Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee? Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee?

10-13-2011 , 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by punter11235
I need some help with understanding why R's are so popular.
I get that rich people vote for them as well as the state of Texas but it seems that lower/middle class would always go with higher taxes for the rich and lower/middle class is a lot of people.
This is how it works in Europe where debate is about if income tax for the richest should be 50% or 70%, what is the difference in USA ?
Republican's don't resent others success.
10-13-2011 , 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
I'll give 3-1 on Romney or Perry getting the nod.
God no. I firmly believe Romney will get the nomination, however I wouldn't put it past the higher powers of the party to nominate a weaker candidate, basically because a considerable portion of the party is comprised of people who believe the sun revolves around the earth, and that Galileo lived alongside the dinosaurs.
10-13-2011 , 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by punter11235
I need some help with understanding why R's are so popular.
I get that rich people vote for them as well as the state of Texas but it seems that lower/middle class would always go with higher taxes for the rich and lower/middle class is a lot of people.
This is how it works in Europe where debate is about if income tax for the richest should be 50% or 70%, what is the difference in USA ?
Because FOX news tells them to.
10-13-2011 , 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
Republican's don't resent others success.
No because they all think they're going to be the rich one someday, even though 99.9% of them are wrong. Also they're too dense to understand they w/o a strong middle class to sell to/service their entrepreneurial chances are severely diminished.
10-13-2011 , 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
I think a Mitt Romney is probably the best thing that could happen to the Rs right now. Their party needs an overhaul and to be less extreme.

Cain is still, imo, the next Ross Perot. Unless he decides to get into local politics and try to parlay that into a pres. run in the near future.


Romney would be the same as Obama, who is the same as Bush. This isn't much of an overhaul. An overhaul for the Republican party would be someone who actually cares about the constitution, civil liberties, limited government, limited spending, balanced budgets, ending corporatism. If only there was someone like that running for the GOP nomination :/
10-13-2011 , 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by punter11235
I need some help with understanding why R's are so popular.
I get that rich people vote for them as well as the state of Texas but it seems that lower/middle class would always go with higher taxes for the rich and lower/middle class is a lot of people.
This is how it works in Europe where debate is about if income tax for the richest should be 50% or 70%, what is the difference in USA ?

50 or 70 percent? wtf?


We don't think the government should have all of our ****ing money???
10-13-2011 , 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
No because they all think they're going to be the rich one someday, even though 99.9% of them are wrong. Also they're too dense to understand they w/o a strong middle class to sell to/service their entrepreneurial chances are severely diminished.
I agree with your first sentence. Your second sentence is of course lol "liberals know best" and assumes that government somehow strengthens the middle class.
10-13-2011 , 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
No because they all think they're going to be the rich one someday, even though 99.9% of them are wrong. Also they're too dense to understand they w/o a strong middle class to sell to/service their entrepreneurial chances are severely diminished.
Why cant the entrepeneurs just sell yachts and security to the other rich people?
10-13-2011 , 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
No because they all think they're going to be the rich one someday, even though 99.9% of them are wrong. Also they're too dense to understand they w/o a strong middle class to sell to/service their entrepreneurial chances are severely diminished.

I'm not a Republican ... well, I currently am, but I'm not a Republican. I'm a libertarian, and I'm basically flat broke. I have like a couple hundred dollars to my name in gold, which I will soon have to sell, and I have maybe a hundred dollars worth of musical equipment I'm willing to part with. I am currently focused 100% on my music and my band, and I'm going to try to play as many gigs as I can. I intend to be a working musician. The average income for musicians isn't very high at all, so I don't think I'm going to be getting rich.

I don't think taxes should be raised on anyone. I think they should be CUT for everyone, even the rich people. The reason for this is I want to starve the beast that is the federal government. They spend and spend and spend and spend money to no end, and they're going to continue on this path, spending more and more year by year. Why give them more money to piss away? Why? What's the point? The government has had it's chance to make this country a utopia with their endless spending, and look where we are today. The government needs to be starved. All their funds need to be completely cut off. Taxes need to be cut, people need to quit paying their taxes, the ****ing beast must be starved, so it's size is reduced to a much more appropriate and manageable size.
10-13-2011 , 02:37 PM
LirvA I hate to break the news to you but when it comes to spending the only difference between R's and D's is where they choose to spend it. Just look at what happens when you try to cut military spending and farm subsidies.
10-13-2011 , 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
I'm not a Republican ... well, I currently am, but I'm not a Republican. I'm a libertarian, and I'm basically flat broke. I have like a couple hundred dollars to my name in gold, which I will soon have to sell, and I have maybe a hundred dollars worth of musical equipment I'm willing to part with. I am currently focused 100% on my music and my band, and I'm going to try to play as many gigs as I can. I intend to be a working musician. The average income for musicians isn't very high at all, so I don't think I'm going to be getting rich.

