PDA

View Full Version : Steele to punish GOP defections?



ari1013
02-24-2009, 04:53 PM
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/steeles-idle-threat.html

I tend to agree with Nate that it would be very good news for the Dems if Steele pushes them too hard.

While the three of them would be 3 of the 4 most conservative Dems (Nelson is currently more conservative than them), I'm sure they'd be a welcome addition to the caucus. Heck, a defection would probably land them a chairmanship in 2010.

And if they don't defect -- but do get knocked out in the primaries, then that'll pretty mark the end of the GOP in the entire Northeast (since it looks like Gregg is definitely stepping down). Aside from Castle (DE) and King (NY), there won't be any significant GOP members in either chamber from any of the 10 states between Maryland and Maine.

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 05:13 PM
Wow, a Republican Lieberman revolution. And, in a state like Maine, it might behoove them more to consider turning indy.

No, I don't think Steele is doing any favors among his Northeastern Republicans.

cabernetluver
02-24-2009, 06:06 PM
Go Steele Go ..... Go Steele Go :D

behindmydesk
02-24-2009, 06:10 PM
Can I keep the GOP and give away Steele.

News flash I still hate Steele

behindmydesk
02-24-2009, 06:10 PM
Although I do like this a bit. Stand tall

ari1013
02-24-2009, 06:41 PM
Although I do like this a bit. Stand tall
The GOP has to realize what the Dems realized under Dean. If you want to win big, you're going to have to make some sacrifices to move to the center in some parts of the country. A Utah/Idaho ideology in the Northeast just won't work. Similarly, a Northeast ideology in the mountain states just won't work either.

But the more the GOP pushes to the right the smaller and tighter their coalition will become. Sure they'll become a 100% solid bloc of votes. But is it worth dropping to 160 seats in the House and 35 seats in the Senate?

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 07:29 PM
The GOP has to realize what the Dems realized under Dean. If you want to win big, you're going to have to make some sacrifices to move to the center in some parts of the country. A Utah/Idaho ideology in the Northeast just won't work. Similarly, a Northeast ideology in the mountain states just won't work either.

But the more the GOP pushes to the right the smaller and tighter their coalition will become. Sure they'll become a 100% solid bloc of votes. But is it worth dropping to 160 seats in the House and 35 seats in the Senate?

The Dems didn't win big because of moving to the center, in fact I can't think of anything of signifigance they moved to the center on.

cabernetluver
02-24-2009, 07:31 PM
The Dems didn't win big because of moving to the center, in fact I can't think of anything of signifigance they moved to the center on.

I realize that you really mean what you said, so with trepidation I suggest to you, the reason you can't is that you are standing so far to the right, center looks like left.

ari1013
02-24-2009, 07:33 PM
The Dems didn't win big because of moving to the center, in fact I can't think of anything of signifigance they moved to the center on.
It's not the party on the whole that needs to move. It's that they need to allow their members to do so individually. The whole concept of a "Blue Dog Caucus" didn't exist until 2006 when the Dems began bringing in more conservative Democrats under their wing. There are a number of pro-life and pro-gum Dems that have won over the last two cycles. If Northeast-style Dems had run in those races, the seats would still be Republican.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 07:34 PM
I realize that you really mean what you said, so with trepidation I suggest to you, the reason you can't is that you are standing so far to the right, center looks like left.

No, I actually am farther to the center than you most likely. I am more liberal on some social issues, but fiscally I am conservative.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 07:36 PM
It's not the party on the whole that needs to move. It's that they need to allow their members to do so individually. The whole concept of a "Blue Dog Caucus" didn't exist until 2006 when the Dems began bringing in more conservative Democrats under their wing. There are a number of pro-life and pro-gum Dems that have won over the last two cycles. If Northeast-style Dems had run in those races, the seats would still be Republican.

I assume you meant gun, but either way we already have guys like Schwarzenagger and Guilianni hopefully getting ready to run for Senate in 2010 that fit that mold. The problem is we don't need a complete shift in policy, if anything our shift in policy lost us those seats.

cabernetluver
02-24-2009, 07:37 PM
No, I actually am farther to the center than you most likely. I am more liberal on some social issues, but fiscally I am conservative.

