|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 09, 2020, 03:43:33 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  The theory that Romney wasn't conservative enough to win:
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The theory that Romney wasn't conservative enough to win:  (Read 2903 times)
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 24, 2013, 01:13:20 pm »

I hear from conservative talk radio and a press conference that some conservative held on c-span the day after the election that Romney wasn't conservative enough. How is it that Romney wasn't conservative enough: on what issue exactly? These people who say Romney wasn't conservative enough don't go into issues that he wasn't conservative enough on. Romney endorsed "The Ryan Plan"(not sure if it was Ryan I or Ryan II) since Ryan Plan I was draconian. He also endorsed self-deportation and sending Roe vs Wade back to the states although even a liberal justice like Ruth Bader Ginsburg even think Roe vs Wade should have been a state issue. Your thoughts:
Logged
eric82oslo
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,526
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2013, 02:21:24 pm »

It's ludicrous to suggest that Romney did so poorly among moderate voters, in particular moderate Hispanics and apathetic working class whites, because he wasn't conservative enough. Romney did so poorly because he was seen as a billionaire without the common touch and common sense and understanding of middle class families. It is as easy as that really.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,571
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2013, 03:02:08 pm »

Romney was good enough for me, and if I could vote I would've voted for him. But why is it that some of these people disagree on a few issues and tell the world that he isn't conservative enough? To hell with that.

The problem was that he was portrayed as a man who didn't care about the average American, a man who favored rich and hated poor people who live on government and depend on government. He gave away more than Obama/Biden in charity and has helped families in need and also ran a business, while Obama here graduated, became a community organizer for Chicago, became a Senator for 4 years, and then ran for President. He was always involved in government, and never the individual tax payer, but nobody payed attention to that and the left was very good at steering attention towards Romney's "selfishness and hate". Also comments that Romney himself made about overturning Roe vs. Wade and the "Self-Deport" comment were probably too conservative for America, and THAT all together if anything probably cost Romney the election. Yet some on the far right think he was not conservative enough, this is a huge problem right now with the republican party, and one reason why I can't even seem to align myself with them at the moment (I always was a Libertarian though).

I honestly have a problem with people who think he's not conservative enough for America. In fact a more moderate person is just what we need since this country is so polarized now. We do NOT need a far left (Obama) or far right (Bachmann) person to be President! I wouldn't mind to see Christie or Paul take the lead here, it would be great if we have common sense not ideologues!
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,643
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2013, 07:30:35 pm »

Romney won the independent vote and is a moderate, but there's no such thing as too moderate to win. It was a myth for McCain and Dole too. They lost because things were going great in 1996 and Clinton was seen as part of the reason and 2008 was a huge Democratic year. Romney lost a close election where Obama peaked at the right time.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,354


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2013, 08:30:35 pm »
« Edited: July 24, 2013, 08:33:45 pm by Likely Voter »

Independent and Moderate is not the same thing even though they often get conflated.

But regarding the theory of Romney losing because he wasn't conservative enough, if that were true then conservative vote share should have dropped, but it actually went up 1% vs. 2004 and 2008. Romney also did 4 points better with this group than McCain and just 2% less than Bush.

Romney's problem was appeal to "Moderates" where he was 2 points better than McCain but 4 points worse than Bush.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Moderators
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,430
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2013, 09:20:08 pm »

If Romney had a problem with the conservative side (not necessarily saying he did) it wasn't that he was too moderate, it was that he transparently flip-flopped and therefore forfeited the trust of many of his supporters. If he had consistent moderate positions the whole time he may have fared better in this department.

I'm not really convinced he had a problem with conservatives and I for one still did vote for him. I didn't bother trying to convince anyone else to though like I did for McCain. At least for me it was a rather indifferent Mittens vote. It didn't seem to matter much who won.
Logged
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,712
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2013, 09:20:36 pm »

Independent and Moderate is not the same thing even though they often get conflated.

Agreed. You have Angus King type Independents, and then you have Bernie Sanders type Independents.

Romney did very poorly among the moderate vote, and I'm sure the socon rhetoric from other members of the Republican Party helped create an unfavorable image, even though he did a decent job of toning it down. But as most have said, Romney lost because of his image as "an elitist, greedy businessman", not because he was too moderate or conservative.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,238
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2013, 04:29:12 am »

I think the Talk Radio People are basing it off the preliminary returns early on Wednesday morning, which had Romney four million votes below McCain, but what they forgot about is the mail-in votes on the West Coast. Romney ended up over 60 million (compared to 59 for McCain), but Obama pushed over 65 and thus even if there was four million, it wouldn't have been enough.

