22
   

What is the Republican vision for this country?

 
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 11:21 pm
@gungasnake,
Good lord, you're an idiot.

Leaving aside the absurdity of Democrats wanting to cost people money, your reducing the experience of having a child down to a dollar figure is just so incredibly stupid.

Republicans: they truly care about kids from the moment of conception to the day they're born.
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 15 Apr, 2012 05:07 am
@DrewDad,
I said for what the ******* Gaea-worshipping demoKKKrats are going to cost you, you could easily afford five kids and that's a fact.

I'm figuring the total cost of course, including:

  • The cost of Gaea-worshipping demoKKKrats shutting down every energy initiative that ever comes down the road.
  • The cost of foreign oil due to Gaea-worshipping demoKKKrats shutting down every energy initiative that ever comes down the road.
  • The cost of airplanes flying into our tall buildings due to giant sums of money going into enemy coffers, due to shit4brains Gaea-worshipping demoKKKrats shutting down every energy initiative that ever comes down the road.
  • The cost of foreign wars due to airplanes flying into our tall buildings due to giant sums of money going into enemy coffers, due to shit4brains Gaea-worshipping demoKKKrats shutting down every energy initiative that ever comes down the road.
  • The cost of unnecessary wars (Kossovo, Libya etc.) due to demoKKKrat dog-wagging and support of international banking interests.
  • The coming cost of Iran having nuclear weapons due to shit4brains demoKKKrats putting a muslim lunatic in the whitehouse.
  • The doubled cost of medicine due to lack of tort reform due to shit4brains, power-mad demoKKKrats taking money from the trial lawyers' guild.
  • The giant burdens of ordinary govt. services due to demoKKKrat connections with public unions.
  • The economic burden of demoKKKrats seeking to perpetuate a permanent economic underclass which does not contribute to the economy.
  • The economic burdens which rogue Gaea-worshipping demoKKKrat agencies, particularly the EPA, impose on our society.


I mean, that's just all the **** that comes to mind easily. Get rid of all of that and you'd still have one or two national problems which you wanted to resolve, particularly our monetary system and what we want to replace it with, but we'd basically be home free or at least within striking distance of that.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 15 Apr, 2012 06:19 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The cost of Gaea-worshipping demoKKKrats shutting down every energy initiative that ever comes down the road.

Ah well, you can't cure stupid...


You can only point out it is stupid.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=M
Code:U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2005 168,679 153,828 173,637 166,674 172,997 163,802 162,444 161,758 126,119 140,553 145,100 154,516
2006 158,283 141,258 156,392 153,849 159,992 154,795 158,151 156,830 151,120 158,288 153,142 160,159
2007 158,820 143,504 158,282 155,675 161,112 152,894 155,750 152,321 146,511 156,333 150,506 156,742
2008 158,086 148,536 159,671 153,505 158,154 152,932 159,113 151,702 117,899 144,747 150,720 156,751
2009 159,764 147,269 162,040 158,200 166,749 158,443 167,469 167,950 166,398 170,522 162,807 168,985
2010 167,885 155,555 170,798 161,121 167,399 161,378 164,271 168,755 168,038 173,747 167,098 174,476
2011 171,400 152,211 174,706 166,692 174,995 167,634 169,165 175,450 167,358 181,835 178,749 185,171
2012 188,904
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Apr, 2012 06:26 am
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:
republicans DO have a place in the bedroom! i got my bedroom republican from Target. it's kinda like a garden gnome with a gun and a bible


bolded section on it's way to the "things people posted that would make great sig lines" thread, if it's not there already

and i see soz beat me too it
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  3  
Reply Sun 15 Apr, 2012 10:15 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:

... their priorities appear to be preventing women from getting reproductive health care...


I hear that a lot and it's 95% paranoia...