I don't think taxes should be raised on anyone. I think they should be CUT for everyone, even the rich people. The reason for this is I want to starve the beast that is the federal government. They spend and spend and spend and spend money to no end, and they're going to continue on this path, spending more and more year by year. Why give them more money to piss away? Why? What's the point? The government has had it's chance to make this country a utopia with their endless spending, and look where we are today. The government needs to be starved. All their funds need to be completely cut off. Taxes need to be cut, people need to quit paying their taxes, the ****ing beast must be starved, so it's size is reduced to a much more appropriate and manageable size.

I'm curious, given your chosen profession, your feelings about the NEA?
10-13-2011 , 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
Republican's don't resent others success.
lololololol

i'm reading 'deer hunting w jesus' currently which is a pretty interesting insight into the avg poor republican voter. as the title would suggest, it seems to be that poor people who vote republican do so because of guns, christianity and a bunch of intangible qualities that the R propaganda machine casts off.
10-13-2011 , 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
50 or 70 percent? wtf?


We don't think the government should have all of our ****ing money???
have you, perchance, looked at historical tax rates in the land of freedom and opportunity?
10-13-2011 , 02:50 PM
Lirva,

For better or worse, the "starve the beast" approach has been shown not to work. Reducing government revenue, in itself, simply does not result in less spending. It just results in more debt.
10-13-2011 , 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jbrochu
LirvA I hate to break the news to you but when it comes to spending the only difference between R's and D's is where they choose to spend it. Just look at what happens when you try to cut military spending and farm subsidies.

I'm well aware of this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nyc999
I'm curious, given your chosen profession, your feelings about the NEA?

NEA?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsnipes28
have you, perchance, looked at historical tax rates in the land of freedom and opportunity?

Yes, they're quite high, but not 70%. iirc, at one point it used to be like 90% on rich people which is completely ****ing insane.
10-13-2011 , 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsnipes28
lololololol

i'm reading 'deer hunting w jesus' currently which is a pretty interesting insight into the avg poor republican voter. as the title would suggest, it seems to be that poor people who vote republican do so because of guns, christianity and a bunch of intangible qualities that the R propaganda machine casts off.
And you think the poor vote is a significant part of the party?
10-13-2011 , 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wynton
Lirva,

For better or worse, the "starve the beast" approach has been shown not to work. Reducing government revenue, in itself, simply does not result in less spending. It just results in more debt.

A balanced budget amendment must be passed.
10-13-2011 , 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
And you think the poor vote is a significant part of the party?
strictly based off the distribution of income in the united states, yes.

edit: and the importance of the 'christian right' which is by and large not an economically well to do segment of the population.
10-13-2011 , 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
NEA?
National Endowment for the Arts

http://www.nea.gov/

You likely know, but just in case:

Quote:
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government that offers support and funding for projects exhibiting artistic excellence
I ask because, along with NPR, it's a frequent target of the right.
10-13-2011 , 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
Yes, they're quite high, but not 70%. iirc, at one point it used to be like 90% on rich people which is completely ****ing insane.
does not compute.
10-13-2011 , 02:58 PM
eh, don't know much about it. It wouldn't be at the top of my list of things to cut, but depending on what all it does, I'd probably support getting rid of it.
10-13-2011 , 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsnipes28
does not compute.

current - past


does not compute?



They're currently quite high, but not 70%. iirc, they used to be 90%, which is completely insane.


compute?
10-13-2011 , 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by punter11235
It will be Romney - the sanest guy in the pack but so boring I really wish it be will be someone else just for entertainment value.
You have very odd ideas of sanity.
10-13-2011 , 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsnipes28
strictly based off the distribution of income in the united states, yes.

edit: and the importance of the 'christian right' which is by and large not an economically well to do segment of the population.
I agree the Republicans get support from social conservatives. If anybody has data on income distribution by political affiliation could you post a link?
10-13-2011 , 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
current - past


does not compute?



They're currently quite high, but not 70%. iirc, they used to be 90%, which is completely insane.


compute?
woah hold on, so you don't even know what the current top tax bracket is? and we are arguing about tax policy?

      
m