Well you fooled me. So, tell me, what are your "liberal" social positions, just so I can feel corrected.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 07:40 PM
Well you fooled me. So, tell me, what are your "liberal" social positions, just so I can feel corrected.

I tend to be more pro choice being as I am not a woman so I don't technically feel like I should be able to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. But I don't need to prove myself to you.

ari1013
02-24-2009, 07:41 PM
I assume you meant gun, but either way we already have guys like Schwarzenagger and Guilianni hopefully getting ready to run for Senate in 2010 that fit that mold. The problem is we don't need a complete shift in policy, if anything our shift in policy lost us those seats.
LOL yeah guns. Heh maybe the Wrigley lobby is taking over DC :)

Sure. Rudy and Arnie are perfect examples. I don't think Rudy's going to stand a chance against Gillibrand because she's an upstater so a lot of those moderate upstate votes that generally go to the GOP candidate are going to stay with her. And secondly she's a Dem so downstate will stay with her. But you've got the right idea.

Now compare that with what Steele wants to do. Steele wants to dump the moderates in favor of hardcore righties. Do you honestly believe that in Maine and Pennsylvania someone to the right of Snowe, Collins, or Specter really has a chance?

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 07:42 PM
I tend to be more pro choice being as I am not a woman so I don't technically feel like I should be able to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. But I don't need to prove myself to you.

Thank you.

But, back to another point. The Dems did move to the middle -- it's how they managed to take places like Virginia (Jim Webb). I mean, Dean actively recruited middle of the road pols to join the party, and Webb is a perfect example. The man was Reagan's Sec. of the Navy.

cabernetluver
02-24-2009, 07:46 PM
I tend to be more pro choice being as I am not a woman so I don't technically feel like I should be able to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. But I don't need to prove myself to you.

Gee, that kind of proves my point. By all national polling, that is not a liberal position, it is a moderate position. On the other hand, you are absolutely correct, you do not have to prove yourself to me, but as we will be saying about the Cubs this season......swing and a miss.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 07:56 PM
LOL yeah guns. Heh maybe the Wrigley lobby is taking over DC

Sure. Rudy and Arnie are perfect examples. I don't think Rudy's going to stand a chance against Gillibrand because she's an upstater so a lot of those moderate upstate votes that generally go to the GOP candidate are going to stay with her. And secondly she's a Dem so downstate will stay with her. But you've got the right idea.

Now compare that with what Steele wants to do. Steele wants to dump the moderates in favor of hardcore righties. Do you honestly believe that in Maine and Pennsylvania someone to the right of Snowe, Collins, or Specter really has a chance?

It really all depends on how the next 2 years go ari, if the stimulus isn't working, a shift back to the right might sit well with a lot of people. It's too early to even look at the 2010 Senate races, we don't know what can or will happen to the demographics.


Gee, that kind of proves my point. By all national polling, that is not a liberal position, it is a moderate position. On the other hand, you are absolutely correct, you do not have to prove yourself to me, but as we will be saying about the Cubs this season......swing and a miss.

So by that then if you have a pro life Democrat are they a moderate Democrat. That shift in philosophy towards abortion makes no sense. And in swing and miss in referring to how many times you struck out with the ladies, sure I can buy that, but we'll see about the Cubs.


But, back to another point. The Dems did move to the middle -- it's how they managed to take places like Virginia (Jim Webb). I mean, Dean actively recruited middle of the road pols to join the party, and Webb is a perfect example. The man was Reagan's Sec. of the Navy.

Again that's debateable, while it makes an interesting point, we don't know what chance other candidates farther left would have had. Bush was a very unpopular president, my opinion is that played into the Democrats gains more than Howard Dean did.

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 07:59 PM
CR -- you make it sound as though the GOP is the party that rules the country. And, only when they fail (in elections) does the Democratic Party succeed.

cabernetluver
02-24-2009, 08:01 PM
So by that then if you have a pro life Democrat are they a moderate Democrat. That shift in philosophy towards abortion makes no sense. And in swing and miss in referring to how many times you struck out with the ladies, sure I can buy that, but we'll see about the Cubs.


