GOP feels they need to learn how to communicate with women

[hazlnut]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8C3tR9Yl4g]Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) Press Conference - YouTube[/ame]

 

[kaz]

No, not really it isn't. Someone said they wanted to go back to the 50s. When folks said the 50s sucked in terms of Civil Rights, you said they meant the economic 50s not the social 50s. Well, the economic 50s were brought about because the US was the only country not horribly harmed by WWII. How do you propose to bring back an economic boom that was brought about by the destruction of most of the world's manufacturing?

It is a false dilemma, but probably a better choice would have been to call it a false cause fallacy

You keep saying that but don't say how it's false. What cause the economic boom of the 50s that you claim someone wants to return to?

You're making the unsupported assertion that the 50s had a single cause. Did you Google the false cause fallacy? That would have explained what I meant.

 

[Seawytch]

It is a false dilemma, but probably a better choice would have been to call it a false cause fallacy

You keep saying that but don't say how it's false. What cause the economic boom of the 50s that you claim someone wants to return to?

You're making the unsupported assertion that the 50s had a single cause. Did you Google the false cause fallacy? That would have explained what I meant.

You haven't provide a single cause. The PRIMARY reason we did so well in the 50s is because nobody else could do shit.

Other reasons?

1950s Tax Fantasy Is a Republican Nightmare

So yeah, lets go back to the 50s economically...when tax rates were high and unions were thriving.

 

[Redfish]

No, not really it isn't. Someone said they wanted to go back to the 50s. When folks said the 50s sucked in terms of Civil Rights, you said they meant the economic 50s not the social 50s. Well, the economic 50s were brought about because the US was the only country not horribly harmed by WWII. How do you propose to bring back an economic boom that was brought about by the destruction of most of the world's manufacturing?

Of course, the parts of the 1950's economic boom they don't like to talk about...

The top Marginal Tax rate was 93%.

33% of the workforce was unionized.

Now there's an inconvenient truth...

what's inconvenient is that you are only telling part of the story. When the top tax rate was 93% there were thousands of exemptions and deductions in the tax code. No one ever paid 93%. The tax code was a bizarre mess that was created by mostly democrats (since they controlled congress) that was set up to save the very rich from paying "their fair share"

those wonderful unions are the reason that there is no longer a textile industry in the USA and why the once great city of Detroit has become a waste heap, even after we the taxpayers bailed out the car companies.

 

[Seawytch]

Of course, the parts of the 1950's economic boom they don't like to talk about...

The top Marginal Tax rate was 93%.

33% of the workforce was unionized.

Now there's an inconvenient truth...

what's inconvenient is that you are only telling part of the story. When the top tax rate was 93% there were thousands of exemptions and deductions in the tax code. No one ever paid 93%. The tax code was a bizarre mess that was created by mostly democrats (since they controlled congress) that was set up to save the very rich from paying "their fair share"

those wonderful unions are the reason that there is no longer a textile industry in the USA and why the once great city of Detroit has become a waste heap, even after we the taxpayers bailed out the car companies.

A person making $2,500 a year in 1963 was taxed at 22 percent. Today that would be $17,445, taxed at 15 percent.

* A person making $5,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 26 percent. Today that would be $34,890, taxed at 25 percent.

* A person making $10,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 34 percent. Today that would be $69,780, taxed at 25 percent.

* A person making $15,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 47 percent. Today that would be $104,670, taxed at 28 percent.

* A person making $25,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 59 percent. Today that would be $174,450, taxed at 33 percent.​

Rates were a lot higher back in the day

1950s Tax Fantasy Is a Republican Nightmare

Stop blaming the unions for what corporations and Wall Street did.

 

[rdean]

GOP trains men how to run against women - CNN.com Video

:lol Funny Stuff

But I thought they already had "binders full of women".

 

[rdean]

Now there's an inconvenient truth...

what's inconvenient is that you are only telling part of the story. When the top tax rate was 93% there were thousands of exemptions and deductions in the tax code. No one ever paid 93%. The tax code was a bizarre mess that was created by mostly democrats (since they controlled congress) that was set up to save the very rich from paying "their fair share"

those wonderful unions are the reason that there is no longer a textile industry in the USA and why the once great city of Detroit has become a waste heap, even after we the taxpayers bailed out the car companies.

