You telling me Hamas doesn't accurately represent the sentiments of the American left? Naive little egghead you are. Your last paragraph is a very interesting study in political doublespeak. What are you trying to say, in English?
I'm saying there's a big difference between a cartoonist or two drawing something distasteful and an entire political party incorporating thinly veiled racism into their talking points. You might have called Condi stupid or incompetent (which she isn't), but the GOP is pushing that narrative out as a talking point, and when the GOP has a talking point, boy, does it get repeated. Verbatim. And often without thought. Even if it's coming from the far-far-right of the party. It doesn't matter if - as ollie said - there are black members of the Republican party (which is the political equivalent of "Some of my best friends are black!"), these talking points are phrased the way they are for a reason.
This is pretty much why the Republicans had their clocks cleaned in this election. When they make the argument for free market democracy as a positive force in the lives of all Americans, something Jack Kemp and Reagan were very good at they did very well. The anger over Obama made their message all about us vs. them and when the us isn't in the majority it's not a winning message. Personally I was very unhappy that the White House choose to blame the killings of Americans on what was essentially free speech. I could get into the Bengazi situation in depth but the reality is the Republican anger at this situation isn't based on policy differences. The Republicans supported the toppling of the government of Libya would have done it without Congressional approval just like the President and would have gotten our diplomats killed just like the adminstration did by putting diplomats in undefendable positions. The White House screwed up in the lame way they politiacally handled the end result but the reality is what is the difference in the Republican policy? None so they should just STFU.
Found this funny but Mitt Romney is officially the party of the 47% http://news.yahoo.com/irony-alert-mitt-romneys-final-vote-tally-nears-101000083--election.html .The defeated GOP candidate famously disparaged Obama as the candidate of the 47 percent. Now, liberals gleefully view Mitt's final tally as poetic justice Liberal schadenfreude is about to reach overdose levels. Just when you thought the dead horse of Mitt Romney's campaign had been beaten more than enough — and most savagely by members of his own party — Dave Wasserman at Cook Political Report projects that the final count of the popular vote, which is still ongoing, will show Romney winning 47 percent of the electorate. In addition to proving that Obama handily won the popular vote, the final tally makes Romney the official candidate of the 47 percent — a delicious irony, liberals say, given that Romney infamously claimed that Obama was the candidate of the 47 percent of Americans who "believe they are victims" and are "dependent on government." By all accounts, Romney's "47 percent" remarks constituted one of the greatest self-inflicted wounds from a candidate who had no shortage of them. "The quote didn't, on its own, kill Romney's chances," says John Flowers at MSNBC. "But for many voters, it unmistakably conveyed the worldview of a man unable to see that a member of the middle class or the working poor might be just as hard-working, just as determined, as someone from his own privileged demographic." The fact that Romney made his "47 percent" remarks at a private fundraiser, unaware that he was being filmed surreptitiously, only bolstered the impression that these were his real views, as well as the views of his party. After a "campaign of unprecedented dishonesty and lack of transparency," says Greg Sargent at The Washington Post, "Romney himself unmasked his own apparent beliefs and the broader ideological implications of the larger GOP agenda and the ideas driving it." Losing presidential candidates always get piled on, but Romney appears to be getting hammered more than most, with unflattering images circulating on the internet of the entourage-less Romney pumping his own gas. Perhaps he would have won a little more sympathy if he hadn't doubled down on his "47 percent" comments a few days after the election. "In a post-election phone call, he regaled his biggest contributors, the fattest of cats, with the notion that Barack Obama won the election by giving 'gifts' to minorities and women," says Joe Klein at TIME. "Has there ever been a less gracious presidential loser than Mitt Romney?"
Soon to be the 45%, then the 43%, etc. You have to build coalitions to win in American politics. The Democrats have built those coalitions, albeit not all that smartly, as a rule of their existence over the last 80 years. The Republicans built a great coalition from the early 80's to the late 90's and then briefly revived it from 2002 to 2004 but then they just let it slip away again. In the wake of the election losses this year they seem to be primarily arguing about which parts of the remaining coalition to sacrifice moving forward. It's just not even a remotely sustainable formula at this point. Why let the idiots step forward and peel even more voters from your coalition when all the trends say you are losing long-term anyway?
http://news.yahoo.com/republican-op...-173633955.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CWJGsBQXDAAZ_bQtDMD Can we just get rid of these people? Rejecting something that makes the rest of the world to reach our standard, and is unenforceable. F***ing morons.
