"Give Them What They Voted For"

[Kathianne]

Found this article, that sums up pretty much my conclusions to the last election and going forward:


An Open Letter to the GOP Leadership

Posted By Stephen Green On November 19, 2012


...

I’ll repeat: Give President Obama and the Democrats the tax hikes they demand, and which most polls show the American public accepts.


You’ll let us avoid the fiscal cliff — a phrase I’m going to do my best to avoid using from now on. A better phrase, if less elegant, might be, “the totally artificial fiscal construct engineered by our so-called leaders a while back, just in case they hadn’t already assed up the economy quite enough.” But I digress.


Give them the tax hikes. Look big, look magnanimous, look bipartisan. Be sure at every mention of the tax hikes to talk up the spending cuts and entitlement reforms Obama and the Democrats promised to talk about in a grand bargain down the road. Someday, whenevs, as soon as Obama gets his round tuit (http://www.passco.com/tuit.htm) in the mail. The important thing is to change the subject.


You’ve been the subject for almost two weeks now, and that’s never a good thing. First of all, the media portray you as idiots and the Democrats portray you as evil. Secondly, then you get out in front of the cameras and do your darnedest to prove them all right. That [REDACTED] has got to stop.


The new subject can be: Why won’t the Democrats agree even just to a serious discussion about the spending reforms we so desperately need? “Have you seen these guys?” The media won’t go along, of course, but at least you’ll have changed the subject.


Later, you can talk about something else: Where are the revenues?


...


So next summer, next fall, that’s the new new subject: Where are the revenues?

And there’s a third subject that will fall nicely into place: Where are the jobs?
Your line of attack could go something like this:

We gave the Democrats their taxes. They already got ObamaCare, which we said would kill jobs. They already got Dodd-Frank, which we said would strangle credit and small banks. They got their vindictive EPA, which we said would sit on the economy like Paul Prudhomme sits on a Barcalounger after downing that third quart of sausage gumbo. We told you this wouldn’t work, and it hasn’t. And it won’t.
...


Really, the only big difference between now and 1980 is, you somehow managed to [REDACTED]ing lose to Jimmy [SO VERY REDACTED]ing Carter this time around. The GOP managed to help get a second term for a guy with a broken economy and a dead ambassador and all the rest, who ran for reelection on a platform “the other guy is teh suck.” Do you understand how epic a fail that is? You must understand after November 6 that whatever you’ve been doing, it’s not working.


...

[gabosaurus]

Reagan raised taxes 11 times. How does history view Reagan?

[fj1200]

Reagan raised taxes 11 times. How does history view Reagan?

Is this another talking point you barely understand?

Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/)

Over the course of his two terms in office, Reagan presided over several changes to the tax code (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota81.pdf). What is important to remember — what is vital to understand — is that not all taxes are created equal.When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2828224/posts),” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising incometaxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board (http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets) during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)
...
Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.
...
One of the tax increases Reagan signed (the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/97/hr7368)) was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. (This could be thought of as a sort of “user fee,” inasmuch as the revenue generally went to roads and infrastructure.) Another was a cigarette tax (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:H.R.3128:).) These are real tax increases, but should not be confused with the income tax.
...
Reagan was offered such a deal (a 3-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases) in 1982, and it’s the reason he reluctantly agreed to the largest tax increase of his presidency, the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. (http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL97-248.pdf)“ The Democratic Congress then promptly proceeded to ignore the planned spending cuts. George H.W. Bush encountered the same trick in 1990. It cost him the presidency. The same idea was tossed out last summer — and smartly rejected by the GOP.

[tailfins]

The GOP should put a package together with promised spending cuts. When taxes are raised and spending isn't cut, the Democrats will own the consequences for not keeping their word.

[Kathianne]

Is this another talking point you barely understand?

Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/)



Very good, I gave her the same response a week or so ago, same issues.

[aboutime]

The GOP should put a package together with promised spending cuts. When taxes are raised and spending isn't cut, the Democrats will own the consequences for not keeping their word.


tailfins. The only WORD that Democrat's keep, usually include the words TAX HIKE.