Romney won the independent vote and is a moderate, but there's no such thing as too moderate to win. It was a myth for McCain and Dole too. They lost because things were going great in 1996 and Clinton was seen as part of the reason and 2008 was a huge Democratic year. Romney lost a close election where Obama peaked at the right time.

I disagree with the assertion that Romney is a moderate, in may ways he was more solid then Bush on a good number of issues, especially on immigration.

The reason that Romney won the independent vote is because a number of Republican IDers switched over to indentifying as independents because of the debt ceiling controversy, The War on Women thing and Todd Akin. Therefore even though the electorate was made up of a larger percentage of conservates then 2004 (26% to 23%), the party ID advantage was much more favorable towards the Dems then it was in 2004.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,643
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2013, 10:37:21 am »

I think the Talk Radio People are basing it off the preliminary returns early on Wednesday morning, which had Romney four million votes below McCain, but what they forgot about is the mail-in votes on the West Coast. Romney ended up over 60 million (compared to 59 for McCain), but Obama pushed over 65 and thus even if there was four million, it wouldn't have been enough.

Romney won the independent vote and is a moderate, but there's no such thing as too moderate to win. It was a myth for McCain and Dole too. They lost because things were going great in 1996 and Clinton was seen as part of the reason and 2008 was a huge Democratic year. Romney lost a close election where Obama peaked at the right time.

I disagree with the assertion that Romney is a moderate, in may ways he was more solid then Bush on a good number of issues, especially on immigration.

The reason that Romney won the independent vote is because a number of Republican IDers switched over to indentifying as independents because of the debt ceiling controversy, The War on Women thing and Todd Akin. Therefore even though the electorate was made up of a larger percentage of conservates then 2004 (26% to 23%), the party ID advantage was much more favorable towards the Dems then it was in 2004.

I don't know if that's the reasons why people switched from Republican to Independent. The debt ceiling sounds more like a reason for Democrats to switch to Independent. If Republicans switched to Independent, then how did the percentage of conservatives make up a larger percentage of the electorate?
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2013, 12:46:49 pm »

Romney was good enough for me, and if I could vote I would've voted for him. But why is it that some of these people disagree on a few issues and tell the world that he isn't conservative enough? To hell with that.

The problem was that he was portrayed as a man who didn't care about the average American, a man who favored rich and hated poor people who live on government and depend on government. He gave away more than Obama/Biden in charity and has helped families in need and also ran a business, while Obama here graduated, became a community organizer for Chicago, became a Senator for 4 years, and then ran for President. He was always involved in government, and never the individual tax payer, but nobody payed attention to that and the left was very good at steering attention towards Romney's "selfishness and hate". Also comments that Romney himself made about overturning Roe vs. Wade and the "Self-Deport" comment were probably too conservative for America, and THAT all together if anything probably cost Romney the election. Yet some on the far right think he was not conservative enough, this is a huge problem right now with the republican party, and one reason why I can't even seem to align myself with them at the moment (I always was a Libertarian though).

I honestly have a problem with people who think he's not conservative enough for America. In fact a more moderate person is just what we need since this country is so polarized now. We do NOT need a far left (Obama) or far right (Bachmann) person to be President! I wouldn't mind to see Christie or Paul take the lead here, it would be great if we have common sense not ideologues!
Well Obama is liberal on social issues no doubt but moderate on economic issues. On the environment he has a heavy dislike for the coal industry so he is pretty left wing on the issue of energy/environment.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,571
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2013, 01:38:57 pm »

Romney was good enough for me, and if I could vote I would've voted for him. But why is it that some of these people disagree on a few issues and tell the world that he isn't conservative enough? To hell with that.

The problem was that he was portrayed as a man who didn't care about the average American, a man who favored rich and hated poor people who live on government and depend on government. He gave away more than Obama/Biden in charity and has helped families in need and also ran a business, while Obama here graduated, became a community organizer for Chicago, became a Senator for 4 years, and then ran for President. He was always involved in government, and never the individual tax payer, but nobody payed attention to that and the left was very good at steering attention towards Romney's "selfishness and hate". Also comments that Romney himself made about overturning Roe vs. Wade and the "Self-Deport" comment were probably too conservative for America, and THAT all together if anything probably cost Romney the election. Yet some on the far right think he was not conservative enough, this is a huge problem right now with the republican party, and one reason why I can't even seem to align myself with them at the moment (I always was a Libertarian though).