A person making $2,500 a year in 1963 was taxed at 22 percent. Today that would be $17,445, taxed at 15 percent.

* A person making $5,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 26 percent. Today that would be $34,890, taxed at 25 percent.

* A person making $10,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 34 percent. Today that would be $69,780, taxed at 25 percent.

* A person making $15,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 47 percent. Today that would be $104,670, taxed at 28 percent.

* A person making $25,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 59 percent. Today that would be $174,450, taxed at 33 percent.​

Rates were a lot higher back in the day

1950s Tax Fantasy Is a Republican Nightmare

Stop blaming the unions for what corporations and Wall Street did.

Mitt Romney made 22 million in a single year and the only tax return he showed us, he paid a measly 13%. Must be nice. Rumors are he paid nothing during the other years.

 

[Redfish]

Now there's an inconvenient truth...

what's inconvenient is that you are only telling part of the story. When the top tax rate was 93% there were thousands of exemptions and deductions in the tax code. No one ever paid 93%. The tax code was a bizarre mess that was created by mostly democrats (since they controlled congress) that was set up to save the very rich from paying "their fair share"

those wonderful unions are the reason that there is no longer a textile industry in the USA and why the once great city of Detroit has become a waste heap, even after we the taxpayers bailed out the car companies.

A person making $2,500 a year in 1963 was taxed at 22 percent. Today that would be $17,445, taxed at 15 percent.

* A person making $5,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 26 percent. Today that would be $34,890, taxed at 25 percent.

* A person making $10,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 34 percent. Today that would be $69,780, taxed at 25 percent.

* A person making $15,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 47 percent. Today that would be $104,670, taxed at 28 percent.

* A person making $25,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 59 percent. Today that would be $174,450, taxed at 33 percent.​

Rates were a lot higher back in the day

1950s Tax Fantasy Is a Republican Nightmare

Stop blaming the unions for what corporations and Wall Street did.

people were not, and are not, taxed on total income. In the 50s there were a lot more ways to reduce your taxable income than there are today. your attempted analogy is flawed.

 

[Redfish]

what's inconvenient is that you are only telling part of the story. When the top tax rate was 93% there were thousands of exemptions and deductions in the tax code. No one ever paid 93%. The tax code was a bizarre mess that was created by mostly democrats (since they controlled congress) that was set up to save the very rich from paying "their fair share"

those wonderful unions are the reason that there is no longer a textile industry in the USA and why the once great city of Detroit has become a waste heap, even after we the taxpayers bailed out the car companies.

A person making $2,500 a year in 1963 was taxed at 22 percent. Today that would be $17,445, taxed at 15 percent.

* A person making $5,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 26 percent. Today that would be $34,890, taxed at 25 percent.

* A person making $10,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 34 percent. Today that would be $69,780, taxed at 25 percent.

* A person making $15,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 47 percent. Today that would be $104,670, taxed at 28 percent.

* A person making $25,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 59 percent. Today that would be $174,450, taxed at 33 percent.​

Rates were a lot higher back in the day

1950s Tax Fantasy Is a Republican Nightmare

Stop blaming the unions for what corporations and Wall Street did.

Mitt Romney made 22 million in a single year and the only tax return he showed us, he paid a measly 13%. Must be nice. Rumors are he paid nothing during the other years.

Did he violate any tax laws? NO

Who created the tax code that let him pay 13%? answer: the democrats who have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years.

 

[Redfish]

GOP trains men how to run against women - CNN.com Video

:lol Funny Stuff

But I thought they already had "binders full of women".

BTW, Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. TM was a thug who died committing thugism.

 

[Seawytch]

what's inconvenient is that you are only telling part of the story. When the top tax rate was 93% there were thousands of exemptions and deductions in the tax code. No one ever paid 93%. The tax code was a bizarre mess that was created by mostly democrats (since they controlled congress) that was set up to save the very rich from paying "their fair share"

those wonderful unions are the reason that there is no longer a textile industry in the USA and why the once great city of Detroit has become a waste heap, even after we the taxpayers bailed out the car companies.