Speak the truth. That's all it really takes. Rex could get elected tomorrow. McLame refused to do it, and Romney danced around it, which left them playing on the other guys field.
Looks like everyone that disagrees with you is not worthy of discussion, that or your a joke of a troll.
Nope. I have disagreed with people on this forum plenty. But I will not waste my time interacting with people who routinely put words in my mouth or change their argument around because they are more interested in winning an e-argument than they are having a discussion.
Been watching the dog and pony shows about the fiscal cliff on Cspan and u really have to sift thru the company lines being thrown out there. It does appear that there is a predominant lean towards the revenue side (higher marginal rates, lower deductions) compared with the spending side. IMO the current agenda of the pres and administration is to tax those darksiders that make too much money, regardless of the adverse effects this may incite in the coming months years. They are definitely playing the social ladder here and creating an atmosphere of scorn and disgust. I do agree on higher taxes but not at the current 250k latitude. This needs to be higher - at least 500k or one mil. I guess the administration is afraid to capture those rich folks on Wall Street and Hollywood. Economic data has been subpar - regardless of the sub 8 employment number. If u clamp down on the upper middle class they are going to clamp down themselves and household spending will shrink - especially in the big suburb areas where u can easily find a couple together earning north of 300k - and not living it up, despite what gets advertised in the media. I chuckle at the company line that its necessary to go back to the Clinton era tax rates. How ignorant is that! Someone needs to inform those geniuses what property taxes, college costs, insurance costs, fuel, and other necessary costs were during those times. They were a lot cheaper so many people absorbed those Clinton tax rates much easier. Household expenses are much higher so going to the Clinton tax levels will just tighten the noose that much more.
Depends on where you live. If you live in or around NYC, San Fran, Boston, or some other big metropolitan area, 250K/year is easily in the "middle class" range for a family of four. I mean, I doubt anyone is worried about putting food on the table at that level of income, but it's not living it up. Between saving for college and retirement, it's not like there's a ton of extra money to toss around. I think there's a lack of consideration for what inflation has done, too, both in conversations about stagnating wages and also in tax rate increases. In the year I was born (1976), a six-figure salary was a big deal. That's the equivalent of making close to $400K/year today. Or to look at it from the other side, making a six figure salary today is equivalent to making $25K/year back then.
So, under the sub-heading of "tax the rich," $250,000 a year is "rich"? Let's at least recognize that this has less to do with taxation as an income generator and more to do with taxation as an equalizer. A political point. Call it values, if you like. The parlance is the dead giveaway. During the campaign, there was barely any consistency in the taxable threshold, except that we needed to tax "millionaires and billionaires" to pay their "fair share." That begs two questions: First, who are the "millionaires and billionaires" we want to tax; and, second, what is "their fair share"? I suggest that the answer to both questions is about pure politics and not at all about economics. Because the policy doesn't match the rhetoric. When we cut through all the nonsense, we know with it's about lowering top-end income moreso than anything else.
The entire debate on the fiscal cliff is being dominated by the purists on both sides of the argument. This means that the best possible outcome on the fiscal cliff, which would be a messy deal that addressed entitlements and revenue in a realistic fashion, is also about the only solution that we won't see. We'll get marginal rate increases on 250k+ and a whole bunch of junk that never actually happens due to the political impossibility of giving way on a core issue when crunch time comes. It's just a joke at this point. Why the fuck couldn't Boehner take a victory that worked for all of us last summer when Obama capitulated? Assholes, that's why.
I would say it depends more on what the goal is. If it really is oh so important to get the deficit under control RIGHT NOW while minimizing the impact to GDP overall, then it makes more sense to tax income that is highly concentrated in the upper levels. As for your other question about what is a "fair share," I would argue that it means at least paying taxes on an equivalent marginal rate to those in the lower two quintiles. I'm not sure I really care how that is enforced, but that seems more "fair" to me, given that discretionary income is (relatively) non-existent for 50% of the country ($45K median income).
