Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Meet the "RINO Seven" who have decided that you need more than a second grade education in order to deal with the tax code   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 69
    More: Obvious, RINO, Grover Norquist, Republican, Saxby Chambliss, Strict constructionism, Chambliss, japan today  
•       •       •

4475 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Nov 2012 at 11:15 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-26 01:02:14 PM  

urbangirl: I think at least some repubs have seen the writing on the wall, are finally taking a hard look at their own ratings and trying to find an 'honorable' way out of the corner they've painted themselves into.

But we shall see.


What a heart-warming thought: Selfishness has let some Republicans glimpse reality.
But I remember what happened in 1995 and 1996.

/And I'd really like that to happen again because I'm really, really tired of the Party of "Party before country".
 
2012-11-26 01:26:29 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: urbangirl: I think at least some repubs have seen the writing on the wall, are finally taking a hard look at their own ratings and trying to find an 'honorable' way out of the corner they've painted themselves into.

But we shall see.

What a heart-warming thought: Selfishness has let some Republicans glimpse reality.
But I remember what happened in 1995 and 1996.

/And I'd really like that to happen again because I'm really, really tired of the Party of "Party before country".


Oh, make no mistake, I don't think they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it because they see the tide is turning against them and they're prepping for the next election.  But at this point, I care less about the motivation than the results.
 
2012-11-26 01:43:31 PM  

urbangirl:
Oh, make no mistake, I don't think they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it because they see the tide is turning against them and they're prepping for the next election.  But at this point, I care less about the motivation than the results.


its never a good thing when half your campaign strategy depends on the voters being easily distracted and having problems with their long term memories...the GOP lacks any sort of moral center. they're hypocritical bastards and the f*cked up and let everyone see it in action. plus, ya know...there's that whole pro-rape thing.
 
2012-11-26 01:51:25 PM  
Fark You Grover Nihilist and your bumper sticker propaganda war on behalf of silver spoon assholes everywhere
 
2012-11-26 02:09:22 PM  

urbangirl: demaL-demaL-yeH: urbangirl: I think at least some repubs have seen the writing on the wall, are finally taking a hard look at their own ratings and trying to find an 'honorable' way out of the corner they've painted themselves into.

But we shall see.

What a heart-warming thought: Selfishness has let some Republicans glimpse reality.
But I remember what happened in 1995 and 1996.

/And I'd really like that to happen again because I'm really, really tired of the Party of "Party before country".

Oh, make no mistake, I don't think they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it because they see the tide is turning against them and they're prepping for the next election.  But at this point, I care less about the motivation than the results.


I wouldn't call it particularly honorable either. If they did in fact sign the pledge, the honorable thing is to resign and let the people elect someone who didn't sign the pledge...but that would be crazy!
 
2012-11-26 03:29:00 PM  

whistleridge: 'Disowning some unelected tool's non-binding pledge' != 'Actually wanting to improve our finances'



www.meh.ro

Republican politicians have more loyalty to a sleazy lobbyist than they do to the United States of America.
 
2012-11-26 03:32:24 PM  

whistleridge: lennavan: I don't actually think most Republican voters realize they are voting against their own economic interests.

I don't think they care. I see nothing surprising in Red Staters who are notorious for setting aside all sorts of logic and long-term considerations in favor of meth and abstinence-only education to be willing to put aside their obvious financial best interests in favor of racism and Jesus.


Fair enough.

HugsAndPuppies: Convincing to do exactly that is the GOP's greatest super power.


True dat.
 
2012-11-26 03:49:41 PM  

skullkrusher: organizmx: The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree (also a pretty silly deduction to focus on) and have you seen any figures on what the limit on mortgage deduction would be?


Not if you do it as a percentage of income. The wealthy would still be able to donate a larger portion, and thus write off a larger portion, than a middle-class taxpayer. Not sure that makes much difference, though.
 
2012-11-26 05:25:36 PM  
I love how Republicans like to suck corporate cock with the same mouth they praise Jesus with.
 
2012-11-26 05:42:06 PM  

Cythraul: [talkingpointsmemo.com image 302x160]

Image of a Loser

I think he's done. A lot of the rest will smell blood in the water now, sense his weakness, and jump ship as well. Grover, you had a good run, unfortunately.


Every time I hear that little piece of sludge talk I just want to punch the TV. He never has any new talking points which boil down to:

1) The Reagan recovery was so much better than the Obama recovery (which the idiot interviewer never seems to counter with "Yes, but, Reagan didn't have as big of a hole to pull us out of AND Reagan had a Congress willing to work with him.")

