News What will improve Republicans chances next time?

[russ_watters]

I don't see what old white males have to do with the question and since the voting age is 18, there couldn't possibly be much change in separating out 18 year olds. High school grads and college grads voted exactly the same way.

 

[russ_watters]

DH, RE postgrad: Yes, I see it.

...?

 

[Mentalist]

Change the leaders of the party. But then again, I would never vote republican because all they do is rehash the most grating ideas for the country, "lower taxes, re-position educational programs, and increased military spending".

 

[CAC1001]

You have to remember there was a recession at the end of the H.W. Bush's presidency. Recessions cause automatic stabilizers (unemployment, medicaid,etc) cost to go up. You need to unentangle the recession from the data to make ajudgement.

This is a good point.

 

[mathwonk]

I suspect Republicans would be a lot more believable on "lower taxes" arguments if they would agree that high earners like Romney should pay at the same tax rate as middle class families pay, not half. if everyone pays his share, it lowers taxes for a lot of people. without that I think it is hard to make a case that Republicans care about anyone but the wealthy.

E.g. Mr. Romney asserted a desire to close loopholes in the tax code. If he would begin a campaign now, to close the many loopholes that he himself took advantage of, such as off shore accounts, sham charitable trusts that seem designed to leave "little or nothing" for the designated charity after his own withdrawals, and the many other tax dodges revealed in his own returns over the past few years, I believe he would gain a lot of credibility.

I may be naive, but these issues of fairness and responsibility seem in line with the traditional values Republicans espouse.

But I don't think this will be easy to do, since Republicans seem to derive much of their financial support from entities that benefit from financial inequities such as banks. For the same reason, looking at the lists of top donors above, it appears as if Democrats would have a hard time asking big beneficiaries of "non profit" tax exemptions, and government "research" grants, to pay their share as well, such as large universities. (You may favor research, but if like me you have actually generated some of those grants by your own work, you know much of the money goes into the "overhead" slush fund controlled by university research vice presidents).

 

[russ_watters]

So then you are just assuming that the loopholes he and other Republicans would close would not include the loopholes for the rich, right?

I also find it incredulous to suggest that Republicans are only interested in helping the rich, when the Bush tax cuts applied to everyone. The party trying to single out one group is the other one.

Also, your slicing of the groups is wrong: Obama is not just targeting the super-rich who have unusually low tax rates. He is mostly targeting the high end working professionals who already pay the highest rates.

Misleading caricatures don't provide a good basis for a discussion. It seems to me that this discussion is being harmed by people buying-in to the anti-GOP campaign rhetoric, not their actual positions and weaknesses.

 

[mathwonk]

Russ, the fact you find these things incredulous is the problem many Republicans seem to have, they just don't see the world as objectively as most others do. This is what Karl Rove exemplified when he doubted even the Fox news forecasters.

You didn't even read my post objectively. When I make a genuine suggestion as to how Romney could gain credibility, you assumed I meant to imply he would not do these things.

 

[russ_watters]

Objectively? Mathwonk, your facts are flat-out wrong. How is that objective?

 

[aquitaine]

I also find it incredulous to suggest that Republicans are only interested in helping the rich, when the Bush tax cuts applied to everyone. The party trying to single out one group is the other one.

Actually my parents, who were middle class at the time, didn't see even a penny from those cuts. Don't tell me it helped everyone, because it didn't.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't see what old white males have to do with the question and since the voting age is 18, there couldn't possibly be much change in separating out 18 year olds. High school grads and college grads voted exactly the same way.

Beyond speculation on either side, it would be nice to see the demographics for age. The 2009 Gallup poll I posted did gender demographics.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Actually my parents, who were middle class at the time, didn't see even a penny from those cuts. Don't tell me it helped everyone, because it didn't.

The top 4 income backets were all lowered by about 3% so...? Either it helped or your parents are not middle class.

 

[Pythagorean]

Tax cuts didn't help me either. I was a commercial fisherman at the time. I got gouged for about 1/3 of my income.

And it wasn't over 30k a year...

 

[Pythagorean]

Iow, it depends on industry and what kind of earner youre considered, not just how much you make.

 

[russ_watters]

That really isn't possible. Are you guys guessing? Do you really not know what the Bush tax cuts were?

 

[russ_watters]

:boggle: Incredulous again.