I honestly have a problem with people who think he's not conservative enough for America. In fact a more moderate person is just what we need since this country is so polarized now. We do NOT need a far left (Obama) or far right (Bachmann) person to be President! I wouldn't mind to see Christie or Paul take the lead here, it would be great if we have common sense not ideologues!
Well Obama is liberal on social issues no doubt but moderate on economic issues. On the environment he has a heavy dislike for the coal industry so he is pretty left wing on the issue of energy/environment.

If you seen him speak, you know he has a very heavy hate for the 1% and thinks they should be taxed at higher rate (%) while the poor are victims and should live on welfare if they needed to. Taxing the rich at higher rates really isn't equal, while a flat tax is completely equal to all classes and incomes, and it's very simple to understand.

Rich-$150,000/year. 5.0% Tax = $7,500 of Tax Money
Poor-$20,000/year. 5.0% Tax = $1,000 of Tax Money

They each have 95% of their total money left. Is that not fair? (for the Dems)

One article compared Obama to Truman on ideology. He hides his true beliefs and has never exposed them, because if he exposed them, the right would freak. Remember the Jaramiah Wright scandal? You might think he's moderate on economics, but that's something I'll never believe.

Logged
eric82oslo
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,526
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2013, 01:44:00 pm »

Romney was good enough for me, and if I could vote I would've voted for him. But why is it that some of these people disagree on a few issues and tell the world that he isn't conservative enough? To hell with that.

The problem was that he was portrayed as a man who didn't care about the average American, a man who favored rich and hated poor people who live on government and depend on government. He gave away more than Obama/Biden in charity and has helped families in need and also ran a business, while Obama here graduated, became a community organizer for Chicago, became a Senator for 4 years, and then ran for President. He was always involved in government, and never the individual tax payer, but nobody payed attention to that and the left was very good at steering attention towards Romney's "selfishness and hate". Also comments that Romney himself made about overturning Roe vs. Wade and the "Self-Deport" comment were probably too conservative for America, and THAT all together if anything probably cost Romney the election. Yet some on the far right think he was not conservative enough, this is a huge problem right now with the republican party, and one reason why I can't even seem to align myself with them at the moment (I always was a Libertarian though).

I honestly have a problem with people who think he's not conservative enough for America. In fact a more moderate person is just what we need since this country is so polarized now. We do NOT need a far left (Obama) or far right (Bachmann) person to be President! I wouldn't mind to see Christie or Paul take the lead here, it would be great if we have common sense not ideologues!
Well Obama is liberal on social issues no doubt but moderate on economic issues. On the environment he has a heavy dislike for the coal industry so he is pretty left wing on the issue of energy/environment.

If you seen him speak, you know he has a very heavy hate for the 1% and thinks they should be taxed at higher rate (%) while the poor are victims and should live on welfare if they needed to. Taxing the rich at higher rates really isn't equal, while a flat tax is completely equal to all classes and incomes, and it's very simple to understand.

Rich-$150,000/year. 5.0% Tax = $7,500 of Tax Money
Poor-$20,000/year. 5.0% Tax = $1,000 of Tax Money

They each have 95% of their total money left. Is that not fair? (for the Dems)

One article compared Obama to Truman on ideology. He hides his true beliefs and has never exposed them, because if he exposed them, the right would freak. Remember the Jaramiah Wright scandal? You might think he's moderate on economics, but that's something I'll never believe.

What the US needs, one of the most unequal countries in the world, at least in the Western world, is not more inequality and even more shocking differences between the poor and the billionaires. That is what you're proposing with your flat tax.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,571
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2013, 02:37:44 pm »

Romney was good enough for me, and if I could vote I would've voted for him. But why is it that some of these people disagree on a few issues and tell the world that he isn't conservative enough? To hell with that.