Actually you failed to read what I wrote. I wrote that pro choice is a moderate position according to all of the polling. So, a pro life Democrat would be a Democrat with a conservative postion. Once again you proved my point, thank you.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:04 PM
CR -- you make it sound as though the GOP is the party that rules the country. And, only when they fail (in elections) does the Democratic Party succeed.

I don't think we rule the country, I think our philosophy resonates with voters a little better, and it's hard to stay on message when you have the head of your party, in this case W., consistently criticized.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:07 PM
Actually you failed to read what I wrote. I wrote that pro choice is a moderate position according to all of the polling. So, a pro life Democrat would be a Democrat with a conservative postion. Once again you proved my point, thank you.

I didn't fail to read anything, I have a hard time believing that a pro choice conservative is considered a moderate but a pro life liberal is considered a Democrat with a conservative view.

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 08:07 PM
I don't think we rule the country, I think our philosophy resonates with voters a little better, and it's hard to stay on message when you have the head of your party, in this case W., consistently criticized.

How can you say that when your party just got dominated in the last two electoral cycles? W. be damned -- the Republican party has regionalized ... and you can't blame that all on Bush.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:07 PM
How can you say that when your party just got dominated in the last two electoral cycles?

Like I said, Bush's unpopularity.

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 08:09 PM
Bush's unpopularity did not force the Republicans into a regional stance.

cabernetluver
02-24-2009, 08:11 PM
I didn't fail to read anything, I have a hard time believing that a pro choice conservative is considered a moderate but a pro life liberal is considered a Democrat with a conservative view.

Once again you wiggle the conversation. You stated that you have liberal social views. I stated that you were so far to the right, the moderate looks liberal to you. I asked you to educate me as to a liberal social view you had and you came up with pro choice. I stated that was a moderate view, and once again I thank you for making my point for me. Strike two.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:12 PM
Bush's unpopularity did not force the Republicans into a regional stance.

No, but it gave Democrat's a platform, the last two election cycles I heard Bush's name from Democrat's more than I did McCain's or the person running for the House or Senate. It was all about how much this person backed policies supported by Bush.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:15 PM
Once again you wiggle the conversation. You stated that you have liberal social views. I stated that you were so far to the right, the moderate looks liberal to you.

The moderate in your opinion. Considering most liberals and conservatives view pro choice as a liberal stance I think I can safely say it's a liberal social view.


I asked you to educate me as to a liberal social view you had and you came up with pro choice. I stated that was a moderate view, and once again I thank you for making my point for me. Strike two.

Key word you stated as in it's your opinion. You failed.

cabernetluver
02-24-2009, 08:18 PM
The moderate in your opinion. Considering most liberals and conservatives view pro choice as a liberal stance I think I can safely say it's a liberal social view.



Key word you stated as in it's your opinion. You failed.

Strike three. I stated earlier in this thread that polling shows it to be a moderate view. I never said it was my opinion. And btw, polling does not show universal agreement among conservatives on social causes. It only shows that agreement among the part of conservatism that is socially conservative.

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 08:18 PM
No, but it gave Democrat's a platform, the last two election cycles I heard Bush's name from Democrat's more than I did McCain's or the person running for the House or Senate. It was all about how much this person backed policies supported by Bush.

You go with what works -- that's simple. Talking about Bush policy resonated with the voting populace. But, even with that, you can't assume that the GOP message is grasped better by voters than the Democratic message. The GOP was in lock step with the White House up until 2006 before the ceiling started to crumble. Hell, McCain campaigned in the primary on the fact that he voted with Bush more than his counterparts! It's not as though it was solely a Democratic attack tactic

If the GOP is performing on a certain message -- that's their message. It fell out of favor with voters, and they lost seats everywhere. It's really that simple.

This is not a right-of-center nation and the Republicans don't hold the upper hand at all times. This is not a Republican only nation. I mean, registered Democrats out number registered Republicans nationwide -- and that's very telling right there.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:26 PM
You go with what works -- that's simple. Talking about Bush policy resonated with the voting populace.

Thus making it harder for the GOP to stay on message.


