Republicans taking Blame for Shutdown - Polls

[RKMBrown]

Facts are funny things democrats... fact we freed slaves and saved the country... fact democrats want slaves and the destruction of the country...

No. Oh, you silly, silly man. Lincoln would repudiate the party if he were alive today.

Fact: If the last good and worthy thing the Republicans did was fifty years or so ago, your party sucks.

They've done a few worthy things since, but most of those have been in cooperation with the Democrats. And a lot of the Republicans who worked with them on that would not fit in today's GOP. Honorable men like Jacob Javits and Richard Lugar got primaried out.

Let me use John McCain as an example:

* 1982: McCain runs for Congress for the first time, for the House. He gets elected to the Senate in 1986. At the time, he is considered a loyal foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution, a staunch conservative. (Have you ever seen a liberal described as "staunch"? I can't recall ever seeing that.)

* 2000: McCain runs for the Republican nomination for President for the first time. Many people in his own party call him a "moderate," not a "true conservative" like George W. Bush.

* 2008: McCain finally gets the GOP Presidential nomination, because the "true conservatives" are divided, and there's no single candidate around whom they can coalesce and make the "anti-McCain." Many notable conservatives complain, actually calling McCain a "liberal."

John McCain's politics have hardly changed at all in the last 30 years. He is not a liberal, and he is not a moderate: He is very conservative. But his party has lurched to the right. The mainstream of the GOP has moved so far right, they can't see the mainstream of America with binoculars.

How long was your ban for?

 

[peach174]

Almost right on. The problem is our debt. It was caused by Republican policies. The first step in solving it is to lower the deficit. Done by Democrats with no help from Republicans. The second step is to grow the economy and therefore revenue. Being done by Democrats but resisted by Republicans.

See a pattern here?

Fortunately for progress in these areas, Republicans are cooperating in one way. They are committing political suicide. I personally wish them success in that so they will be out of the way for the rebirth of the functional centrist old GOP.

It's caused by Democratic policies by the huge growth in entitlement programs.
Dem's are wanting to end the sequester and tax 1 trillion dollars more. They don't want to deal with the deficit nor do they want to pay down the debt.
Democratic polices are stopping the growth by having more taxes, high corp. taxes and way too much ridiculous regulations.
The New Health Care is stopping a huge amount of growth.

Sounds like a Fox News evening report.

It's called C-Span and actually looking at the governments web sites.

 

[PMZ]

The Founders never set up or even tried to set up a "plutocracy;" and PMS probably doesn't even know what that silly term means.

When only white, wealthy, males can vote, it is, by definition, plutocracy.

Wrong.

See? I knew you had no fucking clue about the definition of the term you ignorantly bandy about.

So don't think that this describes our Founders?

1 : government by the wealthy 2 : a controlling class of the wealthy

as well as the goals of the neo-Republican cult.

 

[PMZ]

The Founders never set up or even tried to set up a "plutocracy;" and PMS probably doesn't even know what that silly term means.

When only white, wealthy, males can vote, it is, by definition, plutocracy.

For the time period, it was a revolutionary democracy.

Democracy implies universal suffrage.

 

[PMZ]

It's caused by Democratic policies by the huge growth in entitlement programs.
Dem's are wanting to end the sequester and tax 1 trillion dollars more. They don't want to deal with the deficit nor do they want to pay down the debt.
Democratic polices are stopping the growth by having more taxes, high corp. taxes and way too much ridiculous regulations.
The New Health Care is stopping a huge amount of growth.

Sounds like a Fox News evening report.

It's called C-Span and actually looking at the governments web sites.

Don't lie.

 

[peach174]

The Founders never set up or even tried to set up a "plutocracy;" and PMS probably doesn't even know what that silly term means.

When only white, wealthy, males can vote, it is, by definition, plutocracy.

The Revolutionary War was fought over plutocracy.
Our Founders set up a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

The Constitution does not require land ownership as a qualification to vote.

Only one office in the original U.S. Constitution is popularly elected: the members of the House of Representatives. On the question of who is entitled to vote for a representative, the Constitution says only that "the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." (Art. 1, sec. 2.)

In most states, that meant male property owners, but not all of them. By the time the Constitution was ratified, any male taxpayer could vote in Pennsylvania, whether he owned land or not. By 1792, New Hampshire had universal male suffrage, with no tax or land ownership requirement.

(Also, women landowners could vote in New Jersey until 1807 -- generally speaking that meant widows and unmarried women.)