2) George H.W. Bush raised taxes after promising not to and look what happened to him! (A fair point, perhaps, but Bush got handicapped by a stronger-than-normal 3rd party candidate.)

3) If the GDP grows at just 4% per year we can bring in enough revenue. (And if my aunt had a penis she'd be my uncle. And it would be really weird.)

How about we start a White House petition to have Grover Norquist dragged out into the streets and set on fire?
 
2012-11-26 05:57:56 PM  

coeyagi: lennavan: The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.

How there are any Republicans making less than 200K is beyond me. Oh, right, social issues are important.... you might be poor on Earth for 80 years, but your soul will be rich for eternity by listening to Supply Side Jesus.


Even if I earned $200 million per year I would have to be supremely selfish and uncaring to support the modern day Republicans.
 
2012-11-26 06:03:37 PM  

skullkrusher: organizmx: The article quoting John McCain:

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree (also a pretty silly deduction to focus on) and have you seen any figures on what the limit on mortgage deduction would be?


Limiting deductions of charitable giving will likely reduce the income of charities, who primarily help the needy.
 
2012-11-26 06:33:25 PM  

kg2095: coeyagi: lennavan: The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.

How there are any Republicans making less than 200K is beyond me. Oh, right, social issues are important.... you might be poor on Earth for 80 years, but your soul will be rich for eternity by listening to Supply Side Jesus.

Even if I earned $200 million per year I would have to be supremely selfish and uncaring to support the modern day Republicans.


That is an extreme where some would still be able to live in the stratosphere should their taxes be increased. The 200K - 400K crowd would actually see a noticeable difference, not that my sympathy would even register on the Richter scale.
 
2012-11-26 07:14:00 PM  

Dog Welder: 1) The Reagan recovery was so much better than the Obama recovery (which the idiot interviewer never seems to counter with "Yes, but, Reagan didn't have as big of a hole to pull us out of AND Reagan had a Congress willing to work with him.")


China wasn't butt raping your manufacturing sector back then either.
 
2012-11-26 07:48:20 PM  

mrshowrules: Dog Welder: 1) The Reagan recovery was so much better than the Obama recovery (which the idiot interviewer never seems to counter with "Yes, but, Reagan didn't have as big of a hole to pull us out of AND Reagan had a Congress willing to work with him.")

China wasn't butt raping your manufacturing sector back then either.


That's because the Republicans were still getting it nice a dry and rusty back then.

/Bastards stole the pillows, too.
 
2012-11-26 09:07:41 PM  
Simple, really.

A) All compensation gets counted as "income", including insurance benefits paid for by your employer.

B) All of your expenditures get counted as "deductions".

(A - B)/2= Your tax liability, with ONE exception:

If you are a business owner ("job creator"): the proportion of the GROSS profits that goes to pay the ENTIRE blue-collar portion of the payroll is the portion of your salary that you get to keep.

(Your company makes $100,000,000 in 2013, and your blue-collar segment made a whopping $7,500,000- you get to keep a generous $750,000 of that $10,000,000 salary. *Before* you start your deductive calculations.

Business profits all get charged proportionally to the owner/ stock holder. and become part of their income.


Since the poor and Middle Classes typically spend all of what they make, their tax liability at the end of the year will usually amount to *zero*.

This will encourage the rich to quit hoarding and re-invest in the economy, as well as share out the profits to the people responsible for them.
 
2012-11-26 10:28:57 PM  
Didn't McCain say that he'd be willing to get rid of deductions and not raise taxes? Bye bye mortgage deduction suckers!
 
2012-11-27 05:57:20 AM  
The Democratic Party's BATNA is far better than the Republican Party's BATNA when it comes to the tax issue. They already have a bill through the Senate that would extend all the tax cuts for everyone's first $250,000 of income. They know that if January 1st comes, the Senate bill (or an equivalent that would be passed by the next Senate) would pass Grover's pledge because it would reduce taxes for virtually every single American, and the only thing being debated at that point would be whether to extend tax cuts for the income anyone makes above $250,000. That is a very hard sell to make, and it's even more difficult to make when more people are already planning on blaming the GOP for going over the cliff than the Democrats or Obama. If they're serious about limiting deductions rather than raising rates to increase revenues, they better make an actual offer.
 
2012-11-27 12:25:24 PM  

Dog Welder: How about we start a White House petition to have Grover Norquist dragged out into the streets and set on fire?


They deleted mine to punch him in the dick due to vulgarity. Maybe resubmit and use genitals instead of dick? Or put one maybe to knee him to the groin...
 
Displayed 19 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report