A person making $2,500 a year in 1963 was taxed at 22 percent. Today that would be $17,445, taxed at 15 percent.

* A person making $5,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 26 percent. Today that would be $34,890, taxed at 25 percent.

* A person making $10,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 34 percent. Today that would be $69,780, taxed at 25 percent.

* A person making $15,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 47 percent. Today that would be $104,670, taxed at 28 percent.

* A person making $25,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 59 percent. Today that would be $174,450, taxed at 33 percent.​

Rates were a lot higher back in the day

1950s Tax Fantasy Is a Republican Nightmare

Stop blaming the unions for what corporations and Wall Street did.

people were not, and are not, taxed on total income. In the 50s there were a lot more ways to reduce your taxable income than there are today. your attempted analogy is flawed.

Okay, let's go back to the exact tax rates that existed in the 50s then.

 

[Dot Com]

I think they are in deep trouble in 2014. They have done everything in their power to turn women away from their party.

 

[kaz]

You keep saying that but don't say how it's false. What cause the economic boom of the 50s that you claim someone wants to return to?

You're making the unsupported assertion that the 50s had a single cause. Did you Google the false cause fallacy? That would have explained what I meant.

You haven't provide a single cause. The PRIMARY reason we did so well in the 50s is because nobody else could do shit.

Other reasons?

1950s Tax Fantasy Is a Republican Nightmare

So yeah, lets go back to the 50s economically...when tax rates were high and unions were thriving.

That you attributed the 50s economics to a single cause and I pointed out that's a logical fallacy does not put the burden of proof to explain the 50s to you. Your knowledge of it is too low and your bias and agenda too high for that discussion to be interesting.

A big example of that is that you don't know the difference between a marginal tax rate and an effective tax rate. Effective tax rates were essentially the same as today. Unions also were only starting down the path of destroying their hosts. And they were quick working parasites and Michigan was well on it's way to becoming hub of the rust belt by the end of the 50s.

Also, you're still just throwing out factoids as if it were an argument. That's the if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bull shit fallacy ...

 

[Redfish]

A person making $2,500 a year in 1963 was taxed at 22 percent. Today that would be $17,445, taxed at 15 percent.

* A person making $5,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 26 percent. Today that would be $34,890, taxed at 25 percent.

* A person making $10,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 34 percent. Today that would be $69,780, taxed at 25 percent.

* A person making $15,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 47 percent. Today that would be $104,670, taxed at 28 percent.

* A person making $25,000 a year in 1963 was taxed at 59 percent. Today that would be $174,450, taxed at 33 percent.​

Rates were a lot higher back in the day

1950s Tax Fantasy Is a Republican Nightmare

Stop blaming the unions for what corporations and Wall Street did.

people were not, and are not, taxed on total income. In the 50s there were a lot more ways to reduce your taxable income than there are today. your attempted analogy is flawed.

Okay, let's go back to the exact tax rates that existed in the 50s then.

with all of the deductions and exemptions? revenue to the govt would go down if we did that.

 

[Seawytch]

You're making the unsupported assertion that the 50s had a single cause. Did you Google the false cause fallacy? That would have explained what I meant.

You haven't provide a single cause. The PRIMARY reason we did so well in the 50s is because nobody else could do shit.

Other reasons?

1950s Tax Fantasy Is a Republican Nightmare

So yeah, lets go back to the 50s economically...when tax rates were high and unions were thriving.

That you attributed the 50s economics to a single cause and I pointed out that's a logical fallacy does not put the burden of proof to explain the 50s to you. Your knowledge of it is too low and your bias and agenda too high for that discussion to be interesting.

A big example of that is that you don't know the difference between a marginal tax rate and an effective tax rate. Effective tax rates were essentially the same as today. Unions also were only starting down the path of destroying their hosts. And they were quick working parasites and Michigan was well on it's way to becoming hub of the rust belt by the end of the 50s.