[Kathianne]

I can only assume that Gabby is afraid of the idea of the conservatives basically 'getting out of the way' of all that liberals would like to have passed?

As the article states, no one wanted this time, but it's a time that has come. Obama won an electoral landslide. Yes, he did. We can't keep up the ideological arguments and try to obstruct based upon them. It has allowed one party dominance on the federal level, indeed has prevented some return to the federalist system and check and balances have reached a level of near non-existence.

Give this second term a free reign. Do not obstruct, though certainly explain why there are disagreements, but will follow the will of the people.

Either his plans and spending will result in a return to 5% unemployment, rising salaries, and explosion in revenues and GDP or they won't.

If the first happens, the conservatives will become a very tiny minority, overtaken by better ideology. If not, perhaps the schism will heal somewhat and we can all get onto our own lives and government will become more functional.

[tailfins]

I can only assume that Gabby is afraid of the idea of the conservatives basically 'getting out of the way' of all that liberals would like to have passed?

As the article states, no one wanted this time, but it's a time that has come. Obama won an electoral landslide. Yes, he did. We can't keep up the ideological arguments and try to obstruct based upon them. It has allowed one party dominance on the federal level, indeed has prevented some return to the federalist system and check and balances have reached a level of near non-existence.

Give this second term a free reign. Do not obstruct, though certainly explain why there are disagreements, but will follow the will of the people.

Either his plans and spending will result in a return to 5% unemployment, rising salaries, and explosion in revenues and GDP or they won't.

If the first happens, the conservatives will become a very tiny minority, overtaken by better ideology. If not, perhaps the schism will heal somewhat and we can all get onto our own lives and government will become more functional.

It has to be done in a way that has no conservative complicity. It can be done by handing powers to the President or having conservatives walk out in protest leaving a coalition of Democrats and liberal Republicans to pass things.

[Kathianne]

It has to be done in a way that has no conservative complicity. It can be done by handing powers to the President or having conservatives walk out in protest leaving a coalition of Democrats and liberal Republicans to pass things.

It can be done by stating why they philosophically disagree, state what they believe will be the outcome, but agree to supporting the leader the people wanted. They can go a step further, articulating that for the 'health of the country' they will no longer be portrayed as 'the party of no or obstructionists.' They will do so for a year-18 months, then see where the conciliation has taken us.

As I said, if to a good place, the GOP really will be irrelevant. If not, the country will be ready for some major changes.

[gabosaurus]

Perhaps Americans are ready to pay more taxes. If, in exchange, they receive a higher standard of living. Such as better roads, better infrastructure, better recreation and park sites and better educational opportunities.
Government has bailed out large businesses. Perhaps it is time to bail out states who need help.

Right now, government is stalled because of partisan bickering. Dems blame it on the GOP. The GOP blames it on Dems. If no one is willing to compromise, then their fate is to fall off the fiscal cliff. And they will be taking the country with them.

[tailfins]

Perhaps Americans are ready to pay more taxes. If, in exchange, they receive a higher standard of living. Such as better roads, better infrastructure, better recreation and park sites and better educational opportunities.
Government has bailed out large businesses. Perhaps it is time to bail out states who need help.

Right now, government is stalled because of partisan bickering. Dems blame it on the GOP. The GOP blames it on Dems. If no one is willing to compromise, then their fate is to fall off the fiscal cliff. And they will be taking the country with them.

Why should a financially responsible state subsidize an irresponsible state? Regardless of party, prosperous places like Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Minnesota shouldn't be drug down the hole with California and Illinois. It's just plain wrong to liquidate the economy and hand the proceeds over to public sector unions.

[Kathianne]

Perhaps Americans are ready to pay more taxes. If, in exchange, they receive a higher standard of living. Such as better roads, better infrastructure, better recreation and park sites and better educational opportunities.
Government has bailed out large businesses. Perhaps it is time to bail out states who need help.

Right now, government is stalled because of partisan bickering. Dems blame it on the GOP. The GOP blames it on Dems. If no one is willing to compromise, then their fate is to fall off the fiscal cliff. And they will be taking the country with them.

I think that if the liberals want higher taxes, which they do, the conservatives should go along. They should state why they believe not a good policy, but acquiesce to the will of the people.