 

[peach174]

Sounds like a Fox News evening report.

It's called C-Span and actually looking at the governments web sites.

Don't lie.

I'm not.
Maybe you should do the same, instead of watching mainstream news.

 

[Faun]

federal spending is a "beast" the must be starved. We cannot continue to spend more than we take in and then borrow the rest. This is fiscal lunacy.

China will own us in a few more years of this idiocy.

Almost right on. The problem is our debt. It was caused by Republican policies. The first step in solving it is to lower the deficit. Done by Democrats with no help from Republicans. The second step is to grow the economy and therefore revenue. Being done by Democrats but resisted by Republicans.

See a pattern here?

Fortunately for progress in these areas, Republicans are cooperating in one way. They are committing political suicide. I personally wish them success in that so they will be out of the way for the rebirth of the functional centrist old GOP.

It's caused by Democratic policies by the huge growth in entitlement programs.
Dem's are wanting to end the sequester and tax 1 trillion dollars more. They don't want to deal with the deficit nor do they want to pay down the debt.
Democratic polices are stopping the growth by having more taxes, high corp. taxes and way too much ridiculous regulations.
The New Health Care is stopping a huge amount of growth.

That is the dumbest shit I ever heard. Oh .... wait .... it's Conservative speak. No wonder. Where do you idiots come up with this moronic notion that higher taxes kill growth? There was growth under Reagan with low unemployment -- top margin ... 50%. There was growth under Kennedy with low unemployment -- top margin ... 70%. There was growth under Eisenhower with low unemployment -- top margin ... 90%.

You brain-dead zombies can't think for yourself. All you're capable of is mindlessly regurgitating the moronic talking points spoon fed to you by supply-siders; the very ones whose policies have contributed the most structural damage to our economy.

 

[PMZ]

It's called C-Span and actually looking at the governments web sites.

Don't lie.

I'm not.
Maybe you should do the same, instead of watching mainstream news.

Mainstream is news. Fox is some news plus what you should think of that news. C-Span and government Web sites aren't news at all, just government data.

I understand how people addicted to Fox all become identical conservatives. I don't see how that's possible for people who aren't addicted to it.

 

[PMZ]

The Founders never set up or even tried to set up a "plutocracy;" and PMS probably doesn't even know what that silly term means.

When only white, wealthy, males can vote, it is, by definition, plutocracy.

The Revolutionary War was fought over plutocracy.
Our Founders set up a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

The Constitution does not require land ownership as a qualification to vote.

Only one office in the original U.S. Constitution is popularly elected: the members of the House of Representatives. On the question of who is entitled to vote for a representative, the Constitution says only that "the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." (Art. 1, sec. 2.)

In most states, that meant male property owners, but not all of them. By the time the Constitution was ratified, any male taxpayer could vote in Pennsylvania, whether he owned land or not. By 1792, New Hampshire had universal male suffrage, with no tax or land ownership requirement.

(Also, women landowners could vote in New Jersey until 1807 -- generally speaking that meant widows and unmarried women.)

''Our Founders set up a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.''

Our government by-laws are specified by a Constitution.

They rejected the idea of a monarch (it was close), so we are a Republic.

While they left voting eligibility up to the states, the states effectively chose plutocracy.

We, the people, over 150 years, fought for (the Civil War) and using the Ammendment provisions of the Constitution, built a universal suffrage representative democracy since 1930.

So we are a Constitutional, representative democratic Republic.

 

[Snookie]

The republicans got caught in the coie jar, the republicans got caught in the cookie jar.

AGAIN!

 

[Lumpy 1]

The republicans got caught in the coie jar, the republicans got caught in the cookie jar.

AGAIN!

 

[thanatos144]

When only white, wealthy, males can vote, it is, by definition, plutocracy.

The Revolutionary War was fought over plutocracy.
Our Founders set up a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

The Constitution does not require land ownership as a qualification to vote.

Only one office in the original U.S. Constitution is popularly elected: the members of the House of Representatives. On the question of who is entitled to vote for a representative, the Constitution says only that "the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." (Art. 1, sec. 2.)

In most states, that meant male property owners, but not all of them. By the time the Constitution was ratified, any male taxpayer could vote in Pennsylvania, whether he owned land or not. By 1792, New Hampshire had universal male suffrage, with no tax or land ownership requirement.

(Also, women landowners could vote in New Jersey until 1807 -- generally speaking that meant widows and unmarried women.)

''Our Founders set up a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.''

Our government by-laws are specified by a Constitution.