The problem was that he was portrayed as a man who didn't care about the average American, a man who favored rich and hated poor people who live on government and depend on government. He gave away more than Obama/Biden in charity and has helped families in need and also ran a business, while Obama here graduated, became a community organizer for Chicago, became a Senator for 4 years, and then ran for President. He was always involved in government, and never the individual tax payer, but nobody payed attention to that and the left was very good at steering attention towards Romney's "selfishness and hate". Also comments that Romney himself made about overturning Roe vs. Wade and the "Self-Deport" comment were probably too conservative for America, and THAT all together if anything probably cost Romney the election. Yet some on the far right think he was not conservative enough, this is a huge problem right now with the republican party, and one reason why I can't even seem to align myself with them at the moment (I always was a Libertarian though).

I honestly have a problem with people who think he's not conservative enough for America. In fact a more moderate person is just what we need since this country is so polarized now. We do NOT need a far left (Obama) or far right (Bachmann) person to be President! I wouldn't mind to see Christie or Paul take the lead here, it would be great if we have common sense not ideologues!
Well Obama is liberal on social issues no doubt but moderate on economic issues. On the environment he has a heavy dislike for the coal industry so he is pretty left wing on the issue of energy/environment.

If you seen him speak, you know he has a very heavy hate for the 1% and thinks they should be taxed at higher rate (%) while the poor are victims and should live on welfare if they needed to. Taxing the rich at higher rates really isn't equal, while a flat tax is completely equal to all classes and incomes, and it's very simple to understand.

Rich-$150,000/year. 5.0% Tax = $7,500 of Tax Money
Poor-$20,000/year. 5.0% Tax = $1,000 of Tax Money

They each have 95% of their total money left. Is that not fair? (for the Dems)

One article compared Obama to Truman on ideology. He hides his true beliefs and has never exposed them, because if he exposed them, the right would freak. Remember the Jaramiah Wright scandal? You might think he's moderate on economics, but that's something I'll never believe.

What the US needs, one of the most unequal countries in the world, at least in the Western world, is not more inequality and even more shocking differences between the poor and the billionaires. That is what you're proposing with your flat tax.

Believe me, I would love to solve the problem of separation among income, but taxing the rich more is NOT the way to make income more equal. Suppose a hard worker who makes over $200,000 a year is forced to pay big tax rates, while that tax money is given to somebody living off the government not looking for a job. That person who earned that money is no longer going to work hard if the rates become too much and it is given to people who don't work hard. Then we have a society where no one works hard and everybody is "equal" so a person gets the same prize no matter how hard you work.

The problem isn't those in need. It's those who don't want to work and those who don't want to have personal responsibility in which we need to educate them and teach them that. Welfare should be there to get you on your feet not live off of. If anything the people who don't work are the people driving massive divide in incomes.  The United States has a huge separation of incomes because we have people who don't want to work hard (unfortunately) and those who do work hard (in which America, you can achieve anything if you work for it). Yes there are cases where one is born into poverty and in need in which it is OK to live off government for a while but we need to educate those people on work and responsibility so their not living their life on it.

The United States was built on the idea that the get what you work for, and it shall remain that way. I'm not hating the poor and all those on welfare, I'm disliking specifically the people who are not looking for a job or work. With a progressive taxation system the rich gets less of what they work for and the poor gets more of what they work for then those of higher incomes, which, again isn't "equal". With a flat tax, everybody gets the same chuck of what they work for, and that is why it is equal.
Logged
eric82oslo
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,526
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2013, 02:58:09 pm »

Romney was good enough for me, and if I could vote I would've voted for him. But why is it that some of these people disagree on a few issues and tell the world that he isn't conservative enough? To hell with that.

The problem was that he was portrayed as a man who didn't care about the average American, a man who favored rich and hated poor people who live on government and depend on government. He gave away more than Obama/Biden in charity and has helped families in need and also ran a business, while Obama here graduated, became a community organizer for Chicago, became a Senator for 4 years, and then ran for President. He was always involved in government, and never the individual tax payer, but nobody payed attention to that and the left was very good at steering attention towards Romney's "selfishness and hate". Also comments that Romney himself made about overturning Roe vs. Wade and the "Self-Deport" comment were probably too conservative for America, and THAT all together if anything probably cost Romney the election. Yet some on the far right think he was not conservative enough, this is a huge problem right now with the republican party, and one reason why I can't even seem to align myself with them at the moment (I always was a Libertarian though).

I honestly have a problem with people who think he's not conservative enough for America. In fact a more moderate person is just what we need since this country is so polarized now. We do NOT need a far left (Obama) or far right (Bachmann) person to be President! I wouldn't mind to see Christie or Paul take the lead here, it would be great if we have common sense not ideologues!
Well Obama is liberal on social issues no doubt but moderate on economic issues. On the environment he has a heavy dislike for the coal industry so he is pretty left wing on the issue of energy/environment.

