U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-09-2013, 04:21 PM
 
Location: The High Plains
525 posts, read 417,878 times
Reputation: 244

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310 View Post
Short answer AZcardinal, it isn't. I have no issue with the items you've listed! I have no problem with that part of the Republican platform... What I have a problem with is obstructionism, Tea Party radicalism, opposition to universal healthcare, "sole" supply side economics, opposition to progressive taxation, birtherism and the list goes on. Not to mention the new southern strategy in conservative politics...

If the Republican platform was just about financial independence it wouldn't be controversial.
You and I will agree on the Tea Party. I don't like them and I hope they've run their course on the American political dialogue. I also agree on universal coverage. I however, don't know how to best achieve universal healthcare in a manner that is long-term sustainable without substantial taxation.....whether it's a medicare for all approach like in Canada, a nationally managed healthcare system like in the UK, or a more capitalistic approach like in Singapore with mandatory HSA's, price controls at the federal level, and a very inexpensive high-deductible insurance mandated by the state. Either way...it's best for us to all have coverage...everyone agree's to that I believe.

Birtherism...I agree there as well....It's a moot point and a waste of time. Obama is an American....there are valid reasons to dislike him....his race, religion, or birth location aren't one of them.

Regarding progressive taxation. I've not heard many GOP members actually propose a true flat tax. Paul Ryan's plan calls for two brackets...10% and 25%. So technically, thats progressive. It probably isn't as graduated as you would like to see, but progressivity exists in that plan. I personally prefer something flatter, but we can't agree on everything I suppose.

And lastly...the adherance to supply side economics. This is where we'll probably differ a bit. I believe that marginal rates should be low across the board and corporate taxes should be low as well. Running huge deficits as a percentage of GDP isn't a good thing for long term sustainability. That being said, I'm not defending the past administrations....they've certainly not practiced what they've preached. However some supply side advocates have had success...Ireland had a remarkably strong economy which cited almost solely because of their corporate tax rates at 12.5% (the late 2000's recession wasn't indicative of these policies...housing bubble issues), Estonia has engaged in similar economic policies with success, Poland has as well, As has Latvia, and Lithuania, Singapore, Hong Kong, and a few others. Theoretically, the last two of those mentioned (Singapore and Hong Kong) are bastions of supply side economics and constantly rank very highly on economic freedom indicies. If the Krugman types were always right...these countries would be in shambles. That being said...they should do much much more for their poor. They've got money to do so. A strong balance is preferred.

All that said though...I feel that African American's could be on board if it's marketed correctly. The GOP is terrible when it comes to marketing ideas and lately the Democratic party has proven itself the better Public Relations party. But again, I believe that most African Americans could certainly support a more "supply-side" economics because ultimately, supply-side economics is designed to help job creators do what they do best, and to leave the most money in the pockets of those who earn it. More money in the pockets of those who earns it creates demand...businesses with lower tax burdens have more capital to expand. African American's want to keep the money they make just as everyone else does and African American entrepreneurs want less of their capital taken every quarter in taxes just like every other entrepreneur else. We can all support the idea of free enterprise and keeping what you've earned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-09-2013, 04:24 PM
 
47,314 posts, read 24,655,782 times
Reputation: 14471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
^^^^This.

Besides, having the GOP put forth some effort is never a bad thing for black voters.

For the most part, the black vote is taken for granted as a foregone conclusion so even the democratic party often just gives them lip-service because why waste political capital keeping loyalists happy?
Every demographic has their vote taken for granted with the possible exception of independents.

With so many gerrymandered districts, many if not most politicians only need to belong to the right party to win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 04:29 PM
 
7,372 posts, read 4,439,070 times
Reputation: 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
There was a similar reaction from Democrats when George W. Bush tried to put black Republicans on stage at the 2000 national convention. Democrats were chortling that there were more blacks on stage than in the audience. Seems to me that if you were truly in favor of progress on race issue, you would welcome the efforts of even the opposition party to advance the cause. Democrats don't seem to roll that way.
Yes, this gives the lie to liberal claims of principled tolerance. Back in 2012 there were tons of liberals posting how the GOP was doomed because it wasn't opening its arms to minorities.

But when the GOP does make efforts to open its arms to minorities, the reaction to it is negative.

This clearly shows the liberals aren't truly interested in minority involvement in politics. They are only interested in minority support of themselves. Their stance is selfish, not principled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 04:30 PM
 
643 posts, read 716,285 times
Reputation: 598
Rand Paul a certified tool. All that hard work of his going nowhere. He on his way to a third place finish in the republican primaries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 04:31 PM
 
2,672 posts, read 2,192,686 times
Reputation: 1029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
I find it sad. Not because a libertarian like me finds anything remotely redeeming about the current GOP, minus Rand Paul and Justin Amash, but because 95% of the black voters won't hear anything besides the welfare state victimology rhetoric, and tune out everything else. Essentially, they let the DNC and the media keep them captive as house slaves on Unlce Sam's plantation, and they don't want to hear from anybody telling them anything that might upset the master of the platation, or their relative comfort level.