They rejected the idea of a monarch (it was close), so we are a Republic.

While they left voting eligibility up to the states, the states effectively chose plutocracy.

We, the people, over 150 years, fought for (the Civil War) and using the Ammendment provisions of the Constitution, built a universal suffrage representative democracy since 1930.

So we are a Constitutional, representative democratic Republic.

Just stop. You obviously dont know what the fuck your talking about. Read the constitution if your going to talk about it

 

[PMZ]

The Revolutionary War was fought over plutocracy.
Our Founders set up a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

The Constitution does not require land ownership as a qualification to vote.

Only one office in the original U.S. Constitution is popularly elected: the members of the House of Representatives. On the question of who is entitled to vote for a representative, the Constitution says only that "the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." (Art. 1, sec. 2.)

In most states, that meant male property owners, but not all of them. By the time the Constitution was ratified, any male taxpayer could vote in Pennsylvania, whether he owned land or not. By 1792, New Hampshire had universal male suffrage, with no tax or land ownership requirement.

(Also, women landowners could vote in New Jersey until 1807 -- generally speaking that meant widows and unmarried women.)

''Our Founders set up a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.''

Our government by-laws are specified by a Constitution.

They rejected the idea of a monarch (it was close), so we are a Republic.

While they left voting eligibility up to the states, the states effectively chose plutocracy.

We, the people, over 150 years, fought for (the Civil War) and using the Ammendment provisions of the Constitution, built a universal suffrage representative democracy since 1930.

So we are a Constitutional, representative democratic Republic.

Just stop. You obviously dont know what the fuck your talking about. Read the constitution if your going to talk about it

Tell us which statement of mine you disagree with and why. I'll defend it. That's called debate.

 

[thanatos144]

''Our Founders set up a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.''

Our government by-laws are specified by a Constitution.

They rejected the idea of a monarch (it was close), so we are a Republic.

While they left voting eligibility up to the states, the states effectively chose plutocracy.

We, the people, over 150 years, fought for (the Civil War) and using the Ammendment provisions of the Constitution, built a universal suffrage representative democracy since 1930.

So we are a Constitutional, representative democratic Republic.

Just stop. You obviously dont know what the fuck your talking about. Read the constitution if your going to talk about it

Tell us which statement of mine you disagree with and why. I'll defend it. That's called debate.

All of it seeing as you are not using the actual constitution but are speaking in generalities where as Peach gave you the facts you are trying to twist and lie about.

 

[regent]

Just stop. You obviously dont know what the fuck your talking about. Read the constitution if your going to talk about it

Tell us which statement of mine you disagree with and why. I'll defend it. That's called debate.

All of it seeing as you are not using the actual constitution but are speaking in generalities where as Peach gave you the facts you are trying to twist and lie about.

The government the framers created was pretty liberal for its day, and since that day America has become even more democratic. Did the framers give their new nation a label as to the type of government they had created?

 

[peach174]

Almost right on. The problem is our debt. It was caused by Republican policies. The first step in solving it is to lower the deficit. Done by Democrats with no help from Republicans. The second step is to grow the economy and therefore revenue. Being done by Democrats but resisted by Republicans.

See a pattern here?

Fortunately for progress in these areas, Republicans are cooperating in one way. They are committing political suicide. I personally wish them success in that so they will be out of the way for the rebirth of the functional centrist old GOP.

It's caused by Democratic policies by the huge growth in entitlement programs.
Dem's are wanting to end the sequester and tax 1 trillion dollars more. They don't want to deal with the deficit nor do they want to pay down the debt.
Democratic polices are stopping the growth by having more taxes, high corp. taxes and way too much ridiculous regulations.
The New Health Care is stopping a huge amount of growth.

That is the dumbest shit I ever heard. Oh .... wait .... it's Conservative speak. No wonder. Where do you idiots come up with this moronic notion that higher taxes kill growth? There was growth under Reagan with low unemployment -- top margin ... 50%. There was growth under Kennedy with low unemployment -- top margin ... 70%. There was growth under Eisenhower with low unemployment -- top margin ... 90%.

You brain-dead zombies can't think for yourself. All you're capable of is mindlessly regurgitating the moronic talking points spoon fed to you by supply-siders; the very ones whose policies have contributed the most structural damage to our economy.

Do you realize that they were not paying those amounts because of tax deductions?
You are the one that is believing the lefty talking points that the rich actually paid 90% ,70% and 50% when they didn't.

