GOP feels they need to learn how to communicate with women

[kaz]

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: David Brooks Doesn't Remember the 1950s Very Well | New Republic

About the same. That I challenge your point doesn't mean I have to prove you wrong. It's great work if you can get it, but you can't.

Actually, I will prove it, but there's a price. You have to start reading posts, coherently responding to them and writing lucid arguments. Until then, I'll banter with you and that's it.

As for women, at some point liberal women need to realize that being a woman, or better yet a human being, is more important than being liberal. That partisan hacks like you try to lead the charge to lynch any woman who strays from the liberal plantation is pathetic. The merciless attacks on people like Sarah Palin are beneath contempt and should abhor you. But you revel in it. It's pathetic.

 

[Gadawg73]

Bush's cabinet had more women than Clinton put on his.

 

[Gadawg73]

Tax rates mean nothing. Put your money in tax free investments and earn NO income and you pay NO taxes.
And you can make 10 million a year, put it all in the bank and the next year receive FREE health insurance because you have no income.

 

[JoeB131]

[

We did not have a world economy in the 1950s, a place that business could take their capital and invest it for a return that was non confiscatory like a 93% tax rate.
We do now and already capital leaves this country because of a confiscatory tax rate that is too high at the current level.
Raise taxes, more capital leaves the US.
Lower tax rates and more capital comes back.
Common sense which is not too common these days here.
Democrats' fiscal policy is based on 1950s logic. Take a look around at why many other countries are doing much better. They live in the real world, it is 2013.

No, back in the 1950's, everyone protected their own economies through tariffs and trade laws that protected their own interests. That was before big multi-national corporations corrupted our political system.

Now, as for why other countries are doing better, not a one of them is doing better because they are following a damn thing conservatives have to say.

The rich pay more, they have stronger unions, and they have strong welfare states.

 

[Iceman]

If you want to win the female vote, statistically speaking, having a platform that promotes larger government(defense budget, surveillance state, stricter drug laws) and more free government services(more food stamps, more WIC, free contraception, medicaid expansion etc) is the way to go.

Both parties support these principles in practice, however, only the Democrats are honest about it and thus they will continue to get the support of women because they explicitly support these things in their platform.

 

[Seawytch]

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: David Brooks Doesn't Remember the 1950s Very Well | New Republic

About the same. That I challenge your point doesn't mean I have to prove you wrong. It's great work if you can get it, but you can't.

Actually, I will prove it, but there's a price. You have to start reading posts, coherently responding to them and writing lucid arguments. Until then, I'll banter with you and that's it.

As for women, at some point liberal women need to realize that being a woman, or better yet a human being, is more important than being liberal. That partisan hacks like you try to lead the charge to lynch any woman who strays from the liberal plantation is pathetic. The merciless attacks on people like Sarah Palin are beneath contempt and should abhor you. But you revel in it. It's pathetic.

So, taxes were higher as I stated. You can deflect and dance and asshole all over, but that's the truth in the end.

Since you're the one that interpreted another's "return to the 50s" line as meaning economically, what do you think that means policy-wise? We can't destroy everyone else's manufacturing and profit from that as we did in the 50s and there's no way the GOP would let Americans actually pay for their wars with higher taxes like were paid then so what 50s economic miracle would work now?

 

[rdean]

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.

Yea, right. Democrats changed to tax code so only millionaires and billionaires would profit.

Does that sound like something Democrats would do? How about Republicans?

 

[Iceman]

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.

Yea, right. Democrats changed to tax code so only millionaires and billionaires would profit.

Does that sound like something Democrats would do? How about Republicans?

Sounds like something both parties do, since they are controlled by the same wall street and corporate donors.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Yea, right. Democrats changed to tax code so only millionaires and billionaires would profit.

Does that sound like something Democrats would do? How about Republicans?

Sounds like something both parties do, since they are controlled by the same wall street and corporate donors.

Actually I see one big difference. If the charts are respective to the names they sit under, then these companies donated more to Obama than Romney.

 

[Iceman]

Yea, right. Democrats changed to tax code so only millionaires and billionaires would profit.

Does that sound like something Democrats would do? How about Republicans?

Sounds like something both parties do, since they are controlled by the same wall street and corporate donors.

Actually I see one big difference. If the charts are respective to the names they sit under, then these companies donated more to Obama than Romney.

They figured they would back a winner, Wall Street never bets the house on losers, but hedged on Romney just in case.

The point is they are owned by the same people.

 

[kaz]

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

Like this: David Brooks Doesn't Remember the 1950s Very Well | New Republic

About the same. That I challenge your point doesn't mean I have to prove you wrong. It's great work if you can get it, but you can't.

Actually, I will prove it, but there's a price. You have to start reading posts, coherently responding to them and writing lucid arguments. Until then, I'll banter with you and that's it.

As for women, at some point liberal women need to realize that being a woman, or better yet a human being, is more important than being liberal. That partisan hacks like you try to lead the charge to lynch any woman who strays from the liberal plantation is pathetic. The merciless attacks on people like Sarah Palin are beneath contempt and should abhor you. But you revel in it. It's pathetic.