I don't believe it is paranoia and I provided links in an earlier post that show that state Republicans have launched a coordinated state level attack on reproductive rights including mandatory ultrasound bills, defunding of Planned Parenthood (costing Texas it's federal aid for their state health care program), personhood bills, and bills attempting to expand justifiable homicide to those who would protect a fetus. That's not even including the bogus brouhaha about requiring insurance to cover contraceptives. What do you think is the purposed behind these efforts?


0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  3  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 04:34 am
Republicans of today aren't Republicans anymore--they've morphed into a party of authoritarian. The Republicans of today seem to want this country to become a mass of monolithic gated communities of monolithic citizens kept happy on televised circuses and psychoactive drugs.

Strength through faith
Cultural Purity
Individual Conformitivy

This may be a sign of where we're going
Westin Florida

Rap
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 04:38 am
@raprap,
The Republicans want to ban sex because they're afraid it might lead to dancing.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 05:05 am
@gungasnake,
Hey Ganja, if you don't like the planet Earth you can always move.

Rap
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 07:35 am
@Irishk,
What's really interesting about the cartoon is that that is Teddy Roosevelt - a progressive Republican, getting ready to give the square deal to a 'conservative' Republican. Whatever happened to those progressive Republicans?

raprap
 
  3  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 08:33 am
@IRFRANK,
They were mortally wounded when Strom Thurmon became a Republican, but they finally died in 2000 in Florida---Of course Roger Ailes keeps a stuffed elephant around, but the Republican Party of Abe and Teddy and Ike is long cold.

Rap
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 09:01 am
@IRFRANK,
The answer is rather complex. Roosevelt and his life-long ally, Henry Cabot Lodge, were very effective campaigners. In those days, candidates still followed the principle which had held sway since the beginning of the republic to the effect that the office should seek the man, but that the man should not seek the office. So candidates would sit on the front porch and trade quips with the boys of the press, and active young men like Roosevelt and Lodge would go out to stump for the votes. They were both good at it, too. However, they were unwilling to campaign for James Blaine in 1884 because of the taint of corruption which surrounded him. Many other young Republicans also would not campaign for him, but Roosevelt and Lodge were well known and branded as Mugwumps (fence sitters, with their mugs on one side and "wumps" on the other).

Grover Cleveland won that election, and many young Republicans were OK with that, because he was seen as a reformer. Nevertheless, as party loyalists, Roosevelt and Lodge campaigned for Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and Harrison lost the popular vote but won in the Electoral College. Harrison appointed Roosevelt to the Civil Service Commission, where, to the horor of both parties, he began to ruthlessly clear out the dead wood while insisting on examination and experience on the part of applicants. He, even more than Lodge, had become the despair of the party. This feeling increased when Grover Cleveland returned to the White House in the 1892 election, and retained Roosevelt in his job.

For whatever anyone may allege against William McKinley, he was an honest man, and Roosevelt and Lodge campaigned vigorously and effectively for him in 1896. Roosevelt's pay-off was to be appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy (he was always interested in naval affairs--his first book was The Naval War of 1812, the standard work on the subject to this day). The Secretary, Mr. Long, was a weak reed, and was more than happy to leave the running of the department to Roosevelt. Roosevelt had already secured a promise that if war broke out with Spain, he would be allowed to resign his position and take a commission in the army. (He was Theodore Roosevelt Jr.--Theodore Roosevelt Sr. had married Martha Bulloch of Georgia, and so did not take a commission during the Civil War out of regard for his wife's feelings. One of his uncles was a Confederate States naval officer in England who worked to acquire ships there, and a younger uncle was an officer under Rafael Semmes, who commanded one of those ships, CSS Alabama. After the war, they stayed in Liverpool, and the family would travel there to visit them. Theodore Jr. idolized his uncles. Many biographers believe that that is why Roosevelt was so bellicose before the Spanish War. I personally believe that his experience of the Spanish War drained that bellicosity from him.)