Liberals often claim that the rich paid a 91% income tax rate during the Eisenhower years, and while it is true that the top marginal rate was 91% from 1954 to 1963 that is not what matters. The important part is how much the rich actually paid.

Here were the effective individual income tax rates of the 3 very high income AGI groups.

$200,000-$500,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 45.9
1954 = 39.3
1955 = 36.8
1956 = 37.4
1957 = 38.6
1958 = 36.9
1959 = 33.8
1960 = 33.1
1961 = 31.5

$500,000-$1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 46.3
1954 = 38.7
1955 = 35.6
1956 = 36.7
1957 = 36.6
1958 = 36.0
1959 = 32.1
1960 = 30.8
1961 = 29.1

Over $1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 49.3
1954 = 38.8
1955 = 35.8
1956 = 36.1
1957 = 40.0
1958 = 33.1
1959 = 30.6
1960 = 31.3
1961 = 27.2

SOURCE: William Williams, The Changing Progressivity of the Federal Income Tax, National Tax Journal (1964)


Quote:
In 1954, for example, the 0.3 percent of the taxpayers with more than $40,000 AGI reported almost $13 billion in AGI (including 100 percent of capital gains but excluding exempt interest); yet their effective tax rates ranged from as little as 27 percent to 39 percent—far from the infamous rates conjured up by the Code tables.



So the rich really didn't pay anything close to 91% during the Eisenhower years, and their effective tax rate was steadily reduced.

Look at how well Hong Kong and Singapore are doing because of their economic freedom of lower taxes and less regulations.
South Africa has discovered the same thing and lowered their taxes and regulations and they are starting to do really well.

 

[Snookie]

It's caused by Democratic policies by the huge growth in entitlement programs.
Dem's are wanting to end the sequester and tax 1 trillion dollars more. They don't want to deal with the deficit nor do they want to pay down the debt.
Democratic polices are stopping the growth by having more taxes, high corp. taxes and way too much ridiculous regulations.
The New Health Care is stopping a huge amount of growth.

That is the dumbest shit I ever heard. Oh .... wait .... it's Conservative speak. No wonder. Where do you idiots come up with this moronic notion that higher taxes kill growth? There was growth under Reagan with low unemployment -- top margin ... 50%. There was growth under Kennedy with low unemployment -- top margin ... 70%. There was growth under Eisenhower with low unemployment -- top margin ... 90%.

You brain-dead zombies can't think for yourself. All you're capable of is mindlessly regurgitating the moronic talking points spoon fed to you by supply-siders; the very ones whose policies have contributed the most structural damage to our economy.

Do you realize that they were not paying those amounts because of tax deductions?
You are the one that is believing the lefty talking points that the rich actually paid 90% ,70% and 50% when they didn't.

Liberals often claim that the rich paid a 91% income tax rate during the Eisenhower years, and while it is true that the top marginal rate was 91% from 1954 to 1963 that is not what matters. The important part is how much the rich actually paid.

Here were the effective individual income tax rates of the 3 very high income AGI groups.

$200,000-$500,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 45.9
1954 = 39.3
1955 = 36.8
1956 = 37.4
1957 = 38.6
1958 = 36.9
1959 = 33.8
1960 = 33.1
1961 = 31.5

$500,000-$1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 46.3
1954 = 38.7
1955 = 35.6
1956 = 36.7
1957 = 36.6
1958 = 36.0
1959 = 32.1
1960 = 30.8
1961 = 29.1

Over $1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 49.3
1954 = 38.8
1955 = 35.8
1956 = 36.1
1957 = 40.0
1958 = 33.1
1959 = 30.6
1960 = 31.3
1961 = 27.2

SOURCE: William Williams, The Changing Progressivity of the Federal Income Tax, National Tax Journal (1964)


Quote:
In 1954, for example, the 0.3 percent of the taxpayers with more than $40,000 AGI reported almost $13 billion in AGI (including 100 percent of capital gains but excluding exempt interest); yet their effective tax rates ranged from as little as 27 percent to 39 percent—far from the infamous rates conjured up by the Code tables.



So the rich really didn't pay anything close to 91% during the Eisenhower years, and their effective tax rate was steadily reduced.

Look at how well Hong Kong and Singapore are doing because of their economic freedom of lower taxes and less regulations.
South Africa has discovered the same thing and lowered their taxes and regulations and they are starting to do really well.

we need higher taxes.