Doesn't matter to me, because libertarians lose every election a Republican or Democrat wins, but the black voter rewarding their own destruction with 95% loyalty is a sad thing for them, and they aren't even aware of it.

Not much funny about that imho.
And that right there is why blacks wont be moving to the Republican side. You managed to insult blacks with the welfare state victimology and Uncle Sam Plantation non-sense. Did you ever think that black people get up everyday and go to work and have to put up with all the crackers and bend down a little bit and keep their mouths shut. You think blacks are getting a big handout from voting Dem and would be rewarded by voting with all the white racists Republicans...what a joke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
8,302 posts, read 5,850,438 times
Reputation: 5278
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
Yes, this gives the lie to liberal claims of principled tolerance. Back in 2012 there were tons of liberals posting how the GOP was doomed because it wasn't opening its arms to minorities.

But when the GOP does make efforts to open its arms to minorities, the reaction to it is negative.

This clearly shows the liberals aren't truly interested in minority involvement in politics. They are only interested in minority support of themselves. Their stance is selfish, not principled.
If you're starting by blaming the liberals, you're already barking up the wrong tree and doomed to fail. Focus on really doing outreach in a real way, not recycling tired old stereotypes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 05:37 PM
 
7,372 posts, read 4,439,070 times
Reputation: 3125
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402 View Post
You and I will agree on the Tea Party. I don't like them and I hope they've run their course on the American political dialogue. I also agree on universal coverage. I however, don't know how to best achieve universal healthcare in a manner that is long-term sustainable without substantial taxation.....whether it's a medicare for all approach like in Canada, a nationally managed healthcare system like in the UK, or a more capitalistic approach like in Singapore with mandatory HSA's, price controls at the federal level, and a very inexpensive high-deductible insurance mandated by the state. Either way...it's best for us to all have coverage...everyone agree's to that I believe.
First you're going to have to get around the constitution, which does not provide for it.
Quote:
Birtherism...I agree there as well....It's a moot point and a waste of time. Obama is an American....there are valid reasons to dislike him....his race, religion, or birth location aren't one of them.
Every sane person agrees with this, including Republicans.
Quote:
Regarding progressive taxation. I've not heard many GOP members actually propose a true flat tax. Paul Ryan's plan calls for two brackets...10% and 25%. So technically, thats progressive. It probably isn't as graduated as you would like to see, but progressivity exists in that plan. I personally prefer something flatter, but we can't agree on everything I suppose.
Flat taxes will not happen. Democrats run on making the rich pay their fair share. And large corporations take advantage of the loopholes their influence gets put into the tax code. Individual crusaders may call for real tax reform, but the bulk of the government will never go for it. It's part of the system. It's just like they all agreed that any new spending would have to be balanced by how to pay for it, then promptly attached special rules to their new spending that said they didn't have to pay for it. And how they made a big show of banning earmarks, and then simply started attaching "special funds" to their bills instead.
Quote:
And lastly...the adherance to supply side economics. This is where we'll probably differ a bit. I believe that marginal rates should be low across the board and corporate taxes should be low as well. Running huge deficits as a percentage of GDP isn't a good thing for long term sustainability. That being said, I'm not defending the past administrations....they've certainly not practiced what they've preached. However some supply side advocates have had success...Ireland had a remarkably strong economy which cited almost solely because of their corporate tax rates at 12.5% (the late 2000's recession wasn't indicative of these policies...housing bubble issues), Estonia has engaged in similar economic policies with success, Poland has as well, As has Latvia, and Lithuania, Singapore, Hong Kong, and a few others. Theoretically, the last two of those mentioned (Singapore and Hong Kong) are bastions of supply side economics and constantly rank very highly on economic freedom indicies. If the Krugman types were always right...these countries would be in shambles. That being said...they should do much much more for their poor. They've got money to do so. A strong balance is preferred.
Trickle down economics not trickling down is just a nice turn of phrase for liberals. The fact is that trickle down economics does work and always has. What Democrats have done is create a hostile business environment so that companies do not want to invest, then the Democrats blame the companies for not investing. Presto - supply economics is a failure.

Democrats are saying that Republicans did everything they could to sabotage Obamacare, and then went around saying "I told you so" when Obamacare failed. Well, that is precisely and exactly what the Democrats themselves did to supply side economics.
Quote:
All that said though...I feel that African American's could be on board if it's marketed correctly. The GOP is terrible when it comes to marketing ideas and lately the Democratic party has proven itself the better Public Relations party. But again, I believe that most African Americans could certainly support a more "supply-side" economics because ultimately, supply-side economics is designed to help job creators do what they do best, and to leave the most money in the pockets of those who earn it. More money in the pockets of those who earns it creates demand...businesses with lower tax burdens have more capital to expand. African American's want to keep the money they make just as everyone else does and African American entrepreneurs want less of their capital taken every quarter in taxes just like every other entrepreneur else. We can all support the idea of free enterprise and keeping what you've earned.
But liberals do not support the idea of keeping what you've earned. Obama specifically said he'd rather share the wealth. Taking the money that X earns and giving it to Y and Y in return for Y and Z's votes while demonizing the very X that is paying most of the taxes and providing most of the jobs is how the Democrats maintain their power. If Democrats let people keep what they earn, then they will have less money to dole out in social programs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2013, 06:58 AM
 
