The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

There are several factors behind all this but two figure most prominently: (1) the current recession and the attendant reduction in sales and income tax receipts; (2) the rapid expansion of public employee unions and the large increases in pay and pension benefits alloted to them by Democrat legislators in the pay of these unions, and their subsequent failure to meet actuarial standards in funding these give aways in current budgets.

That is merely your opinion and one you offer without any supporting argument or facts.

It depends on just whom you have in mind. The fraction of our population paying no or very little taxes (relative to the proportional total of those collected) has grown significantly. There is lots of highly selective reporting of data on both sides here, and lots of self-serving deception in the rhetoric. The notion that every household making over $250K/year is among the uber rich is laughable, but that is the argument Obama has been making. It's easy to point to the wealth of those making a million or more each year, however taxing them more won't generate enough revenue to solve the problem. The real collections are from the great number of people in the $250K - $600K/year cadre and they are increasingly unwilling to do it - and they vote.

Uh, hello?!? You want to pin this on the Democrats?

What about Republican governors in many states, such as NJ, who actively stole money from their pension fund obligations in order to cut taxes?

The idea that the Dems are responsible for the pension problems we are currently seeing is laughable. Both parties are responsible for them.

Fact: the 'tea party' is nothing more than the GOP. Polling has shown that there is no difference between the two of them at all and in realistic terms we see that they work in lockstep on pretty much everything.

Another fact: none of these people seemed to care too much about Bush's spending at all.

Third fact: xenophobia and racism is a large part of the force that drives the Tea Partiers. It is evident in the continued and never-ceasing attempts to prove that Obama is either a Muslim, a secret Muslim supporter, or 'not born in America.'

Conclusion: I was correct, and what more, my statements were based on facts. Any of those facts I listed, that you don't think are factual - say so. More than happy to provide attribution, but you should be warned: there are polls involved!

That's why I recommend tax increases for EVERYONE - including myself - until our fiscal books are in order. I think our society would work better if more citizens had some skin in the game, and if more rich folks had much, much more skin in the game.

Here in California my old friend Don Perata was the champion of payoffs to state employee unions in first the assembly and later the State Senate.

Your "facts" arent facts and they don't prove your conclusion. However, I'll give you credit for an unpersuasive attempt.

I won't argue with that, certainly not in principle. However, the tax increases are being demanded as an alternative to cost reductions in government and limitations of the expanded and positively corrupting influence of state employee unions on state legislatures.

It is much harder for government and career politicians to reduce government costs than it is for them to raise taxes.

I'll be willing t0 consider more taxes AFTER some concrete actions to reduce government spending and curtail the reach of public employee unuins that seek to corrupt and usurp the normal powers and responsibilities of elected representatives of the people.

Well we don't disagree completely. I believe government spending reductions are needed "RIGHT NOW" just as you believe tax increases are needed "RIGHT NOW".

From Sarbanes Oxley to the Chris Dodd legislation and EPA's newfound authority

corporations have already been reined in to the extent that many industries on which we rely for bacic things like energy and for growth and employment in the economy are being stifled and paralyzed.

Worse the looming government bond crisis scares them into hoarding their own cash. This aspect of the problem is already bad and your proposals will make it far worse.

Government unions have grown explosively during the past two decades and they are an obvious corrupting influence on local governments and School boards. They seek to usurp inherently governmental functions and they must be curtailed.

You are more than a bit one-sided here. The USSC indeed confirmed EPA's authority, but that doesn't make the administration's actions that stimulated the challenge either wise or beneficial. They are indeed harmful.

Worse EPA has paralyzed industry for over a year with their still unreleased new rules. A similar story can be told about petroleum extraction. There are many excellent reasons for us to do more, but the Administratiuon appears to be against it as a matter of principle and merely misuses environmental and safety laws to curtail it - at a moment in which we really need much more.

Corporations are making profits, but the issue is they are not investing them because they cannot forecast the future actions of an overreaching government that is clearly hostile to then. Not a very good way to stimulate economic growth.

Quote:

Saying the GOP has been wrong for over 30 years is simply stupid on your part.

It also ignores the serious problem that runaway entitlements enacted by Democrats have inflicted on us. This doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

I'm not really trying to convince anyone of anything.

The USSC confirmed the EPA's authority in this area during the Bush administration in 2007. Nothing the Obama admin has done in this area has been put forth to the USSC for review, at all.

So, factual error there on your part. And I'd say it's a big one.

There are excellent reasons to do LESS drilling, George.

OK.The events in the Gulf have proven that there is little ability to stop a bad leak at the sorts of depths that modern companies work at. It is a matter of principle.

The USSC indeed confirmed EPA's authority, but that doesn't make the administration's actions that stimulated the challenge either wise or beneficial. They are indeed harmful.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There are excellent reasons to do LESS drilling, George.

What are they? The price of energy is certainly having a bad effect on the economy. The unrest in the Arab world is spooking the market. Some firm action here would have a dramatic and beneficial effect on both issues.

If it is a matter of principle, then why did the Obama Administration recently approve a deep drilling permit? We have lots of other petroleum reserves that could be developed if the government would get out of the way.

As for the rest of the carefully selected half truths and worse, they are merely a litany of factoids you likely derived from your extensive study of various opinion pieces - not worthy of discussion.

That's just MN and WI but I think part of the appeal of Pawlenty is the idea that he'd be able to deliver MN.

James Kirkpatrick, who met Mr. Pawlenty last summer, became the first Republican county chairman in Iowa to support him. He said Mr. Pawlenty’s appeal included his ability to perform well in the Midwest, including Minnesota, which last voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 1972. “When other candidates come up,” Mr. Kirkpatrick said, “I ask them, ‘What states can you bring to the table?’ ”