+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Last night's GOP speechifications (/showthread.php?tid=61419)
Pages:
1
2
Last night's GOP speechifications - Lux Interior - 09-04-2008
So I'm reading some excerpts here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/rnc.day/index.html
and getting towards the bottom of the article, I read these:
The fact is, most Americans don't want more government; they want a lot less
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney blasted "liberal Washington," saying McCain is a "prescription for every American who wants change in Washington."
"Throw out the big-government liberals and elect John McCain," Romney said. "We need change, all right: change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington."
He also threw his support behind Palin, saying the McCain-Palin ticket "will keep America as it has always been: the hope of the world."
And now I'm really confused! We need to change America to keep it the same?
Hasn't the GOP had the White House for the last 8 years? And the 20 of the last 28 years? Didn't we have a GOP house/senate for 6 of the last eight years?
If so, then what Huckabee, Romney and Guiliani are saying is, that the GOP is a bunch of big-government liberals, and that we should throw them out and replace them with themselves!
I guess they are just making this a practice run for when they are running against a Democrat incumbent in 2012.
Re: Last night's GOP speechifications - bazookaman - 09-04-2008
were they handing these out last night?
Re: Last night's GOP speechifications - mikeylikesit - 09-04-2008
Does anyone who actually works for a living have enough idle time to tune in to any of these speeches from either side. If they have any spare time at all, why would they spend it they spend it listening to lies?
Re: Last night's GOP speechifications - Ted King - 09-04-2008
Reform and change? This from the party that had nearly total control of the government for 6 years and proceeded to make considerably worse the very things they now say needs reform. Blech! It is true that McCain was talking about reform during those years but what did he get done. Essentially nothing. And what were his two big issues in terms of reform - reducing influence of lobbyists and cutting back or getting rid of earmarks. Pretty good ideas. Unfortunately, his rhetoric doesn't match his actions. His campaign was riddled with people who were working as lobbyists at the same time they were working for him till they got caught at it. And his running mate - far from her protestations of being against the "bridge to nowhere" earmark (biggest earmark boondoggle of all) was actually for it and now lies about, and was very good at getting earmark money from congress even as a mayor of her small city. Blech!
I heard people say they didn't get enough specifics from Obama about what he would do. I wonder what their impression is so far of the Republicans not mentioning or hardly talking about the economy and what they'll do, or health care, or education. Oh, that's right they'll drill for oil everywhere! That'll make it all better. Blech!
Re: Last night's GOP speechifications - guitarist - 09-04-2008
Lux, what a brilliant insight! That was so profound, I bet it changes the way a lot of people think about the important issues of the day! Just kidding. Sorry to see you're confused. I think I am, too.
The press covers these conventions as if it's a sporting event, or Hollywood popularity contest. It's like they're covering the Super Bowl.
Dems have had control of the House and Senate throughout pretty much all of the second half of the 20th Century, into the 21st, with a brief interruption, and currently have the majority in both houses. Senate, Congress, and the White House can all celebrate, they enjoy the lowest approval ratings in history. Big government Republicans are hard to distinguish from big government Democrats, they all talk a good game, but spend money with equal recklessness, and misgovern with equal disregard. There's plenty of credit for failure to go around.
Aside from his unique identity, Obama's agenda doesn't represent 'change' anymore than his opponent's does, his policies are rooted in Democratic party tradition, just as McCain's policies are rooted in Republican party tradition. Nothing new here on either side. But hey, we can change teams, and pretend one side is better than the other. It's tradition!
Re: Last night's GOP speechifications - maco - 09-04-2008
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin.html
The Truth on Taxes (Again)
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who was in the race himself earlier this year, banged the now-familiar tax drum in his denunciation of Obama when he said, "You don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history."
Thompson at convention We've been here before (repeatedly), but we're happy to reiterate: What Obama is proposing is indeed a substantial tax increase for some, but not for most. Overall, Obama says he would raise income, capital gains and dividend taxes only for taxpayers with family income above $250,000 or singles making more than $200,000. He would also raise corporate taxes through selective “loophole closings.”
For most taxpayers rates would go down. The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has described his plan this way:
Tax Policy Center: The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers. ... By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase — a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.
It’s true that Obama’s tax proposals overall would raise federal revenues by $627 billion over 10 years. Is that “one of the largest tax increases in American history” as Thompson claimed? And would it be a drag on the economy as he says?
When it comes to assessing the effect that a tax change will have on the economy, the single most relevant figure is the size of the increase or cut in relation to the size of the overall economy. And by that yardstick, Obama’s increase is hardly a history-maker. The largest was the 1942 increase enacted as the U.S. plunged into World War II, and it amounted to 5.2 percent of the entire economy in its first year.
President Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase, which Republicans regularly and misleadingly call the largest in history, was actually about one-tenth as large, amounting to 0.5 percent of the economy over its first two years. The TPC calculates that Obama’s overall tax increase, as described by his aides and on his Web site, would be roughly 0.1 percent in its first year, and 0.3 percent on average over 10 years, compared with what people are paying now.
And how would that affect the economy? Not much. The TPC says, “Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.” The tax plans of both Obama and McCain would leave the federal government wallowing in huge deficits for years to come, and compared with the economic drag created by deficit spending, the effects of either man’s tax plan is negligible.
Re: Last night's GOP speechifications - Lux Interior - 09-04-2008
Really, "pretty much all"?
I think 1994-2006, 12 of the last 14 years is a tad more than nothing, which is the opposite of "pretty much all".
Re: Last night's GOP speechifications - guitarist - 09-04-2008
I'm curious about how the current campaign rhetoric can claim they'll reduce Federal taxes for 95% of the people, when almost half of us (38-40%) pay no Federal taxes in the first place.
How can they give a tax break to someone who didn't pay tax? I've had years where I've earned a lot, and paid a lot of taxes, and I've also had years where my income is so low, or because of deductions and exceptions, I've not paid any Federal taxes. None. Does that mean we would get a kickback anyway? Would this new tax plan call for taking some money away from rich people, and giving it to you and me? Even if I paid no tax? That sounds kinda cool, I can support that!
Increasing taxes, and increasing tax revenue aren't the same thing. If the goal is to increase tax revenue, which method works best? Both of the opposing methods have their advocates. Both sides are equally dishonest about which works best, distorting the statistics to demonstrate that their side is right and the other side is wrong. (and both sides equally abuse and misspend the taxes they collect, and blame each other, but that's another story)
If one method of collecting more tax money is by increasing the percentage paid by taxpayers--primarily the group that pays most tax already, high-income earners--and the other method calls for lowering the percentage of taxation, primarily on the high-earning bracket, claiming this will stimulate more tax revenue by increasing the size of the economy, which method a voter supports often depends on which bracket they're in.
"I'm not a Democrat because I love poor people, I'm a Democrat because I hate rich people"
Re: Last night's GOP speechifications - karsen - 09-04-2008
Well said guitarist.
Re: Last night's GOP speechifications - Lux Interior - 09-04-2008
[quote guitarist]
I'm not a Democrat because I love poor people, I'm a Democrat because I hate rich people
Who said that? If it's true, then a lot of Democrats hate themselves, which is probably true, but not for that reason.
That fallacy is great for the Republicans. They like to use it to call rich Democrats hypocrites (limousine liberals). As if they are clergy and took some poverty oath.