Here's the Bush tax cuts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

Synopsis:
The cuts came through two separate acts, passed in 2001 and 2003. The second act merely acclerated the phase-in of the cuts. The cuts (single earners):

a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

So for example, if a person made $30,000 per year AGI, most taxes were in the second bracket, but the marginal rate was in the third. The overall changes were:
On the first $6,000, a reduction of 5%.
On the next $22,000, no change
On the next $2,000, a reduction of 3%.
Savings: $360 per year

In addition, the deductions for joint filing and the per child tax credit were increased.

In addition -- for mathwonk -- since the vast majority of people pay far less than a 14% effective tax rate, making everyone pay what Romney paid (about 14%) would vastly increase taxes for most people.

 

[Pythagorean]

I know that I got charged as a farmer without the deductions and it was about 1/3 of my settlement. We don't get paid wages, we get a cut of the profit from the skipper. We're free agents, not employees.

So if bush tax cuts helped me, it wasn't much...

Now that I have kids and work as an employee, the bush tax cuts are great.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you remember the $300 check Bush sent you?

 

[Pythagorean]

yes...

 

[SixNein]

Russ, the fact you find these things incredulous is the problem many Republicans seem to have, they just don't see the world as objectively as most others do. This is what Karl Rove exemplified when he doubted even the Fox news forecasters.

I would say that ideology too frequently trumps objectivity in the republican party.

 

[russ_watters]

yes...

So then how can say the Bush tax cuts didn't help you?

 

[D H]

I suspect Republicans would be a lot more believable on "lower taxes" arguments if they would agree that high earners like Romney should pay at the same tax rate as middle class families pay, not half.

Whether the Romneys paid their "fair" share is a dicey issue. What's "fair"?

The Romneys had a low effective tax rate for two primary reasons. They donated a lot to charitable organizations and their income derived almost entirely from capital gains. Do you want to eliminate the charitable deduction? Most (all?) charities do not want that to happen. Should long term capital gains be taxed the same as income? There are a number of reasons why the answer to that question has to be no. That said, six months is not "long term" by any sane definition of "long term". For example, the inflation argument for why capital gains must be treated differently than income falls to pieces with that six month cutoff between short and long term capital gains.The referenced post is a red herring. The Republicans are not going to improve their chances next time around (the subject of this thread) by making themselves look just like the Democrats. The Democrats already own the center left and points leftward. The Republicans need to stay true to their roots or there is no point in having two parties. The problem in my opinion is that the current makeup of the Republican party has forced the center right to vote Democratic.

 

[Pythagorean]

So then how can say the Bush tax cuts didn't help you?

You're really knitpicking here. There's an obvious difference for me between making 30k as a fisherman and 30k as an employee. From 1/3 taxes to 0 taxes.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I never ran successfully for President so I am reluctant to give advice to others on how to do it. However, I was attracted to Romney's half plan to reduce taxes 20%. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough time before the election to enumerate the other half of the plan, the tax loopholes and deductions that would be eliminated. Here is the advice I would give to anyone who wants to run.

Promise the 20% reduction, but point out that it will be given in installments. That way, some egregious loopholes can be closed quickly, and deductions can be phased out instead of eliminated in one swell foop. During my 8 year administration, income taxes will be reduced across the board 2.5% each year. Left-handed albino dwarf style tax loopholes will be closed and new ones will not be tolerated. Deductions we all have come to love will be reduced each year so as to make up the difference, should there be any, between revenue lost due to tax reduction and revenue gained due to loophole depletion.

 

[SixNein]

Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, told reporters today, “We need to welcome people who believe in different things than we do, like math and science.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...g-people-who-believe-in-math-and-science.html

 

[Jack21222]

Neil Boortz has a message for the Republican party:

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/nov/08/republican-party-let-me-help-you-out/

The Republican Party as it currently stands needs to die. Like a phoenix, it needs to burst into flames and from its ashes rebuild into a party focused on …

Limited government
Tax reform
A strong military
The rule of law
Reducing regulations
Promoting capitalism – especially small businesses
Restoring self-reliance
Honoring the Constitution

Did you see abortion or gay marriage on that list? Didn’t think so. The Republicans need to become more Libertarian and less religiously authoritarian or the Party is dead. It’s amazing that these social conservatives have managed to screw this country they claim to love so much by handing Democrats victories this week thanks to these social issues.

 

[lisab]

Closed pending moderation.