McKinley's physician was Leonard Wood of the Army. McKinley would often chide Wood by asking him: "Well, Leonard, have you and Theodore declared war on Spain yet?"--to which Wood would respond something to the effect of "No sir, but we're hoping you will soon." After the Maine incident, Secretary Long left the office for the afternoon, and Roosevelt fired off a series of telegrams to concentrate all available naval forces on the Gulf coast of Alabama and Florida, and to rush supplies to those ports. He then tendered his resignation, and helped to raise the First United States Volunteer Cavalry regiment--the "Rough Riders." Leonard Wood was given command as the Colonel, and Roosevelt was his executive officer with the rank of Lt. Colonel. In Cuba, Wood was given command of the brigade, Roosevelt taking command of the regiment. He was in command when Kettle Hill and San Juan hill were taken. That lead to the collapse of the Spanish, as San Juan hill dominated Santiago de Cuba, the capital.

After the war, Roosevelt was a shoe-in for the office of Governor of New York, once again, to the despair of the Republican powers that were. He immediately set out to root out corruption and "machine politics." The political boss of New York, Thomas Platt, wanted him out of New York, and managed to get him tapped as McKinley's running mate in 1900.

Men like Roosevelt and Lodge felt the party of Lincoln should work for the good of the common man, and should end corruption and machine politics. As President, he became the "trust buster" on the principle that corporations were robbing the common man. He groomed William Taft as his successor, and broke the rule about statesmen standing aloof from campaigns, assuring Taft's election.

But Roosevelt became convinced that Taft had betrayed the principles of the progressive Republicans. So, in 1912, he ran against him as an independent. To a point, it looked as though he might win--until he was shot. Although he survived the assassination attempt, he lost his shot at the White House. The result was that he siphoned off votes from Taft, and Woodrow Wilson won. (Even after being shot, Roosevelt came in second in the popular vote, but Wilson buried the other three runners in the Electoral College.)

The powers of the Republican party decided "never again." Young progressive Republicans were ruthlessly weeded out of the party. Anyone wanting a career in the party would have to toe the party line or leave. There have been "moderate" Republicans since that time, but no more progressive Republicans.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 09:10 am
@raprap,
raprap wrote:

This may be a sign of where we're going
Westin Florida


Guns don't kill people. Skating and dancing kills people.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 09:13 am
@FreeDuck,
Wait . . . skating too ? ! ? ! ?
FreeDuck
 
  3  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 09:24 am
@Setanta,
Apparently skating is a gateway activity to dancing.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 09:41 am
@FreeDuck,
Maybe somebody should check out bicycles and tricycles, too . . .
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  3  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 09:10 pm
From another thread, where further discussion would have derailed the topic, with respect to taxes
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Now that it's been proven that the funds provided by the Buffet Rule are a relative drop in the bucket, he and his minions have had to shift their argument to the fairness of the matter.


700 billion is not nothing. It would pay for Ryan's proposed cuts to student loans and foodstamps with change left over.

Quote:
Axelrod was on TV Sunday morning telling Chris Wallace and views that do one feels that it is fair that millionaires pay less taxes than the average middle class American. This is a convenient strawman because they don't pay less taxes than the middle class, and it's not even what the Buffet Rule is about. Some may pay a lower rate, but even that lower rate amounts to a whole lot more money that the average middle class citizen pays.

This is because they have a hell of a lot more money than the average middle class citizen. The percentage is the correct comparison, not the absolute dollar amount. The less people make, the less they have to spare. The harder you hit them with the tax burden the harder it is for them to move up the ladder. And lets face it, the levels of income that the Buffet rule would affect are simply not achievable for the majority of Americans regardless of effort.

Quote:
Obama like to tell his audience that "people like me" don't need to pay less in taxes or to make a lot more. He fired off a scathing attack on Paul Ryan and how incredibly unfair his budget was, and it's all about fairness.