Also, you're still just throwing out factoids as if it were an argument. That's the if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bull shit fallacy ...

I see a post full of fluff intended only to insult. Returning to the economic boom of the 50s is impossible because we are NOT the only game in town anymore like we were back then.

Prove it. Provide proof that tax rates were the same. I've already shown they weren't. Prove those facts wrong with actual facts, not you just being an asshole.

 

[kaz]

You haven't provide a single cause. The PRIMARY reason we did so well in the 50s is because nobody else could do shit.

Other reasons?

1950s Tax Fantasy Is a Republican Nightmare

So yeah, lets go back to the 50s economically...when tax rates were high and unions were thriving.

That you attributed the 50s economics to a single cause and I pointed out that's a logical fallacy does not put the burden of proof to explain the 50s to you. Your knowledge of it is too low and your bias and agenda too high for that discussion to be interesting.

A big example of that is that you don't know the difference between a marginal tax rate and an effective tax rate. Effective tax rates were essentially the same as today. Unions also were only starting down the path of destroying their hosts. And they were quick working parasites and Michigan was well on it's way to becoming hub of the rust belt by the end of the 50s.

Also, you're still just throwing out factoids as if it were an argument. That's the if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bull shit fallacy ...

I see a post full of fluff intended only to insult. Returning to the economic boom of the 50s is impossible because we are NOT the only game in town anymore like we were back then.

Actually that's a good thing. We have far greater markets to conquer. American businesses are the greatest in the world, it's the leash of politicians driven by fear mongers like you who think we can't compete in competitive markets who are destroying us.

Prove it. Provide proof that tax rates were the same. I've already shown they weren't. Prove those facts wrong with actual facts, not you just being an asshole.

You proved nothing, I already told you that you were talking about marginal not effective tax rates. The burden on the economy is effective tax rates, not the formula to get there. You didn't even understand what I said.

As for being an asshole, do as you say, not as you do, eh Chickie? I stopped trying with you and people like you who won't address points. If you were more observant than you are, you'd notice that my discussions with posters is one or the other. I am straight up or I include insults. There is no in between. You reap what you sow. But I'm not going to be nice to assholes who insult and whine and write drive by drivel like you do while pretending they wrote an actual argument.

 

[candycorn]

I think they are in deep trouble in 2014. They have done everything in their power to turn women away from their party.

As stated and I'm the first to admit it's not charitable but this is the way a lot of people see the GOP:

To Women: Why aren't you making my pie?
To Minorities: Why aren't you serving my pie?
To the poor: Get your own pie and stop asking me for crumbs.
To non-Christians: All "real" Americans think our pie is better.

It's almost as if they actively seek out new voting blocks to alienate.

 

[Seawytch]

That you attributed the 50s economics to a single cause and I pointed out that's a logical fallacy does not put the burden of proof to explain the 50s to you. Your knowledge of it is too low and your bias and agenda too high for that discussion to be interesting.

A big example of that is that you don't know the difference between a marginal tax rate and an effective tax rate. Effective tax rates were essentially the same as today. Unions also were only starting down the path of destroying their hosts. And they were quick working parasites and Michigan was well on it's way to becoming hub of the rust belt by the end of the 50s.

Also, you're still just throwing out factoids as if it were an argument. That's the if you can't dazzle them with your wit, baffle them with your bull shit fallacy ...

I see a post full of fluff intended only to insult. Returning to the economic boom of the 50s is impossible because we are NOT the only game in town anymore like we were back then.

Actually that's a good thing. We have far greater markets to conquer. American businesses are the greatest in the world, it's the leash of politicians driven by fear mongers like you who think we can't compete in competitive markets who are destroying us.

Prove it. Provide proof that tax rates were the same. I've already shown they weren't. Prove those facts wrong with actual facts, not you just being an asshole.

You proved nothing, I already told you that you were talking about marginal not effective tax rates. The burden on the economy is effective tax rates, not the formula to get there. You didn't even understand what I said.