48,973 posts, read 39,438,561 times
Reputation: 30627
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310 View Post
Short answer AZcardinal, it isn't. I have no issue with the items you've listed! I have no problem with that part of the Republican platform... What I have a problem with is obstructionism, Tea Party radicalism, opposition to universal healthcare, "sole" supply side economics, opposition to progressive taxation, birtherism and the list goes on. Not to mention the new southern strategy in conservative politics...

If the Republican platform was just about financial independence it wouldn't be controversial.
Yet the 2 biggest taxes paid by most americans are....sales tax and property tax (direct or indirect)....both of which are regressive.

Then you look around and see that these very high taxes are firmly rooted in areas that haven't seen republican control since WW2 or before.

Birtherism is a small cluster of crackpots. About as big of a cluster as the ones claiming the US Govt. blew up the levees during Hurricane Katrina and shot and killed thousands of blacks and dumped their bodies in the swamp. (That one courtesy of a US Senator no less.)

I guess I really fail to see a huge difference between the two parties other than in what they SAY they are going to do. I mean two items that have hurt blacks badly in the last 20ish years were NAFTA and the flood of illegal immigrants....they took those both lying down and it cost them a lot of jobs. Now who was involved in that? Both parties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2013, 07:07 AM
 
48,973 posts, read 39,438,561 times
Reputation: 30627
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Every demographic has their vote taken for granted with the possible exception of independents.

With so many gerrymandered districts, many if not most politicians only need to belong to the right party to win.
Some more than others is what I'm saying.

For a non-racial example there are a number of voters I've met over the years that vote almost straight party over one issue. Abortion.

Even in elections where the candidates stance is purely political and they have no ability to change policy.

If you listed any number of major platform topics ranging from taxation, healthcare, education, abortion, foreign policy etc.....abortion has probably changed the least the last 30 years. Just saying.

P.S. Gerrymandering, something I despise....mainly just impacts state elections and the US house of representatives. That still leaves Governorships, Senate, President etc.

Additionally, the only reason we are hearing so much about Gerrymandering is the 2012 midterms and it's political whining of the "they cheated" variety talking point. (Much like after 2000 there were cries to abolish the electoral college...which have since died out.) The reality is that the same voting districts that handed the dems the house in 2008....handed it back to the reps in 2010 and then some. However, that doesn't fit the narrative so the focus is just on 2012...chock full of whining about how Obama won by X% and the reps kept the house. Like Reagan in 1984 whom won by an enormous landslide and the Dems kept a 70 seat house advantage.

No one is sincere about stopping Gerrymandering, they are just crying about the results.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2013, 07:17 AM
 
14,446 posts, read 7,112,538 times
Reputation: 7456
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310 View Post
Where I disagree with you here is with the reason behind the GOPís approach. They are trying to get votes based on their current platform. To do this they are trying to convince blacks to vote against their interest.

I agree they are trying to get votes on their current platform. But many black people actually do agree with their platform and I assume that those people are the ones they are trying to reach. I personally know a lot of conservative black people and I do think the GOP could sway a lot of them to abandon the Democratic party if they make it a point to stop putting all black people into the "welfare" box, similar to that of which a PP did in this specific thread.

Rand Paul is one I do feel is a good candidate to do this. Regardless of what you may think (and this no disrespect to you) that are a whole lot of conservative black people and I feel that if the GOP tones down their rhetoric and takes a public stance against race baiting members of their party, then they could easily get at least 15% of the black vote in every election and make their party more of a choice than it currently is.

FWIW, someone like me could be a perfect target of the GOP. I am an independent and I have voted republican at the state level, especially in my home state of Ohio where we had progressive republicans when I was younger who were not all about race baiting. In one gubernatorial race I remember, I believe that the GOP candidate got 20% of the black vote, which is a lot statewide in Ohio where there are 5 major metropolitan areas.

Contrary to what many believe, Detroit has quite a few conservative black people. I remember it debated on here prior to their new mayor being elected that many felt that black Detroit would never vote for a white man who by all accounts is a conservative Democrat and of which my aunt, who lives in Detroit said she got mailings calling him a Republican (that is the big slur of the Dem machine in black neighborhoods, I have gotten similar mailings about a white candidate here in Atlanta lol). But yet he won because Detroit is looking for more fiscal responsibility and economic growth.

If the GOP sticks to those parts of their platform, and reduce the rhetoric as described above, they could easily pull in 15% of black American voters and that would be a big boost to their chances on the national stage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top