If you seen him speak, you know he has a very heavy hate for the 1% and thinks they should be taxed at higher rate (%) while the poor are victims and should live on welfare if they needed to. Taxing the rich at higher rates really isn't equal, while a flat tax is completely equal to all classes and incomes, and it's very simple to understand.

Rich-$150,000/year. 5.0% Tax = $7,500 of Tax Money
Poor-$20,000/year. 5.0% Tax = $1,000 of Tax Money

They each have 95% of their total money left. Is that not fair? (for the Dems)

One article compared Obama to Truman on ideology. He hides his true beliefs and has never exposed them, because if he exposed them, the right would freak. Remember the Jaramiah Wright scandal? You might think he's moderate on economics, but that's something I'll never believe.

What the US needs, one of the most unequal countries in the world, at least in the Western world, is not more inequality and even more shocking differences between the poor and the billionaires. That is what you're proposing with your flat tax.

Believe me, I would love to solve the problem of separation among income, but taxing the rich more is NOT the way to make income more equal. Suppose a hard worker who makes over $200,000 a year is forced to pay big tax rates, while that tax money is given to somebody living off the government not looking for a job. That person who earned that money is no longer going to work hard if the rates become too much and it is given to people who don't work hard. Then we have a society where no one works hard and everybody is "equal" so a person gets the same prize no matter how hard you work.

The problem isn't those in need. It's those who don't want to work and those who don't want to have personal responsibility in which we need to educate them and teach them that. Welfare should be there to get you on your feet not live off of. If anything the people who don't work are the people driving massive divide in incomes.  The United States has a huge separation of incomes because we have people who don't want to work hard (unfortunately) and those who do work hard (in which America, you can achieve anything if you work for it). Yes there are cases where one is born into poverty and in need in which it is OK to live off government for a while but we need to educate those people on work and responsibility so their not living their life on it.

The United States was built on the idea that the get what you work for, and it shall remain that way. I'm not hating the poor and all those on welfare, I'm disliking specifically the people who are not looking for a job or work. With a progressive taxation system the rich gets less of what they work for and the poor gets more of what they work for then those of higher incomes, which, again isn't "equal". With a flat tax, everybody gets the same chuck of what they work for, and that is why it is equal.

You are talking about the workers versus non-workers here. But that is not the great divide in American society, as you very well should know. The middle class is almost just as frustrated as the unemployed in the US today, because they're both unfairly exploited by the millionaires and the billionaires. The war should not be between workers and unemployed, but between the poor and the middle class on one side and the selfish billionaires on the other side. By creating an artificial divide between the middle class and the unemployed, you're actually hurting both groups and the only winners of this fight will only be those with already billions in the bank and in property. A flat tax would help the middle class next to none, in fact it would probably hurt them much more than it would help them, cause it would reduce government benefits like education and health care to next to non-existance.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,571
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2013, 03:06:15 pm »

You are talking about the workers versus non-workers here. But that is not the great divide in American society, as you very well should know. The middle class is almost just as frustrated as the unemployed in the US today, because they're both unfairly exploited by the millionaires and the billionaires. The war should not be between workers and unemployed, but between the poor and the middle class on one side and the selfish billionaires on the other side. By creating an artificial divide between the middle class and the unemployed, you're actually hurting both groups and the only winners of this fight will only be those with already billions in the bank and in property. A flat tax would help the middle class next to none, in fact it would probably hurt them much more than it would help them, cause it would reduce government benefits like education and health care to next to non-existance.

OK, before we go on explain to me how billionaires exploit the middle class? and how would a flat tax reduce government benefits? I am by no means for selfish billionaires but how do they exploit the middle class?
Logged
eric82oslo
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,526
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2013, 03:12:09 pm »
« Edited: July 25, 2013, 03:21:46 pm by eric82oslo »

You are talking about the workers versus non-workers here. But that is not the great divide in American society, as you very well should know. The middle class is almost just as frustrated as the unemployed in the US today, because they're both unfairly exploited by the millionaires and the billionaires. The war should not be between workers and unemployed, but between the poor and the middle class on one side and the selfish billionaires on the other side. By creating an artificial divide between the middle class and the unemployed, you're actually hurting both groups and the only winners of this fight will only be those with already billions in the bank and in property. A flat tax would help the middle class next to none, in fact it would probably hurt them much more than it would help them, cause it would reduce government benefits like education and health care to next to non-existance.

