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.
I think you have a mistaken impression here. We aren't socialists. When we want to get rid of the wealth and income gaps, we don't want to do it with Democrat style abusive government. We want real capitalism and real free markets. The wealth will then distribute itself. We don't distribute wealth by taxing it from someone who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't. That's Democrat stuff. We just get rid of crony capitalism and corporatism so that the market does the work for us. Without loopholes, subsidies, rigged regulations, etc then these corrupt corporations just can't compete. The company that pays its CEO 350x what other employees make is not using its resources efficiently. The only reason companies can do that now is because their poor business practices are enabled by favorable treatment in the marketplace. If you have a loophole that saves you 2 million that your competitors have to pay, then you can afford to give the CEO 1 million and the company still comes out ahead. Without that loophole if they tried to give the CEO 1 million for nothing, then they'd be short 1 million they could have used for expansion, research, or competing for better staff. Which will put them at a competitive disadvantage against other companies that aren't wasting resources on exorbitant executive perks.
Be real. The democrats AND the republicans have created the situation that this country is in, more so the Republicans. Republicans now own crony capitalism.
It would be nice to get people off of government programs, but the Republicans are making it impossible. While they are screaming about lazy Americans not working and getting off of programs, they continue to favor outsourcing, bank deregulation, tax breaks and loopholes for corporations that do business outside the US, they are against giving corporations given tax credits that bring jobs back to the US. They vote against any initiative that Obama tries to make to do just that. The longer they continue to oppose anything and everything that Obama proposes, the more people are going to rely on government. Obama is going to have to keep throwing a life preserver to people who are drowning, while the republicans keep throwing them an anchor. The Republicans don't want to change what benefits them and and will continue to hurt the people and this country. Republicans are not winning people over and I think even some republicans are waking up to this. If they continue on the same path that they have been on for the past four years (which is more about Obama and not government itself) they stand a snowball's chance in hell in 2016.
Joe Consumer isn't punishing them because Joe Consumer isn't feeling the bite. The companies aren't raising their prices to fund the CEO's salary. They can afford the CEO's salary because they aren't competing in a fair marketplace. They don't have to gouge the customer. They're charging a fair (or industry standard, at least) price for their products and their products are decent quality. It's just that they don't have to use the money they are getting to compete. Instead of having to pay the rank and file workers well to get top talent, streamline operations, do more advertising, etc which all cost money, they compete by cheating.
Example: CEO gets bureaucrat or legislator to change regulations that hurt their competitor, company takes 5% more marketshare from competitor, CEO takes profits from that 5% marketshare and uses it to pay out a bonus to top executives. Consumer never knows what happened. Legislator or bureaucrat gets a nice campaign contribution next election season, good job for his relative at the company, inside stock tip, etc.
One of the popular real word instances of this is licensing of taxi cabs. Big cities require people who want to operate taxi services to be licensed. The cab companies lobby the local government to either deny new licenses or make the licenses difficult and expensive to get. So the existing tax companies have a lock on the market and get all the business without ever having new competitors to compete with.
I agree with this.
So how would you solve the taxi problem? no licenses or unlimited licenses and let the market decide the right amount of taxi firms for a particular area? With the latter choice wouldn't it suppress wages of taxi drivers?
Try actually reading the text that goes with that picture.
"3) The vast majority of households that don’t pay federal income taxes are either elderly or paying payroll taxes. As you can see below, 60 percent of those who don’t pay income tax are still working and paying taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Their tax liability is just too low to qualify for the income tax. Another 22 percent of non-payers are retirees."
And from the picture above that one that you ignored. "About 46.4 percent of U.S. households didn’t pay federal income taxes in 2011. Mitt Romney’s right about that"
As I said, nearly half of all people don't pay federal income tax. I did not say they pay no taxes at all. There are other income taxes besides the federal income tax but the federal income tax is what funds the federal government. IMO, it stands to reason that those who don't pay for that government and get from that government would want to protect the way things are. It's those of us paying the bill who'd like to see it changed.
I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I tend to vote for Democrats because I hate Republicans stance on social issues.
Will there be a day when Republicans will focus solely on fiscal and economic policy and simply say, social issues can be decided at the state level?