Well most Americans I would think would see a basic unfairness in a budget that simultaneously cuts programs that help lower and middle class citizens rise up while cutting taxes for the people who have already made it to the top. If we need to pay off our debt, why do we need to keep cutting the taxes of the people who already have a very high concentration of wealth, which can only continue to widen the gap between the very wealthiest and the rest of us. I don't see a widened gap as being good for the country as a whole considering the very obvious effects money has on our politics and government. I see it as a threat to democratic principles and basic freedom.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 11:43 pm
@FreeDuck,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Now that it's been proven that the funds provided by the Buffet Rule are a relative drop in the bucket, he and his minions have had to shift their argument to the fairness of the matter.


700 billion is not nothing. It would pay for Ryan's proposed cuts to student loans and foodstamps with change left over.

Try less than $50 billion over ten years. I don't know where you're getting the $700 billion figure from.

Quote:
Axelrod was on TV Sunday morning telling Chris Wallace and views that do one feels that it is fair that millionaires pay less taxes than the average middle class American. This is a convenient strawman because they don't pay less taxes than the middle class, and it's not even what the Buffet Rule is about. Some may pay a lower rate, but even that lower rate amounts to a whole lot more money that the average middle class citizen pays.


This is because they have a hell of a lot more money than the average middle class citizen. The percentage is the correct comparison, not the absolute dollar amount. The less people make, the less they have to spare. The harder you hit them with the tax burden the harder it is for them to move up the ladder. And lets face it, the levels of income that the Buffet rule would affect are simply not achievable for the majority of Americans regardless of effort.

Tell that to Axelrod. He claimed the wealthy are paying less taxes than the middle class.

Quote:
Obama like to tell his audience that "people like me" don't need to pay less in taxes or to make a lot more. He fired off a scathing attack on Paul Ryan and how incredibly unfair his budget was, and it's all about fairness.


Well most Americans I would think would see a basic unfairness in a budget that simultaneously cuts programs that help lower and middle class citizens rise up while cutting taxes for the people who have already made it to the top. If we need to pay off our debt, why do we need to keep cutting the taxes of the people who already have a very high concentration of wealth, which can only continue to widen the gap between the very wealthiest and the rest of us. I don't see a widened gap as being good for the country as a whole considering the very obvious effects money has on our politics and government. I see it as a threat to democratic principles and basic freedom.

You, like the President and Axelrod, are neglecting to add that while Ryan proposes cutting tax rates, he also proposes eliminating loophole deductions -- Just like Simpson-Bowles. A fair criticism is that he doesn't specify which deductions he proposes to eliminate and is leaving that to Ways & Means, but he is not simply cutting taxes for wealthy people.

I may have missed your response to my suggestion for what Obama should do, given the fact that he unfairly paid a lower tax rate than his secretary.

[/quote]
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 07:33 am
Defining Disability Down

Government payments have exploded as politicians keep expanding the definition of the disabled to include millions of Americans..

By HOWARD RICH

Fraud, waste and abuse in government will always be popular political targets, especially during an election year. But they are not the root causes of this nation's escalating bankruptcy. Washington isn't broke because the government is inefficient. It's broke because it promises too much.

One entitlement program that highlights the progression of this disease is the Social Security Disability Insurance fund. In August 2010 a report from the Government Accountability Office revealed that hundreds of federal employees were receiving millions in fraudulently obtained disability benefits from this fund. Reforms—including matching disability beneficiaries and recipients to federal payroll data—were recommended but according to the Government Accountability Office have not been implemented.

According to the latest data from the Social Security Administration (SSA), 8.6 million American workers (and two million dependents) received $10.2 billion in disability payments in February 2012. That translates into a staggering $125 billion in disability payments each year—a number that's increased 17-fold over the past four decades (after adjusting for inflation).

According to last year's Social Security Administration's Trustees report, U.S. workers pumped $104 billion into this program in 2010 from payroll taxes while the system paid out $127.7 billion in benefits. Why is this happening? That's easy—our government keeps expanding the entitlement.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1970 and 2009 the number of Americans receiving disability benefits more than tripled to 9.7 million from 2.7 million. This increase has dramatically outpaced the growth in America's working-age population. In fact, statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor show that since 1970 the pool of disability recipients has been growing at a rate twice as fast as the pool of potential workers.

