When did the GOP lose touch with Reality?

[hippifried]

They currently pay 36%.

No they don't. Those brackets are for wages, salaries, & tips. If memory serves, the top rate on capital gains is 15%. That's how Warren Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary.

[Faldur]

No they don't. Those brackets are for wages, salaries, & tips. If memory serves, the top rate on capital gains is 15%. That's how Warren Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary.

Short term tax rates in 2011 are the same as the investor's ordinary income tax rate, up to 35%. I assure you Jimmy Buffet is in the 35% bracket,.

Long term rates remain from 15 - 35% depending on the type of earned income. Small Business Stock Gains are at 28%.

Long Term and Short Term CApital Gains Tax Rate 2011, 2012

[Silcc69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bra..._United_States

[onmyknees]

Another dodge. The more you attack the messenger the more important the message appears. Since you don't object to any of the substance I assume you agree with it or at least recognize its truthfulness. Congrats, it's the first step on a long road back to honesty.

Stuipd is as stupid does.
You're entire premise was that because some speech writer ( by no means a spokesman, or even a lightweight) in The GOP wrote some things he perceived as wrong with the GOP, that conservatives here would dive into some deep introspection and confess their sins to you. That's an asinine premise, Frum is like that other air head Meghan Mc Cain...they represent no one but themselves...and the ironic thing is they have no following on the right, but apparently now they do on the left. ..so rather than take any time to explain that to a fragile, closed mind...I thought I'd provide you with the exact opposite scenario, to show you how adolescent your attempt was. It obviously went soaring right over your head. When you find some article posted by someone who actually has some credibility, such as a Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Larry Kudlow, then maybe you'll have a scoop worth answering...until then...you shoot more blanks than anyone I know, but I give you a "D" for effort and an "F" for content. You wear the dunce cap today.

[Erika1487]

Oh? Change of heart or just tired?

Not a big change of heart, but I have changed many of my social positions to reflect my current life, and I am tired of defending a party that
A) fired me
B) Does not respect me for who I am.
If the younger generation gains power that would bring me back into supporting or maybe even working for them agian, but under it's current leadership I would rather be shot in the knee caps with my own 44Mag.
Just my

[Stavros]

Maybe the discussion should be about how political parties change over time, it has happened in the USA since the Civil War, it has happened in the UK since the First World War, and it has also been a feature of continental Europe. If there is one common denominator it is losing an election or two or, in the case of the Labour Party in the UK, four elections on the trot. Soul searching then takes place, the leadership changes, policies are reviewed.

In the US, however, the party system differs -the 'leader' of the Democrats does not automatically become the Presidential candidate, same with the Chairman of the Republican Convention; whereas in Europe, if someone is elected/chosen to lead their party they acquire huge significance. In Europe the Cold War had a divisive impact, mainly because our socialist parties were formed before the Russian Revolution, whose consequence with the creation of alternative, Communist Parties, split the left forever after. In the USA the Republican Party has gone from being the party of Lincoln to a party associated with the South and South West of the USA; its 'natural constituency' seems to have flipped.

But do these parties have a soul? Do they have a coherent ideology? The GOP is clearly divided between 'country club conservatives' and tea party radicals; but it is also divided on specific issues such as abortion, gay rights, and foreign policy. The blocs that are associated with the parties -the unions with the Democrats, Wall St/Corporate America with the GOP seem secure, but it seems clear to me that just as there has been no effecitve re-aignment of party politics in the UK, in the USA also there is a rigid two-party system, is it the case that there is no separate Tea Party because its adherents need the national organisation of the Republican Party as their vehicle?

I wonder if people are afraid of the consequences if an effective third party emerged with a strong Presidential candidate that resulted in 'hung elections' in which it is the Electoral College who chooses your leader, who would clearly not have a popular mandate, maybe elected on just over a third of the vote. Capitalism is clearly changing, why doesn't the party system?

[BluegrassCat]

Stuipd is as stupid does.
You're entire premise was that because some speech writer ( by no means a spokesman, or even a lightweight) in The GOP wrote some things he perceived as wrong with the GOP, that conservatives here would dive into some deep introspection and confess their sins to you. That's an asinine premise, Frum is like that other air head Meghan Mc Cain...they represent no one but themselves...and the ironic thing is they have no following on the right, but apparently now they do on the left. ..so rather than take any time to explain that to a fragile, closed mind...I thought I'd provide you with the exact opposite scenario, to show you how adolescent your attempt was. It obviously went soaring right over your head. When you find some article posted by someone who actually has some credibility, such as a Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Larry Kudlow, then maybe you'll have a scoop worth answering...until then...you shoot more blanks than anyone I know, but I give you a "D" for effort and an "F" for content. You wear the dunce cap today.