OK, before we go on explain to me how billionaires exploit the middle class? and how would a flat tax reduce government benefits? I am by no means for selfish billionaires but how do they exploit the middle class?

You're suggesting that every worker should only pay 5% of their income right? I guess the average wage of a worker today is somewhere between 15% and 25%, isn't it? In that case only a very tiny fraction of taxes would remain on the federal level, and once the military budget would get its share, I guess there wouldn't be many dollars left over, if any at all. Unless one would be willing to expand the federal debt further into astronomical levels.

By the way, you're aware that the richest 400 Americans have assets equal to the 150 million poorest Americans? In other words equal to half of the US population. That should be proof enough that this share of the society should contribute much more to government operations, weather it be infrastruction, energy, research, health care or what not. What you'd like to see is an internal war between those 150 million poorest of Americans. I simply don't get it. When all the wealth is with the 1% or even the 0.1% or 0.01% of Americans, why do you further want to exploit the unemployed and the hard-struggling middle class and blue collar workers?
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,571
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2013, 03:38:42 pm »

You are talking about the workers versus non-workers here. But that is not the great divide in American society, as you very well should know. The middle class is almost just as frustrated as the unemployed in the US today, because they're both unfairly exploited by the millionaires and the billionaires. The war should not be between workers and unemployed, but between the poor and the middle class on one side and the selfish billionaires on the other side. By creating an artificial divide between the middle class and the unemployed, you're actually hurting both groups and the only winners of this fight will only be those with already billions in the bank and in property. A flat tax would help the middle class next to none, in fact it would probably hurt them much more than it would help them, cause it would reduce government benefits like education and health care to next to non-existance.

OK, before we go on explain to me how billionaires exploit the middle class? and how would a flat tax reduce government benefits? I am by no means for selfish billionaires but how do they exploit the middle class?

You're suggesting that every worker should only pay 5% of their income right? I guess the average wage of a worker today is somewhere between 15% and 25%, isn't it? In that case only a very tiny fraction of taxes would remain on the federal level, and once the military budget would get its share, I guess there wouldn't be many dollars left over, if any at all. Unless one would be willing to expand the federal debt further into astronomical levels.

By the way, you're aware that the richest 400 Americans have assets equal to the 150 million poorest Americans? In other words equal to half of the US population. That should be proof enough that this share of the society should contribute much more to government operations, weather it be infrastruction, energy, research, health care or what not. What you'd like to see is an internal war between those 150 million poorest of Americans. I simply don't get it. When all the wealth is with the 1% or even the 0.1% or 0.01% of Americans, why do you further want to exploit the unemployed and the hard-struggling middle class and blue collar workers?

The tax 5% thing was an example just to make a point, I'm not suggesting any actual numbers here.

Many 1%ers do wonderful stuff for charity and help out the government, many however don't help out the government specifically because they know it will waste its money one some useless programs (in their mind). Of course with a flat tax their donating a much bigger chuck of money to the government while at the same time donating the same chuck of his money as a working class man. Unfortunately selfishness is something people have to deal with, just because it's their (1%) money doesn't mean we should take a bigger chunk of it away, and it's their business to keep or spend it how they want.

I completely understand the point your trying to make here: Since a rich man has more money, they should contribute much more of their money to society.

But part of individual freedom is spending and keeping money how you want. You may not be happy with it, but its not your choice. That's something that for the most part I agree with even if it is selfish, its individualism. That's where we'll never agree, so If you have one more point to make, make it.
Logged
Oak Hills
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,220
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2013, 05:44:30 pm »

You are talking about the workers versus non-workers here. But that is not the great divide in American society, as you very well should know. The middle class is almost just as frustrated as the unemployed in the US today, because they're both unfairly exploited by the millionaires and the billionaires. The war should not be between workers and unemployed, but between the poor and the middle class on one side and the selfish billionaires on the other side. By creating an artificial divide between the middle class and the unemployed, you're actually hurting both groups and the only winners of this fight will only be those with already billions in the bank and in property. A flat tax would help the middle class next to none, in fact it would probably hurt them much more than it would help them, cause it would reduce government benefits like education and health care to next to non-existance.