Driving this expansion is government's increasingly malleable definition of what constitutes a "disability." Currently, the SSA deems disabilities to be "total and complete" if applicants demonstrate that their impairments prevent them from earning at least $1,000 a month. But beginning in 1980 presumptions of disability began to be made based on age, education, work history and other mitigating factors. Four years later applicants were permitted to count the sum of multiple "nonsevere" impairments and count this as a "severe" disability.

As a result, workers who complain of "persistent anxiety" and "chronic fatigue" are now viewed by the government as being disabled.

"Congress and, derivatively, the SSA have gradually expanded the availability of entitlements to greater and greater numbers of persons," SSA Administrative Judges Jeffrey Wolfe and Dale Glendening write in the most recent edition of Regulation magazine, which is published by the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank. "The increased award of benefits is a direct result of expanded legislation, finding its roots within expanded entitlement criteria."

Judges Wolfe and Glendening also point out that in 1971 one out of every five persons applying for disability benefits was represented by an attorney. Today that figure has quadrupled—and if you don't have a lawyer there are numerous websites like DisabilitySecrets.com which provide "information, tips, and advice to help you win your social security disability claim."

And those are just the aboveground industries devoted to fleecing the taxpayers. Thanks to the government's lax standards and lethargic enforcement, the U.S. is now home to a burgeoning black market devoted to entitlement fraud. If you have a recent photo, fake name, fake date of birth and a few hundred dollars in cash, you too can obtain a false Social Security number and start supplementing your income at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.

How much fraud is out there? It is hard to say as estimates vary, but according to the Government Accountability Office, $10.7 billion in overpayments were made by the SSA to disability recipients between 2004 and 2008. That's a sizable figure to be sure, but it's nothing compared with the costs associated with government's expanded "disability" definitions.

Consider this: If the growth in America's "disability" pool had been confined to the same level as the growth in our working-age population over the last 40 years, the annual cost of this program would now total roughly $60 billion—not $125 billion.

Sadly, our government has shown no appetite for reforming eligibility with regard to any of its entitlement programs—and shown only limited appetite for catching fraud within these unsustainable behemoths.


Mr. Rich is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  4  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2012 08:11 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

700 billion is not nothing. It would pay for Ryan's proposed cuts to student loans and foodstamps with change left over.

Try less than $50 billion over ten years. I don't know where you're getting the $700 billion figure from.


That's the one that was floating around last fall when they originally proposed it. Estimates are all over the place.

Quote:
You, like the President and Axelrod, are neglecting to add that while Ryan proposes cutting tax rates, he also proposes eliminating loophole deductions

But that's not in his plan. He says that's what he proposes but it's not in writing. You taking him on faith?

Quote:
-- Just like Simpson-Bowles. A fair criticism is that he doesn't specify which deductions he proposes to eliminate and is leaving that to Ways & Means, but he is not simply cutting taxes for wealthy people.


Well that is my criticism. You can only measure what is actually on the table. So, until we see what deductions he will eliminate we can't make any assumptions about the cost of the tax cut. I imagine if Democrats proposed a tax increase but proposed to make some unspecific cuts to programs and pay off the debt, the details of which would be worked out by someone else, you would be equally dismissive of the vague and unspecified and likely never to come to be proposals.

Quote:
I may have missed your response to my suggestion for what Obama should do, given the fact that he unfairly paid a lower tax rate than his secretary.

You didn't miss it. I don't actually care about that all. It's on par with me wanting my elected officials to pee in a cup now that they are ordering welfare recipients to do so. It would put their money where their mouths are but nobody actually expects them to do that.

0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2013 02:10 pm

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/206065_524436017576794_1888064503_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/23/2021 at 11:00:25