So, taxes were higher as I stated. You can deflect and dance and asshole all over, but that's the truth in the end.

Since you're the one that interpreted another's "return to the 50s" line as meaning economically, what do you think that means policy-wise? We can't destroy everyone else's manufacturing and profit from that as we did in the 50s and there's no way the GOP would let Americans actually pay for their wars with higher taxes like were paid then so what 50s economic miracle would work now?

Economic freedom, aka capitalism

 

[Redfish]

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.

Yea, right. Democrats changed to tax code so only millionaires and billionaires would profit.

Does that sound like something Democrats would do? How about Republicans?

Both parties did it, but since the dems have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years, they did most of it.

sorry if that fact bursts your bubble, but its true. The dems cater to the rich as much if not more, than the GOP.

 

[WillowTree]

Let's stop dividing people into groups. That sure would be nice

Woman want birth control is pretty much what this is about. Why is the gop against that????

translate that to mean democrat women want someone else to pay for their birth control.

 

[HenryBHough]

I'd gladly pay for the sterilization of liberal Democrats but especially if it were equally extended to both (or all three, as you choose) genders. Temporary measures are insufficient to guarantee the species fades away entirely over time. Temporary solutions, therefore, are far too risky.

 

[Redfish]

Let's stop dividing people into groups. That sure would be nice

Woman want birth control is pretty much what this is about. Why is the gop against that????

translate that to mean democrat women want someone else to pay for their birth control.

yes, thats what its all about-------FREE BC and FREE abortion on demand.

 

[oreo]

This is no secret--The GOP lost the female vote in 2012--by bashing birth control pills--males talking about rape victims and how their bodies --can turn off making a baby when being raped.

I agree with Karen Hughes--G.W. Bush's former adviser when she stated:

If Another Republican Man Talks Rape, I'll 'Cut Out His Tongue'
Karen Hughes, Former Bush Adviser: If Another Republican Man Talks Rape, I'll 'Cut Out His Tongue'

 

[oreo]

Let's stop dividing people into groups. That sure would be nice

Woman want birth control is pretty much what this is about. Why is the gop against that????

translate that to mean democrat women want someone else to pay for their birth control.

yes, thats what its all about-------FREE BC and FREE abortion on demand.

Birth control pills are a PRESCRIPTION DRUG--and insurers have been required to pay for them now for decades--regardless of religious beliefs or challenge.

Insurers are also required to pay for Viagra and all of the other male enhancement drugs--because they are also only bought through a Prescription.

Some of you on the right--are about as stupid as those on the left.

This is HOW you LOSE elections--you piss women off enough and they go elsewhere--to vote for Democrats. Even pro-life--fiscally conservative women USE birth control pills you morons.

 

[Redfish]

translate that to mean democrat women want someone else to pay for their birth control.

yes, thats what its all about-------FREE BC and FREE abortion on demand.

Birth control pills are a PRESCRIPTION DRUG--and insurers have been required to pay for them now for decades--regardless of religious beliefs or challenge. GET OVER IT!

Insurers are also required to pay for Viagra and all of the other male enhancement drugs--because they are also only bought through a Prescription through a doctor.

So of you on the right--are about as stupid as those on the left.


This is HOW you LOSE elections--you piss women off enough and they go elsewhere--to vote for Democrats. Even pro-life--fiscally conservative women USE birth control pills ya morons.

getting them through an insurance policy that you PAY for is not the same as getting them free. Most have a co-pay of some amount.

No one wants to ban BC pills, thats a totally foolish statement.

But the next step from you libs could be to mandate that certain women take them in order to control population growth.

The issue is not BC pills, viagra, or any other drug. The issue is government controlling our lives and taking our money without our permission in order to control others lives.

 

[Unkotare]

This is no secret--The GOP lost the female vote in 2012--]

No they didn't. The GOP retained the same segment of the female vote they traditionally hold and did not gain support from the segment of the female vote that they usually do not hold.

 

[JoeB131]

This is no secret--The GOP lost the female vote in 2012--by bashing birth control pills--males talking about rape victims and how their bodies --can turn off making a baby when being raped.

I agree with Karen Hughes--G.W. Bush's former adviser when she stated:

If Another Republican Man Talks Rape, I'll 'Cut Out His Tongue'
Karen Hughes, Former Bush Adviser: If Another Republican Man Talks Rape, I'll 'Cut Out His Tongue'
]

The problem with Ms. Hughes and others who think that the Men just need to change the message is this.

It isn't the packaging, it's the product.

The PRODUCT the GOP sells is that a fetus has a right to life the minute it is conceived, more rights than the woman it is in has.

The fact that rape-fetuses would have these rights just as much as the "oops, I forgot to wear a rubber" fetus is what frequently leads to these Republicans committing a "gaffe" by telling you what they actually think.

True, when Todd Akin says women can't get pregnant from "Legitimate" rape or Joe Walsh says that there are no medically necessary abortions, they display their ignorance, but the ignorance springs from the philosophy.