Down the road, the results of policies will be judged.

[Robert A Whit]

Reagan raised taxes 11 times. How does history view Reagan?

Still trying to get to the bottom of this claim.

Explain the process any president can use that raises taxes?

How do they manage to exclude the congress.

Tell me too the answer to this question.

A kid wants to ride a horse. He asks his mom and she gives him permission.

Who rode the horse?

In Reagan's case, he did not ride the horse. Even if he gave permission by signing the law, he did not ride the horse.

[Kathianne]

Still trying to get to the bottom of this claim.

Explain the process any president can use that raises taxes?

How do they manage to exclude the congress.

Tell me too the answer to this question.

A kid wants to ride a horse. He asks his mom and she gives him permission.

Who rode the horse?

In Reagan's case, he did not ride the horse. Even if he gave permission by signing the law, he did not ride the horse.

While I don't quite get your response, it was answered previously, more clearly:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37847-quot-Give-Them-What-They-Voted-For-quot&p=593921#post593921

[Robert A Whit]

I think that if the liberals want higher taxes, which they do, the conservatives should go along. They should state why they believe not a good policy, but acquiesce to the will of the people.

Down the road, the results of policies will be judged.

Are you say8ng that because so few will be asked to pay higher taxes?

Don't you smell the dead fish in the Obama offering?

[Kathianne]

Are you say8ng that because so few will be asked to pay higher taxes?

Don't you smell the dead fish in the Obama offering?

Not at all. You've got it wrong on all fronts. However, I'm not going to repost all that I've done previously.

[Robert A Whit]

While I don't quite get your response, it was answered previously, more clearly:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37847-quot-Give-Them-What-They-Voted-For-quot&p=593921#post593921


I don't get that I had read that but it explains why you and I should go along and I believe it is because our eyes won't be put out, only the rich eyes get put out.

I want Gabby to explain how presidents raise taxes given they have no law making authority.

[Robert A Whit]

Not at all. You've got it wrong on all fronts. However, I'm not going to repost all that I've done previously.

I am not going to repeat all of my posts showing I got it right.

[Kathianne]

I am not going to repeat all of my posts showing I got it right.

Great, legend in your own mind. Carry on.

[Robert A Whit]

Great, legend in your own mind. Carry on.

You are being emulated and apparently you obtusely can't tell.

[Kathianne]

You are being emulated and apparently you obtusely can't tell.

How's that working for you, Robert? Fine with me.

[aboutime]

I think that if the liberals want higher taxes, which they do, the conservatives should go along. They should state why they believe not a good policy, but acquiesce to the will of the people.

Down the road, the results of policies will be judged.


Kathianne. At this point. If January 1st arrives, and nothing has been done. The Liberals will get everything they wanted, and conservatives will have to go along. Obama will make it so.

But. When he does, and congress goes along with him. That day will arrive, very quickly. When all of the FREEBIES Obama promised to provide will run out, and all of the millions of Foolhardy Americans who put him in office for a second term will suddenly learn.

They were played the FOOL. And Obama, their Messiah, and Chief Cook and Liar...was just kidding them as he BOUGHT their votes while draining the TREASURY DRY.

They ain't gonna be happy when that day arrives.
And this time. They won't be blaming Bush. No matter what the Liar-In-Chief says.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. At this point. If January 1st arrives, and nothing has been done. The Liberals will get everything they wanted, and conservatives will have to go along. Obama will make it so.

But. When he does, and congress goes along with him. That day will arrive, very quickly. When all of the FREEBIES Obama promised to provide will run out, and all of the millions of Foolhardy Americans who put him in office for a second term will suddenly learn.

They were played the FOOL. And Obama, their Messiah, and Chief Cook and Liar...was just kidding them as he BOUGHT their votes while draining the TREASURY DRY.

They ain't gonna be happy when that day arrives.
And this time. They won't be blaming Bush. No matter what the Liar-In-Chief says.

We disagree in the main regarding how to get where we both want to go. I think the extremist position has lost us tens if not hundreds of thousands of votes. You think differently.

[aboutime]

We disagree in the main regarding how to get where we both want to go. I think the extremist position has lost us tens if not hundreds of thousands of votes. You think differently.


Okay Kathianne. If you say what I said was extremist. I won't argue with you.

Never mind.

[fj1200]

Perhaps Americans are ready to pay more taxes. If, in exchange, they receive a higher standard of living. Such as better roads, better infrastructure, better recreation and park sites and better educational opportunities.
Government has bailed out large businesses. Perhaps it is time to bail out states who need help.

Right now, government is stalled because of partisan bickering. Dems blame it on the GOP. The GOP blames it on Dems. If no one is willing to compromise, then their fate is to fall off the fiscal cliff. And they will be taking the country with them.

:laugh: On what earth is paying more taxes a higher standard of living? It's silly that you think that government is stalled. The "cliff" is exactly what BO and the Democrats want, it is exactly the result of the decisions that they have made over the years. The Bush cuts were temporary, their payroll cuts were temporary, and they voted for the new the new taxes in the ACA; Either the "cliff" is what they want and will result in your "higher standard of living" or will turn into a real cliff. Why do they have any fear now?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:laugh: On what earth is paying more taxes a higher standard of living? It's silly that you think that government is stalled. The "cliff" is exactly what BO and the Democrats want, it is exactly the result of the decisions that they have made over the years. The Bush cuts were temporary, their payroll cuts were temporary, and they voted for the new the new taxes in the ACA; Either the "cliff" is what they want and will result in your "higher standard of living" or will turn into a real cliff. Why do they have any fear now?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Gonna piss you off but I simply have to say bravo!--Tyr

[SassyLady]

When my daughter was a toddler she kept wanting to touch the glass door on the fireplace and I kept telling her "no, it's hot!". One day she defied me and touched it anyway. From that day forward she was not remotely tempted to touch the "hot, hot". Sometimes humans cannot conceive of what the consequences of an action will be until they've actually experienced it for themselves.

I did not want the bailouts. I feel that no company/organization is "too big to fail". Failure teaches lessons and there will either be rebounds from the failures or there will be attrition and the cream will rise.

I'm tired of conservatives being labeled as evil and obstructionists because they are trying to keep the "toddlers from touching the hot stove". It's time those that have voted for these policies and ideology see the results of their actions.

I'm prepared for the cliff ... are you?

[Kathianne]

When my daughter was a toddler she kept wanting to touch the glass door on the fireplace and I kept telling her "no, it's hot!". One day she defied me and touched it anyway. From that day forward she was not remotely tempted to touch the "hot, hot". Sometimes humans cannot conceive of what the consequences of an action will be until they've actually experienced it for themselves.

I did not want the bailouts. I feel that no company/organization is "too big to fail". Failure teaches lessons and there will either be rebounds from the failures or there will be attrition and the cream will rise.

I'm tired of conservatives being labeled as evil and obstructionists because they are trying to keep the "toddlers from touching the hot stove". It's time those that have voted for these policies and ideology see the results of their actions.

I'm prepared for the cliff ... are you?

I do not think this 'plan' of oppositional acquiescence would result in the 'financial cliff' being spoke about, but severe repercussions? Yeah, I believe there would be for a long time to come. Using your analogy, the burn will be quite severe.

Then again, we could be wrong and his ideas will lead to the land of milk and honey.

[aboutime]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Gonna piss you off but I simply have to say bravo!--Tyr


Tyr. Just goes to show. Some people are still capable of finding reason, common sense, and logic here.

Don't need to worry about pissing anyone off. As many of us have been saying for a very long time. The TRUTH cannot be changed.

[fj1200]

I do not think this 'plan' of oppositional acquiescence would result in the 'financial cliff' being spoke about, but severe repercussions? Yeah, I believe their would be for a long time to come. Using your analogy, the burn will be quite severe.

Then again, we could be wrong and his ideas will lead to the land of milk and honey.

The land of lowered expectations more likely. Which is pretty much what we've just gone through with misguided blame.

[Missileman]

The land of lowered expectations more likely. Which is pretty much what we've just gone through with misguided blame.

Storyline from 2 years from now...Thankfully, we enacted Obama's policies or unemployment would be at 25% instead of 20%.