No, no you already used character assassination, don't you have any other ways to avoid dealing with the substance? Maybe repeating talking points or maybe just making something up? Try it, it might make you feel better. You'll have "won." LOL

And nobody on the left follows Frum, he's much too conservative, but at least he's honest. And he's clearly no airhead like McCain, or Cain or Perry or Palin or Bachmann or any other Tea Party favorite. It's sadly predictable that you would offer huckster snake-oil salesman Paul Ryan as someone with credibility.

I had no hopes of a confession from conservatives on here but introspection would be a nice change from the lack of self-awareness and hatred that permeates the conservative posts on here. But I assume looking in the mirror is too painful, that's why it feels good to bash the black guy in the WH.

[BluegrassCat]

Maybe the discussion should be about how political parties change over time, it has happened in the USA since the Civil War, it has happened in the UK since the First World War, and it has also been a feature of continental Europe. If there is one common denominator it is losing an election or two or, in the case of the Labour Party in the UK, four elections on the trot. Soul searching then takes place, the leadership changes, policies are reviewed.

In the US, however, the party system differs -the 'leader' of the Democrats does not automatically become the Presidential candidate, same with the Chairman of the Republican Convention; whereas in Europe, if someone is elected/chosen to lead their party they acquire huge significance. In Europe the Cold War had a divisive impact, mainly because our socialist parties were formed before the Russian Revolution, whose consequence with the creation of alternative, Communist Parties, split the left forever after. In the USA the Republican Party has gone from being the party of Lincoln to a party associated with the South and South West of the USA; its 'natural constituency' seems to have flipped.

But do these parties have a soul? Do they have a coherent ideology? The GOP is clearly divided between 'country club conservatives' and tea party radicals; but it is also divided on specific issues such as abortion, gay rights, and foreign policy. The blocs that are associated with the parties -the unions with the Democrats, Wall St/Corporate America with the GOP seem secure, but it seems clear to me that just as there has been no effecitve re-aignment of party politics in the UK, in the USA also there is a rigid two-party system, is it the case that there is no separate Tea Party because its adherents need the national organisation of the Republican Party as their vehicle?

I wonder if people are afraid of the consequences if an effective third party emerged with a strong Presidential candidate that resulted in 'hung elections' in which it is the Electoral College who chooses your leader, who would clearly not have a popular mandate, maybe elected on just over a third of the vote. Capitalism is clearly changing, why doesn't the party system?

Polarization is a huge problem in American party politics. The GOP has been moving to the right over the last 30 years. The Democratic Party has moved to the left, though not as much as the GOP went right. The result is the gridlock we have today, where one party will willfully sabotage the economy to unseat an opposing party president.

This polarization is maintained through the primary system where a small ideologically extreme group selects the candidates who will go into the general election thus guaranteeing an extreme outcome. A possible fix is to create open top-2 primaries where everyone votes in one primary and the top 2 vote-getters go on to the general. You're no longer guaranteed a Republican and a Democrat in the general. You could have two Republicans, two Independents, one Green & one Democrat etc. Washington state is the only one to try it so far, but hopefully more will follow its lead.

[Odelay]

Short term tax rates in 2011 are the same as the investor's ordinary income tax rate, up to 35%. I assure you Jimmy Buffet is in the 35% bracket,.

Long term rates remain from 15 - 35% depending on the type of earned income. Small Business Stock Gains are at 28%.

Long Term and Short Term CApital Gains Tax Rate 2011, 2012

And I assure you that Warren Buffet didn't become one of the top 5 richest men in the world by being a moron and having his income taxed at 35%. Rich people draw their income from the sources that will be taxed least. In this case, 15%. Besides, if you knew anything about Buffet you would know that he's made his money as a value investor. One who buys stocks that are undervalued and holds them for a long period of time. Every time he sells a stock it's one he's held for longer than a year, ergo 15% tax rate. And I'm sure he draws a nominal salary, like Bill Gates does... often as little as $100,000, so very very little of his income is taxed at 35%. He's been transparent about his finances. His blended tax rate has worked out to be around 16 to 17%.

[Ben]

Because ol' Newt wants to embrace (some aspects of) the free market: no child labor laws and most likely no minimum wage laws. (Corporate executives, who are by and large liberal -- meaning: they believe in gay marriage, abortion etc. -- do not believe in free markets.
Because, well, because they want a powerful Nanny State to protect them from the rigors and discipline of markets.
I mean, what does bailing out the banks have to do with pure/unfettered capitalism. Again, unfettered markets would be an absolutely disaster for the ownership class and they know it....) And we saw what happened when the big banks became zombie banks. They came running to the State for a handout -- ha ha ha! What happened to their so-called "belief" in unfettered markets -- ha ha!!!