OK, before we go on explain to me how billionaires exploit the middle class? and how would a flat tax reduce government benefits? I am by no means for selfish billionaires but how do they exploit the middle class?

You're suggesting that every worker should only pay 5% of their income right? I guess the average wage of a worker today is somewhere between 15% and 25%, isn't it? In that case only a very tiny fraction of taxes would remain on the federal level, and once the military budget would get its share, I guess there wouldn't be many dollars left over, if any at all. Unless one would be willing to expand the federal debt further into astronomical levels.

By the way, you're aware that the richest 400 Americans have assets equal to the 150 million poorest Americans? In other words equal to half of the US population. That should be proof enough that this share of the society should contribute much more to government operations, weather it be infrastruction, energy, research, health care or what not. What you'd like to see is an internal war between those 150 million poorest of Americans. I simply don't get it. When all the wealth is with the 1% or even the 0.1% or 0.01% of Americans, why do you further want to exploit the unemployed and the hard-struggling middle class and blue collar workers?

The tax 5% thing was an example just to make a point, I'm not suggesting any actual numbers here.

Many 1%ers do wonderful stuff for charity and help out the government, many however don't help out the government specifically because they know it will waste its money one some useless programs (in their mind). Of course with a flat tax their donating a much bigger chuck of money to the government while at the same time donating the same chuck of his money as a working class man. Unfortunately selfishness is something people have to deal with, just because it's their (1%) money doesn't mean we should take a bigger chunk of it away, and it's their business to keep or spend it how they want.

I completely understand the point your trying to make here: Since a rich man has more money, they should contribute much more of their money to society.

But part of individual freedom is spending and keeping money how you want. You may not be happy with it, but its not your choice. That's something that for the most part I agree with even if it is selfish, its individualism. That's where we'll never agree, so If you have one more point to make, make it.
I don't think you understand the argument behind progressive taxation. The reason the poor should pay lower rates is because their pretax income isn't even enough to live on. The rich, on the other hand, while they do spend more money on consumer goods because they have more of it, the percentage of their income they spend on consumer goods, and therefore also sales taxes, is actually lower. Also, social security taxes are flat, up to $108,000. Beyond that point, people pay the same amount as someone making $108,000 a year, but the poor pay the same payroll tax rate as people up to $108,000 a year. The rich also pay a smaller percentage of their income in that tax as well. So, if we had a flat income tax, the poor would be paying a higher percentage of their incomes to total taxes than the rich or the middle class, which they can afford under no circumstances. However, the rich have more money and would not be harmed by paying a slightly higher rate. That was the mainstream liberal position on taxation. Notice, there is no mention of the rich being greedy or anything of the like. Also, people who refuse to work are ineligible for government assistance, as far as I know. If you have information from a credible source (i.e. not a right-wing website) indicating that I am wrong, feel free to post a link to correct my misconception.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,990


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2013, 09:44:11 pm »

The notion that Mitt Romney has any sincere political beliefs is absurd. Mitt Romney believes only in Mitt Romney and will say whatever to whomever to get what he wants.
Logged
PolitiJunkie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,126


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2013, 11:28:30 pm »

Romney was good enough for me, and if I could vote I would've voted for him. But why is it that some of these people disagree on a few issues and tell the world that he isn't conservative enough? To hell with that.

The problem was that he was portrayed as a man who didn't care about the average American, a man who favored rich and hated poor people who live on government and depend on government. He gave away more than Obama/Biden in charity and has helped families in need and also ran a business, while Obama here graduated, became a community organizer for Chicago, became a Senator for 4 years, and then ran for President. He was always involved in government, and never the individual tax payer, but nobody payed attention to that and the left was very good at steering attention towards Romney's "selfishness and hate". Also comments that Romney himself made about overturning Roe vs. Wade and the "Self-Deport" comment were probably too conservative for America, and THAT all together if anything probably cost Romney the election. Yet some on the far right think he was not conservative enough, this is a huge problem right now with the republican party, and one reason why I can't even seem to align myself with them at the moment (I always was a Libertarian though).

I honestly have a problem with people who think he's not conservative enough for America. In fact a more moderate person is just what we need since this country is so polarized now. We do NOT need a far left (Obama) or far right (Bachmann) person to be President! I wouldn't mind to see Christie or Paul take the lead here, it would be great if we have common sense not ideologues!

LOL.












I wish.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines