the market, there is a part of me watching her count the stacks of cash she brought in every day. It is that image of the cash that will burn into my head, even though I know her expenses were out of this world. I do feel sorry for her having seen the whole picture, but I think it's really hard during 15 second soundbites during a campaign to make people feel sorry for struggling entrepreneurs (whether it's a market, restaurant, farm, or small factory) when there are many making minimum wage and others, including a record number of college graduates, without work. That being said, I would rather make minimum wage with few expenses than being showered with cash daily only to see 97% percent of it go out or be spoken for. You spend half your day either being an accountant and bookkeeper or worrying about those tasks. I am a liberal but I do know why a lot of entrepreneurs in that "over $250K" category are staunch republicans. Few if any subscribe to any right wing extremist social agenda, but do worry about going out of business.

[TedM]

They keep meeting to discuss future tactics... So I think only time will tell. Also this next four years will tell as well. As I'm not sure how the economic policies going into place will effect either party.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by 63dot

There are a couple of things I could gather from Mitt's damaging 47% percent comment. It could be that he is an elitist who just doesn't get the point of view of the common man, or it could be his take on struggling entrepreneurs.

From this election, the way his comment came out seemed to hurt him.

But taking it from a point of view at looking at struggling entrepreneurs, who shoulder much of the tax burden in the US, I understand. He just never showed America that's what he meant.

I have a former boss who owned a small local market and the gross income was rather big, and a number unfamiliar and seemingly large to most people who work for somebody or some company. However, after the cost of rent, food, liquor, licenses, employees, taxes, and everything else, her gross income being in that top tier doesn't amount to much after expenses and in some months actually amounts to a loss. The last thing she would need as somebody who grosses more than $250,000 on her business is more taxes. One of my doctors makes even more but then has nine office spaces to pay in rent plus quite a payroll including another doctor. His take after it's all paid for is not all that much. We could go all the way to Mr. Trump where we have seen years where he ended up with a loss, and as much as losing $750,000 dollars a month at the Taj Mahal during his worst times when he went bankrupt.

Even though I know my friend suffered a lot of financial loss during her time owning the market, there is a part of me watching her count the stacks of cash she brought in every day. It is that image of the cash that will burn into my head, even though I know her expenses were out of this world. I do feel sorry for her having seen the whole picture, but I think it's really hard during 15 second soundbites during a campaign to make people feel sorry for struggling entrepreneurs (whether it's a market, restaurant, farm, or small factory) when there are many making minimum wage and others, including a record number of college graduates, without work. That being said, I would rather make minimum wage with few expenses than being showered with cash daily only to see 97% percent of it go out or be spoken for. You spend half your day either being an accountant and bookkeeper or worrying about those tasks. I am a liberal but I do know why a lot of entrepreneurs in that "over $250K" category are staunch republicans. Few if any subscribe to any right wing extremist social agenda, but do worry about going out of business.

But then that isn't a personal income, so they don't pay tax on their "revenue" when it isn't truly income.

[chown33]

Originally Posted by 63dot

There are a couple of things I could gather from Mitt's damaging 47% percent comment. It could be that he is an elitist who just doesn't get the point of view of the common man, or it could be his take on struggling entrepreneurs.

You should listen to (or read the transcript of) the entire comment, not just the "47%" part. There was a lot more to it than just that, and I didn't detect anything having to do with entrepreneurs.

I'm self-employed, as a contract software developer, and have been for over a decade (sole proprietorship). So I'm not just idly interested in "entrepreneurial policy" for commenting on threads, it directly affects me. Well, some of it does, and some of it doesn't, because I don't have any employees, though I do subcontract some things on occasion.

I have a former boss who owned a small local market and the gross income was rather big, and a number unfamiliar and seemingly large to most people who work for somebody or some company. However, after the cost of rent, food, liquor, licenses, employees, taxes, and everything else, her gross income being in that top tier doesn't amount to much after expenses and in some months actually amounts to a loss. The last thing she would need as somebody who grosses more than $250,000 on her business is more taxes.

That person doesn't have $250k of taxable business income. At least not from the market alone.

All those things you listed (rent, food, etc.) are deductible business expenses, which are subtracted from gross revenues before any taxes are calculated. Simple example shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_inc...for_net_income


In any year where there is a net loss (for the year, not just for a month), the owner can rollover that loss into a following year's taxable income calculation. Simple example: if there's a $10k net loss in 2008, and a $20k net profit in 2009, the 2008 loss can be subtracted from 2009's profits before taxes are calculated. Loss rollovers are more complicated than that, so consult a qualified accountant.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by chown33

You should listen to (or read the transcript of) the entire comment, not just the "47%" part. There was a lot more to it than just that, and I didn't detect anything having to do with entrepreneurs.

I luckily got to hear entire thing on ABC. I am not defending Mitt, who I truly think is probably a callous elitist and way out of touch, it's just that the entrepreneur and small business angle was his explanation shortly after the story broke. Though I usually don't listen to his lame explanations, being an entrepreneur for many years myself I understand his defense if in fact he means it, and not as a coverup to somebody who just doesn't care for working Americans, too. Some feel he just caters to those who are born rich and are in the lofty places of power, even to the point he's protecting the wealth of just a few families and large corporations.

After you claim all your expenses possible, there are always a lot of out of pocket expenses and hidden expenses and almost any small business ends up costing more than any person/group can forecast. It's not always easy, or legal, to claim everything that is an "expense" to a business.

I am not saying these higher earners are all poor and struggling, but plenty of high earning entrepreneurs don't need any more expenses, even if it's a legitimate tax hike. Not all small businesses can pay for medical insurance, if in fact they have to one day five, ten, or twenty years from now, and not all can afford minimum wage. However, on that point, I don't believe anybody should receive less than minimum wage even though some conservatives want to do away with it.

It's hard to please workers and business owners alike, but if the GOP goes overboard and puts in too much protection and loopholes for businesses and corporations, then the workers will have so little that they won't be able to afford the goods and services the organizations have out there for sale. It's a balance I think George W Bush messed up by being too much in favor of all forms of business and not watching the workers. I don't think Obama will swing it the other way too far but will equalize some of the inequities of W's trickle down economics.

While I side with the president in this fiscal cliff crisis, I don't think he is in the driver's seat and has to find a middle ground with the GOP, even if they seem unreasonable. If we fall off the fiscal cliff and go into another recession and a rumored 9% percent unemployment, America will blame Obama and the GOP will be assured the White House in 2016.

In the end, I hope these four years moves America to the left but it should be small steps and with an ear to what the GOP needs. The democrats don't have the power just to bulldoze Boehner and his blowhards and if anybody knows this, it's Speaker Boehner.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by 63dot

After you claim all your expenses possible, there are always a lot of out of pocket expenses and hidden expenses and almost any small business ends up costing more than any person/group can forecast. It's not always easy, or legal, to claim everything that is an "expense" to a business.

Really?

Self employed people claim their lunch back against tax. I don't.