 

[RKMBrown]

That is the dumbest shit I ever heard. Oh .... wait .... it's Conservative speak. No wonder. Where do you idiots come up with this moronic notion that higher taxes kill growth? There was growth under Reagan with low unemployment -- top margin ... 50%. There was growth under Kennedy with low unemployment -- top margin ... 70%. There was growth under Eisenhower with low unemployment -- top margin ... 90%.

You brain-dead zombies can't think for yourself. All you're capable of is mindlessly regurgitating the moronic talking points spoon fed to you by supply-siders; the very ones whose policies have contributed the most structural damage to our economy.

Do you realize that they were not paying those amounts because of tax deductions?
You are the one that is believing the lefty talking points that the rich actually paid 90% ,70% and 50% when they didn't.

Liberals often claim that the rich paid a 91% income tax rate during the Eisenhower years, and while it is true that the top marginal rate was 91% from 1954 to 1963 that is not what matters. The important part is how much the rich actually paid.

Here were the effective individual income tax rates of the 3 very high income AGI groups.

$200,000-$500,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 45.9
1954 = 39.3
1955 = 36.8
1956 = 37.4
1957 = 38.6
1958 = 36.9
1959 = 33.8
1960 = 33.1
1961 = 31.5

$500,000-$1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 46.3
1954 = 38.7
1955 = 35.6
1956 = 36.7
1957 = 36.6
1958 = 36.0
1959 = 32.1
1960 = 30.8
1961 = 29.1

Over $1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 49.3
1954 = 38.8
1955 = 35.8
1956 = 36.1
1957 = 40.0
1958 = 33.1
1959 = 30.6
1960 = 31.3
1961 = 27.2

SOURCE: William Williams, The Changing Progressivity of the Federal Income Tax, National Tax Journal (1964)


Quote:
In 1954, for example, the 0.3 percent of the taxpayers with more than $40,000 AGI reported almost $13 billion in AGI (including 100 percent of capital gains but excluding exempt interest); yet their effective tax rates ranged from as little as 27 percent to 39 percent—far from the infamous rates conjured up by the Code tables.



So the rich really didn't pay anything close to 91% during the Eisenhower years, and their effective tax rate was steadily reduced.

Look at how well Hong Kong and Singapore are doing because of their economic freedom of lower taxes and less regulations.
South Africa has discovered the same thing and lowered their taxes and regulations and they are starting to do really well.

we need higher taxes.

No, we need more revenue and less spending. Though one could argue the bottom 51% should have some responsibility above zero for funding their government.

 

[PMZ]

Do you realize that they were not paying those amounts because of tax deductions?
You are the one that is believing the lefty talking points that the rich actually paid 90% ,70% and 50% when they didn't.

Liberals often claim that the rich paid a 91% income tax rate during the Eisenhower years, and while it is true that the top marginal rate was 91% from 1954 to 1963 that is not what matters. The important part is how much the rich actually paid.

Here were the effective individual income tax rates of the 3 very high income AGI groups.

$200,000-$500,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 45.9
1954 = 39.3
1955 = 36.8
1956 = 37.4
1957 = 38.6
1958 = 36.9
1959 = 33.8
1960 = 33.1
1961 = 31.5

$500,000-$1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 46.3
1954 = 38.7
1955 = 35.6
1956 = 36.7
1957 = 36.6
1958 = 36.0
1959 = 32.1
1960 = 30.8
1961 = 29.1

Over $1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 49.3
1954 = 38.8
1955 = 35.8
1956 = 36.1
1957 = 40.0
1958 = 33.1
1959 = 30.6
1960 = 31.3
1961 = 27.2

SOURCE: William Williams, The Changing Progressivity of the Federal Income Tax, National Tax Journal (1964)


Quote:
In 1954, for example, the 0.3 percent of the taxpayers with more than $40,000 AGI reported almost $13 billion in AGI (including 100 percent of capital gains but excluding exempt interest); yet their effective tax rates ranged from as little as 27 percent to 39 percent—far from the infamous rates conjured up by the Code tables.



So the rich really didn't pay anything close to 91% during the Eisenhower years, and their effective tax rate was steadily reduced.

Look at how well Hong Kong and Singapore are doing because of their economic freedom of lower taxes and less regulations.
South Africa has discovered the same thing and lowered their taxes and regulations and they are starting to do really well.

we need higher taxes.

No, we need more revenue and less spending. Though one could argue the bottom 51% should have some responsibility above zero for funding their government.

Why do we need less spending?

Are the rich not rich enough? Are their private jets and multiple mcmansions, and million dollar cars and $10,000 watches insufficient somehow?