But, even with that, you can't assume that the GOP message is grasped better by voters than the Democratic message.

Sure I can, we've been in the White House 24 of the last 32 years.


The GOP was in lock step with the White House up until 2006 before the ceiling started to crumble. Hell, McCain campaigned in the primary on the fact that he voted with Bush more than his counterparts! It's not as though it was solely a Democratic attack tactic

Democrats used it to their advantage, and McCain's campaign was poorly run.


If the GOP is performing on a certain message -- that's their message. It fell out of favor with voters, and they lost seats everywhere. It's really that simple.

Again because of Bush's unpopularity, people concluded that the problem's within the country were his fault, it's part of being president, if Obama falls out of favor, so will the Democratic Party.


This is not a right-of-center nation and the Republicans don't hold the upper hand at all times. This is not a Republican only nation. I mean, registered Democrats out number registered Republicans nationwide -- and that's very telling right there.

Who said it was, I just said our message seems to resonate with voters a little better. Yeah it tells me people hated Bush, what else is new.

cabernetluver
02-24-2009, 08:28 PM
Thus making it harder for the GOP to stay on message.



Sure I can, we've been in the White House 24 of the last 32 years.



Democrats used it to their advantage, and McCain's campaign was poorly run.



Again because of Bush's unpopularity, people concluded that the problem's within the country were his fault, it's part of being president, if Obama falls out of favor, so will the Democratic Party.



Who said it was, I just said our message seems to resonate with voters a little better. Yeah it tells me people hated Bush, what else is new.

And they say we Democrats blame everything on Bush. You could give us lessons.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:28 PM
Strike three. I stated earlier in this thread that polling shows it to be a moderate view. I never said it was my opinion. And btw, polling does not show universal agreement among conservatives on social causes. It only shows that agreement among the part of conservatism that is socially conservative.

Sure you stated it, but I have looked and can't find it. Maybe it's just me but I find it funny that the liberal view of abortion is moderate but the conservative view is conservative. It might make me a somewhat moderate conservative, but it's not a moderate position.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:30 PM
And they say we Democrats blame everything on Bush. You could give us lessons.

You do, hell I just saw Clinton the other day talk about how the whole mess right now is completely Bush's fault. Forget the fact that guys like Frank and other Dems in Congress let Fannie and Freddie give out horrible loans that were never gonna be paid back, thus helping lead to the housing crisis.

cabernetluver
02-24-2009, 08:32 PM
Sure you stated it, but I have looked and can't find it. Maybe it's just me but I find it funny that the liberal view of abortion is moderate but the conservative view is conservative. It might make me a somewhat moderate conservative, but it's not a moderate position.

You can't find me stating that polls say that pro choice is moderate, or you can't find the polling? If it is the former, then I think it is post number 16, if it is the latter, than how many do I have to show you, and if over 2/3 of the public think it should be approved, or approved with limitations,would you accept that it is a moderate postion, or does a 2/3 majority, or more in some polls not satisfy your definitions.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:39 PM
You can't find me stating that polls say that pro choice is moderate, or you can't find the polling? If it is the former, then I think it is post number 16, if it is the latter, than how many do I have to show you, and if over 2/3 of the public think it should be approved, or approved with limitations,would you accept that it is a moderate postion, or does a 2/3 majority, or more in some polls not satisfy your definitions.

I am yet to see any polling that suggests that, so please show me, cause when I read the views of guys like Specter and they refer to him as a conservative with liberal views on abortion, it does make me question you.

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 08:43 PM
Thus making it harder for the GOP to stay on message.

Sure I can, we've been in the White House 24 of the last 32 years.

Democrats used it to their advantage, and McCain's campaign was poorly run.

Again because of Bush's unpopularity, people concluded that the problem's within the country were his fault, it's part of being president, if Obama falls out of favor, so will the Democratic Party.

Who said it was, I just said our message seems to resonate with voters a little better. Yeah it tells me people hated Bush, what else is new.

That's just crap, I'm sorry.

The GOP lost because their message didn't resonate with voters. Bush cannot take the blame for that -- the GOP and the RNC can.

But, what you're doing is dismissing the successes of the Democratic Party and Howard Dean as pure Republican failures. We're in the White House and we hold a near super-majority in the Senate, not to mention a tremendous lead in the House.

You're so Republican-centric that you can't even begin to establish a belief that the Democratic Party holds sway over public opinion because you want to chalk it up to a GOP disconnection on behalf of Bush. That's just completely absurd.

The GOP is moving themselves towards the right edge of the left-right spectrum while the Democratic Party rides the middle.

cabernetluver
02-24-2009, 08:49 PM
I am yet to see any polling that suggests that, so please show me, cause when I read the views of guys like Specter and they refer to him as a conservative with liberal views on abortion, it does make me question you.

Then you have never ever looked. I know from previous posts you have looked at Wikipedia, you would see the polling. In as much as the pro-life position says abortion should not be legal, period.... with a few peeling off if the life of the mother is at risk, and the pro choice position is really kind of squishy, from any time to down to first trimester, down to only for life and health of mother, rape and incest, look it up yourself.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:50 PM
That's just crap, I'm sorry.

The GOP lost because their message didn't resonate with voters. Bush cannot take the blame for that -- the GOP and the RNC can.

We didn't lose because of our message we lost and Democrats won because Bush was so unpopular. Do you honestly think if Bush had a 60% approval rating the Dems would have done as well.


But, what you're doing is dismissing the successes of the Democratic Party and Howard Dean as pure Republican failures.

But would they have had those successes if Bush was popular?


We're in the White House and we hold a near super-majority in the Senate, not to mention a tremendous lead in the House.

When the party in the White House is unpopular, what do you expect.


You're so Republican-centric that you can't even begin to establish a belief that the Democratic Party holds sway over public opinion because you want to chalk it up to a GOP disconnection on behalf of Bush. That's just completely absurd.

No it's not, it's absurd that Democrats think they did this great job because of their ideas. They got where they are because Bush was unpopular, I would be more inclined to think their views got them where they are if Bush was popular, but we know that's not the case.


The GOP is moving themselves towards the right edge of the left-right spectrum while the Democratic Party rides the middle.

They don't ride the middle, Reid and Pelosi attest to that.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:51 PM
Then you have never ever looked. I know from previous posts you have looked at Wikipedia, you would see the polling. In as much as the pro-life position says abortion should not be legal, period.... with a few peeling off if the life of the mother is at risk, and the pro choice position is really kind of squishy, from any time to down to first trimester, down to only for life and health of mother, rape and incest, look it up yourself.

I read what I posted on Specter and others off Wikipedia. I can't find that pro choice is a moderate view.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:52 PM
But I found this.

From Wiki


With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?" A CNN poll found 45% said pro-choice and 50% said pro-life. Within the following week, a Gallup poll found 49% responding pro-choice and 45% pro-life.

cabernetluver
02-24-2009, 08:54 PM
Look up polling on abortion rights, click on wiki and then tell me what you find?

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 08:57 PM
Look up pooing on abortion rights, click on wiki and then tell me what you find?

I typed it into google and didn't find it and typed into wiki and didn't find it, either way I gotta go, I'll respond later, post it if you find it, but CNN and Gallop disagree with you.

cabernetluver
02-24-2009, 08:59 PM
Hey Cubs, just curious, if you were in your car, driving north, came to an intersection that you wanted to go east, would you cross the street, and make three right turns to avoid making a left turn? Just curious. I really hope the GOP thinks just like you. We will occupy the center and be the presidential party for the next 40 years if it does.

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 09:04 PM
We didn't lose because of our message we lost and Democrats won because Bush was so unpopular. Do you honestly think if Bush had a 60% approval rating the Dems would have done as well.

But would they have had those successes if Bush was popular?

When the party in the White House is unpopular, what do you expect.

No it's not, it's absurd that Democrats think they did this great job because of their ideas. They got where they are because Bush was unpopular, I would be more inclined to think their views got them where they are if Bush was popular, but we know that's not the case.

They don't ride the middle, Reid and Pelosi attest to that.

Follow me ...

Bush was unpopular because his ideas didn't resonate. They were ideas that the GOP backed up for the majority of his presidency. That is the GOP message. And it didn't sit with the voters.

The Democratic Party had a better message, they were better organized, and the voters went with them. The Democrats won because they were the party with the better message.

And, if you want to look at party preference -- look at the congressional breakdown of party affiliation over the past half-century plus. See how much the Democratic Party has held the Senate and House since FDR and the emergence of post-WWII politics. The Democratic Party held majority in the Senate in 28 of the past 39 congresses, and in the House in 31 of the last 39.

Republican nation my ***.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 09:24 PM
Hey Cubs, just curious, if you were in your car, driving north, came to an intersection that you wanted to go east, would you cross the street, and make three right turns to avoid making a left turn? Just curious. I really hope the GOP thinks just like you. We will occupy the center and be the presidential party for the next 40 years if it does.

If I was driving North and came to an intersection and I wanted to go East I would just take a right. I don't have to cross the street. As for occupying the white house, we'll see, I think the stimulus was a big mistake, one because it wasn't completely thought out and two the money it's supposed to inject in the economy that they call tax cuts is no different than the stimulus checks we already got from Bush.

ari1013
02-24-2009, 09:26 PM
If I was driving North and came to an intersection and I wanted to go East I would just take a right. I don't have to cross the street. As for occupying the white house, we'll see, I think the stimulus was a big mistake, one because it wasn't completely thought out and two the money it's supposed to inject in the economy that they call tax cuts is no different than the stimulus checks we already got from Bush.
The stimulus checks were basically welfare checks. We each got handed a chunk of money and then were told to spend it.

A tax cut by contrast means the government takes away a smaller portion of your paycheck.

I'm getting tired of talking to a brick wall so I hope you finally get the point.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 09:29 PM
Follow me ...

Bush was unpopular because his ideas didn't resonate. They were ideas that the GOP backed up for the majority of his presidency. That is the GOP message. And it didn't sit with the voters.

No, I think the fact that he didn't do more to stop the liberal agenda that Democrats pushed once they controlled Congress in 2006 was his biggest downfall. It was essentially the same kiss of death that hurt Bush senior.


The Democratic Party had a better message, they were better organized, and the voters went with them. The Democrats won because they were the party with the better message.

Their message was were not the party of Bush.


And, if you want to look at party preference -- look at the congressional breakdown of party affiliation over the past half-century plus. See how much the Democratic Party has held the Senate and House since FDR and the emergence of post-WWII politics. The Democratic Party held majority in the Senate in 28 of the past 39 congresses, and in the House in 31 of the last 39.

Republican nation my ***.

Congress is elected on a state by state basis, therefore those in the House and Senate represent their state. Like I said the President represents the nation, and it's been a Republican 24 of the last 32 years.

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 09:36 PM
Congress is elected on a state by state basis, therefore those in the House and Senate represent their state. Like I said the President represents the nation, and it's been a Republican 24 of the last 32 years.

That is a completely idiotic and inane assessment!

So what if they're elected on a state by state basis?! Does that make them any less Republican or any less Democratic (based on party message)?

You want to go on national public sentiment? Fine -- Bush never should have been in office. He lost the popular! Therefore, we could potentially have an unbroken streak of Democratic presidents with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Barack Obama. Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid supporter of the electoral college -- but, if you want to talk about national sentiment ... there ya go. And, that's wholly believable.

God, first it doesn't matter that the Democrats took control of the White House and Congress because of Bush's faults simply because the GOP held the executive branch the majority of the time over the past blah blah years -- and now when the legislative branch is brought into play it doesn't matter because they're elected on a state by state basis.

You are a brick wall. Have a good night.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 09:37 PM
The stimulus checks were basically welfare checks. We each got handed a chunk of money and then were told to spend it.

A tax cut by contrast means the government takes away a smaller portion of your paycheck.

I'm getting tired of talking to a brick wall so I hope you finally get the point.

From the Washington Times


But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is "refundable," a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the U.S. Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers.

Those that are getting it aren't necassarily earning it.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 09:41 PM
That is a completely idiotic and inane assessment!

So what if they're elected on a state by state basis?! Does that make them any less Republican or any less Democratic (based on party message)?

The problem is they don't represent the nation, they represent their state.


