You might be a Republican if...

[Tom Brown]

it might not add up to much , but gay marriage being legal has tax and social security advantages that might impact debt?

I'm sure abolishing slavery wasn't great for the GDP, either.

Have you ever heard of the concepts of right and wrong?

 

[was thatguy]

Thank you..

But, I thought you weren't a registered Republican... LOL. If I remember right, previous accounts were once a Registered Dem & currently an Independent.

I was a Dem, then sat out, then independent, now rep.
My reasoning for going Rep was O, I firmly believed and still do believe that defeating O at any and all costs outweighed a sacrificial vote.

 

[thetub]

I'm sure abolishing slavery wasn't great for the GDP, either.

Have you ever heard of the concepts of right and wrong?

Tom a question was asked if it would have financial impact on debt. just trying to answer scientifically. SORRY
I hope gay couples have these same advantages as us angry old white men do. Last thing I want is corrupted politicians to make their money grab.

 

[thetub]

I'm sure abolishing slavery wasn't great for the GDP, either.

Have you ever heard of the concepts of right and wrong?

abolishing slavery probably offset GDP.:tbi

 

[Faceaz]

I was a Dem, then sat out, then independent, now rep.
My reasoning for going Rep was O, I firmly believed and still do believe that defeating O at any and all costs outweighed a sacrificial vote.

So you did not change to Republican the first time Obama ran. And, somewhere in the 3 weeks after declaring you were not Republican, you changed to Republican because somehow that would impact the results of the General Election & how you could vote.... Check.


http://www.riverdavesplace.com/foru...estion-about-Romney-s-Deficit-Solutions/page6

 

[Tom Brown]

I remember that thread. It contained the most offensive post I've ever read. :thumbsdown

He is very good at what he does but unfortunately what he chooses to do with his time is discuss politics on the Internet. An activity that produces nothing.

 

[was thatguy]

I don't see that as Democratic in particular... Just well-meaning hippies.

In any case... Get rid of welfare, and with it bullshit government grants to give some hippie a job counting snowy plovers and milky ragweed or whatever... The EPA is based on bullshit science, which is starting to get refuted in the new Information Age... With research, trending and conflicting opinions easier to justify. As an example, many off road areas are getting opened back up... Glamis as an example.

The EPA is based on cash flow from penalties, not all bad. I have seen some fucked up places.
But the way the implement is not necessarily conducive to environmental rescue.

The "point of impact" usually results in insurmountable penalties that drive a business, or property owner, into total bankruptcy.
THEN the clean up is funded from Gov. or super fund, ALL at the expense of the taxpayer.
The nailing of giant corporations makes headlines, and garnishes public support from tree huggers and everyday people that don't want to see flagrant negative environmental impact. (most of us)
But the ugly truth is that the EPA's bread and butter is a combination of corner gas station type businesses, Commercial property transactions, and govt. funds.

They DO prevent blatant and wasteful environmental impact, but that is just the vehicle for cash gathering.
Did you know that 1 mislabeled or mispacked overpack drum is cause for a $25K a DAY (each) fine until corrected?
The local oil change facility can almost assuredly be fined on any given day no matter how much they comply.

One mislabeled entry on the Satellite collection log can bankrupt a facility, if they choose to do it, as can a quart of oil above the approved maximum satellite storage limit.

The EPA is the PERFECT gov. agency.
It has a noble cause, total authority, and endless ways to collect and bankrupt.
Bankrupting is much preferred over collecting and continuing, because then they are guaranteed govt. funds.

 

[DtB]

I remember that thread. It contained the most offensive post I've ever read. :thumbsdown

Thank you !

 

[was thatguy]

So you did not change to Republican the first time Obama ran. And, somewhere in the 3 weeks after declaring you were not Republican, you changed to Republican because somehow that would impact the results of the General Election & how you could vote.... Check.


http://www.riverdavesplace.com/foru...estion-about-Romney-s-Deficit-Solutions/page6

More that it let me sleep better!!

 

[530RL]

how about social security survivorship and inheritance tax?

Only 2 out of every 1000 estate tax returns filed owe any inheritance tax. To the extent a couple would be part of those 2, the estate would either be spent by the survivor, or to the extent it remains at the size subject to tax, the collection would be delayed.

Survivor benefits may or may not be more. If both worked and had max contributions, the survivor benefit would be nil. To the extent that one worked and one did not, then the survivor benefits or costs to the fund would be higher. Net, I suspect it would be a higher cost.

But who knows with the way the government does accounting...

 

[Tom Brown]

I think Face makes some very valid points, and that it is unfortunate that these issues tend to define the Republican Party over and over.

How is immigration reform working out for the Republican party? I seem to recall words about how Republicans should get behind it in an effort to appeal to non old and white voters. I don't see a lot of new Republicans in the near future.

I will say that appealing to votors is not the most noble political position. There is a balance between trying to enact the wishes of your constituency and doing whatever is required to save your job.

The point here is that Democrats don't have to do that great of a job to look great next to Republicans. If Republicans set the bar a little higher, it would take up everyone's game. If they set the bar quite a bit higher, you would have a viable option and that would be really good for your country.

 

[thetub]

Only 2 out of every 1000 estate tax returns filed owe any inheritance tax. To the extent a couple would be part of those 2, the estate would either be spent by the survivor, or to the extent it remains at the size subject to tax, the collection would be delayed.

Survivor benefits may or may not be more. If both worked and had max contributions, the survivor benefit would be nil. To the extent that one worked and one did not, then the survivor benefits or costs to the fund would be higher. Net, I suspect it would be a higher cost.

But who knows with the way the government does accounting...

thought it would be more RK.:thumbsup

well if it aint gonna take any tax revenue away its cool.

no wonder dems are good with it.....

 

[was thatguy]

How is immigration reform working out for the Republican party? I seem to recall words about how Republicans should get behind it in an effort to appeal to non old and white voters. I don't see a lot of new Republicans in the near future.

I will say that appealing to votors is not the most noble political position. There is a balance between trying to enact the wishes of your constituency and doing whatever is required to save your job.

The point here is that Democrats don't have to do that great of a job to look great next to Republicans. If Republicans set the bar a little higher, it would take up everyone's game. If they set the bar quite a bit higher, you would have a viable option and that would be really good for your country.

The problem is that the Country is officially lost to a majority that responds to a lower bar setting.

 

[Tom Brown]

The problem is that the Country is officially lost to a majority that responds to a lower bar setting.

Yeah. I think Ross Perot proved that. He rolled in with ideas and a plan to steer the country into fiscal responsibility and was pretty much spanked out.

You could put a really good candidate out there and he would not win.

Note that I will disagree with you twice as vehemently in my next post.