As for being an asshole, do as you say, not as you do, eh Chickie? I stopped trying with you and people like you who won't address points. If you were more observant than you are, you'd notice that my discussions with posters is one or the other. I am straight up or I include insults. There is no in between. You reap what you sow. But I'm not going to be nice to assholes who insult and whine and write drive by drivel like you do while pretending they wrote an actual argument.

Your points were addressed and facts were presented. You provided nothing to counter those facts. The rich paid more in taxes in the 50s, this is fact. We all paid more.

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/107819/yes-virginia-the-rich-pay-less-tax-now

 

[kaz]

I see a post full of fluff intended only to insult. Returning to the economic boom of the 50s is impossible because we are NOT the only game in town anymore like we were back then.

Actually that's a good thing. We have far greater markets to conquer. American businesses are the greatest in the world, it's the leash of politicians driven by fear mongers like you who think we can't compete in competitive markets who are destroying us.

Prove it. Provide proof that tax rates were the same. I've already shown they weren't. Prove those facts wrong with actual facts, not you just being an asshole.

You proved nothing, I already told you that you were talking about marginal not effective tax rates. The burden on the economy is effective tax rates, not the formula to get there. You didn't even understand what I said.

As for being an asshole, do as you say, not as you do, eh Chickie? I stopped trying with you and people like you who won't address points. If you were more observant than you are, you'd notice that my discussions with posters is one or the other. I am straight up or I include insults. There is no in between. You reap what you sow. But I'm not going to be nice to assholes who insult and whine and write drive by drivel like you do while pretending they wrote an actual argument.

Your points were addressed and facts were presented. You provided nothing to counter those facts. The rich paid more in taxes in the 50s, this is fact. We all paid more.

Yes, Virginia, The Rich Pay Less Tax Now | New Republic

That article is only about a tiny fraction of taxpayers, and it is not inclusive of all taxes. It's a data point, but it doesn't prove your assertion at all. The drain on the economy is about the effective tax rates of all payers, not just .1 or 0.1 percent of them. And the drain is all taxes.

It's what happens when you go to a biased source. There are liars, dirty liars, and statisticians. When you have an agenda, you can look at the data and prove anything you want.

The USA has the greatest businesses in the world, and the greatest leaches. And you are winning, congratulations. But you're strangling the goose that laid the golden egg. It's inevitably what the greedy do. Nothing is never enough and you'll take less and less in your quest to get it.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually that's a good thing. We have far greater markets to conquer. American businesses are the greatest in the world, it's the leash of politicians driven by fear mongers like you who think we can't compete in competitive markets who are destroying us.



You proved nothing, I already told you that you were talking about marginal not effective tax rates. The burden on the economy is effective tax rates, not the formula to get there. You didn't even understand what I said.

As for being an asshole, do as you say, not as you do, eh Chickie? I stopped trying with you and people like you who won't address points. If you were more observant than you are, you'd notice that my discussions with posters is one or the other. I am straight up or I include insults. There is no in between. You reap what you sow. But I'm not going to be nice to assholes who insult and whine and write drive by drivel like you do while pretending they wrote an actual argument.

Your points were addressed and facts were presented. You provided nothing to counter those facts. The rich paid more in taxes in the 50s, this is fact. We all paid more.

Yes, Virginia, The Rich Pay Less Tax Now | New Republic

That article is only about a tiny fraction of taxpayers, and it is not inclusive of all taxes. It's a data point, but it doesn't prove your assertion at all. The drain on the economy is about the effective tax rates of all payers, not just .1 or 0.1 percent of them. And the drain is all taxes.

It's what happens when you go to a biased source. There are liars, dirty liars, and statisticians. When you have an agenda, you can look at the data and prove anything you want.

The USA has the greatest businesses in the world, and the greatest leaches. And you are winning, congratulations. But you're strangling the goose that laid the golden egg. It's inevitably what the greedy do. Nothing is never enough and you'll take less and less in your quest to get it.

Taxes were higher or lower in the 50s? Prove your point with links please.

Like this: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112702/david-brooks-doesnt-remember-1950s-very-well