You want to go on national public sentiment? Fine -- Bush never should have been in office. He lost the popular! Therefore, we could potentially have an unbroken streak of Democratic presidents with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Barack Obama.

That was an election you lost, if you have a problem with it, take it up with Congress.


Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid supporter of the electoral college -- but, if you want to talk about national sentiment ... there ya go. And, that's wholly believable.

Sure it is, the problem is that rarely happens.


God, first it doesn't matter that the Democrats took control of the White House and Congress because of Bush's faults simply because the GOP held the executive branch the majority of the time over the past blah blah years -- and now when the legislative branch is brought into play it doesn't matter because they're elected on a state by state basis.

It matters because a party is represented by the person who holds the highest power. For 8 years Bush represented the Republican party. For the next four years Obama represents the Democratic Party.


You are a brick wall. Have a good night.

A strong man that won't break :D

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 09:50 PM
There's a marked difference between strong and stubborn. I have yet to see you concede a point on anything, ever. You are either the most intelligent human on the face of the Earth or the most hard headed. And, I know which my money is on.

And, I just have to make this point because I didn't earlier when I had the chance.

States are representative of the whole. So, your argument doesn't hold water.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 09:52 PM
There's a marked difference between strong and stubborn. I have yet to see you concede a point on anything, ever. You are either the most intelligent human on the face of the Earth or the most hard headed. And, I know which my money is on.

And, I just have to make this point because I didn't earlier when I had the chance.

States are representative of the whole. So, your argument doesn't hold water.

I conceded your point on the electoral college. What have you conceded?

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 09:54 PM
There's a marked difference between strong and stubborn. I have yet to see you concede a point on anything, ever. You are either the most intelligent human on the face of the Earth or the most hard headed. And, I know which my money is on.

And, I just have to make this point because I didn't earlier when I had the chance.

States are representative of the whole. So, your argument doesn't hold water.

When they're all put together they represent Congress, but each individual is not elected by the nation.

ari1013
02-24-2009, 09:55 PM
From the Washington Times



Those that are getting it aren't necassarily earning it.
That's the EITC. You're now confusing yourself. You're combining two completely different portions here.

I can't really help you understand what's going on if you're not willing to learn the difference between a tax cut on payroll and the EITC.

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 09:57 PM
I conceded your point on the electoral college. What have you conceded?

What did you concede on the electoral college?

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 09:57 PM
When they're all put together they represent Congress, but each individual is not elected by the nation.

Therefore congress is representative of the whole -- and the whole has been Democratic the overwhelming majority of the time.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 09:58 PM
That's the EITC. You're now confusing yourself. You're combining two completely different portions here.

I can't really help you understand what's going on if you're not willing to learn the difference between a tax cut on payroll and the EITC.

The EITC as in the Earned Income Tax Credit. Isn't that what these supposed tax cuts are? People who get money even if they did not earn enough money to be obligated to file a tax return. My point is you can't call them tax cuts.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 10:00 PM
What did you concede on the electoral college?

You said the BUsh lost the popular and the Dems could have had a string of wins, I conceded that it could have happened if not for the electoral college.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 10:02 PM
Therefore congress is representative of the whole -- and the whole has been Democratic the overwhelming majority of the time.

Each member is a representative of each state, the President is the representative of the nation or the whole.

SmthBluCitrus
02-24-2009, 10:02 PM
You said the BUsh lost the popular and the Dems could have had a string of wins, I conceded that it could have happened if not for the electoral college.

That wasn't really a concession and you immediately attacked off that point by telling me to take it up with congress if I had a problem with it.

Look, I'm done with it. I don't want to take this any further.

Cubsrule
02-24-2009, 10:05 PM
That wasn't really a concession and you immediately attacked off that point by telling me to take it up with congress if I had a problem with it.

Look, I'm done with it. I don't want to take this any further.

Ok

Zep
02-25-2009, 10:17 AM
From the Washington Times


But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is "refundable," a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the U.S. Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers.

Link to this? I can't seem to find it.

Cubsrule
02-25-2009, 02:56 PM
Here (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/obama-tax-cut-refunds-those-who-dont-pay/)