I think many Obama supporters would switch sides if Republicans could ease up a bit.
Probably not totally. If you want Republicans to consentrate on simply fiscal issues, shouldn't you expect the same from the other side? Neither do this, our country is based on social issues as well as fiscal and both play some part in the overall picture...Most of us, would like to see social issues handled by the states, depending on what you call "social" issues. Some social issues cross over into fiscal issues.
Nita
Think about how Reagan created big deficits with "supply side" tax cuts. Think about how GW Bush turned Clinton's surpluses into huge deficits with "supply side" tax cuts.
GW Bush's biggest tax cuts for billionaires kicked in while Obama was in office (this created huge deficits for Obama.) As soon as GW Bush's tax cuts and Iraq war ends our deficits will go way down.
I think your post is a bunch of manipulation BS. Many republicans are talking about expanding their base and getting more poor and middle class voters (and you are only campaigning for that.)
Fox news and Rush radio say "the rich made all the right choices", and republican men go around talking about a CEO's "rights" to pay their workers low wages. But republican men like you are planning to stop talking about a republicans true objectives.
You are planning to try to get poor and middle class voters to vote republican, so republicans can sneak in another $6 trillion dollar "supply side" tax cut for Americas rich.
I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I tend to vote for Democrats because I hate Republicans stance on social issues.
Will there be a day when Republicans will focus solely on fiscal and economic policy and simply say, social issues can be decided at the state level?
I think many Obama supporters would switch sides if Republicans could ease up a bit.
There are many republicans pushing for gay marriage etc. I hope that makes you happy. Besides, history proves Republicans are NOT fiscally conservative, so you might as well vote independent.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 03-09-2013 at 06:40 AM..
I am talking about abortion, contraception, stem cell research, gay rights, anti-discrimination laws etc. Currently, at least Republican politicians are not in favor for these social issues. I personally cannot vote for a candidate that doesn't believe in allowing women to choose what to do with their bodies, letting people love who they want or allowing scientists to do their thing so we can compete with the rest of the world.
Ok, here we go, now that I have some information.
First, I consider myself a Constitutionlist/conservative, not a real republican.
1. Abortion. I have no problem with it, as long as it's not being used as a form of late contraception. In cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, and some other things, I don't have a problem with it. If it's being used so one can simply go out and have indiscriminate sex without taking any precautions when one feels like it, then yes, I have a problem with it.
2. Contraception. I don't have a problem with it, go buy whatever form of contraception you want. I don't think it's MY job to earn a living, to pay for your contraception though, if you cannot afford your own, then you shouldn't doing the horizontal mambo. (Or whatever position you prefer ). Understand, sex is primarily for procreation. It's not required to simply go on living, and I am sure no one has died because they didn't get to have sex one evening. When you require other people to earn a living and pay either taxes to the government, or increased cost of health insurance, so you can have pleasure, it become unsatisfactory.
The definition is fairly simple, it wasn't designed to pay for day to day things, it was designed to cover expenses incurred in the event of something unforeseen.
3. Stem cell research. Go for it.
4. Gay rights. Interesting. What rights are you talking about? Marriage? That's a privilege, not a right. Besides, I think the government should get out of the marriage business, and just issue a license for a civil union. Marriage should be religious in nature, and if you want marriage, go get one, after the government has issued you a civil union.
5. Anti-discrimination laws. Really? We don't have enough of them on the books now? What would you like to see added/changed?
Now we go on the the rant. The abortion thing, women doing what they want with their bodies. If you are going to use abortion as a form of birth control, and simply terminate a life because you decided to have unprotected sex and don't want the consequences of that action, go pay for it yourself and get one. I don't agree with that action, but again, it's your call.
Love whomever you want? Who is stopping you? Certainly not the government.
If one wants liberal social issues why don't they just remain Democrats then?
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.
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.
). Understand, sex is primarily for procreation. It's not required to simply go on living, and I am sure no one has died because they didn't get to have sex one evening. When you require other people to earn a living and pay either taxes to the government, or increased cost of health insurance, so you can have pleasure, it become unsatisfactory. 
