Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The GOP simply doesn't represnt the interests of people like me anymore. In the age of polarization politics it seems their agenda is slanted more than ever to the "1%".

The Republican proposal is based primarily on new limits on itemized tax deductions and credits for individuals, according to a Republican aide close to the discussions. The deduction for mortgage interest on second homes - a provision of the tax code used primarily by wealthier Americans - is one possible example, the aide said.

Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, helped to push the proposal during talks with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, aides said.

In exchange for the new revenue generated by closing the loophole, Republicans want Democrats to agree to lower the top marginal income tax rate for individuals from 35% to 28% according to two Democratic sources. Republicans are also looking for significant changes to entitlement programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

So if I'm not in that top tax bracket, which an overwhelming majority of Americans are not, then what the hell are you doing for me?? It's always about the "1%" nowadays with the GOP.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Democrats represent me either. There have never been darker days in politics in this country, well until the meltdown in a few weeks when the super-committee fails & the 2 sides can't agree - again.

bluehenbillk wrote: Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Democrats represent me either. There have never been darker days in politics in this country, well until the meltdown in a few weeks when the super-committee fails & the 2 sides can't agree - again.

Welcome to my very small club. The Democrats and Republicans are like 2 vampires trying to see who can take the most blood out of their victim without the victim dying.

Welcome to being a registered "Unaffiliated". You get to take shots at both sides here.

Why anybody is solidly committed to either party has always baffled me. Well, not reall baffled, some people are clear why they are so partisan, it just never struck me as a position you'd want to be in.

GannonFan wrote:Why anybody is solidly committed to either party has always baffled me. Well, not reall baffled, some people are clear why they are so partisan, it just never struck me as a position you'd want to be in.

Takes no effort, just a lot of defending and deflecting. See it all the time right here.

bluehenbillk wrote:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t3

The GOP simply doesn't represnt the interests of people like me anymore. In the age of polarization politics it seems their agenda is slanted more than ever to the "1%".


So if I'm not in that top tax bracket, which an overwhelming majority of Americans are not, then what the hell are you doing for me?? It's always about the "1%" nowadays with the GOP.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Democrats represent me either. There have never been darker days in politics in this country, well until the meltdown in a few weeks when the super-committee fails & the 2 sides can't agree - again.

You have 2 choices. You can stay with our team, or join the other team. There's no middle ground here.

bluehenbillk wrote:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t3

The GOP simply doesn't represnt the interests of people like me anymore. In the age of polarization politics it seems their agenda is slanted more than ever to the "1%".

The Republican proposal is based primarily on new limits on itemized tax deductions and credits for individuals, according to a Republican aide close to the discussions. The deduction for mortgage interest on second homes - a provision of the tax code used primarily by wealthier Americans - is one possible example, the aide said.

Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, helped to push the proposal during talks with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, aides said.

In exchange for the new revenue generated by closing the loophole, Republicans want Democrats to agree to lower the top marginal income tax rate for individuals from 35% to 28% according to two Democratic sources. Republicans are also looking for significant changes to entitlement programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

So if I'm not in that top tax bracket, which an overwhelming majority of Americans are not, then what the hell are you doing for me?? It's always about the "1%" nowadays with the GOP.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Democrats represent me either. There have never been darker days in politics in this country, well until the meltdown in a few weeks when the super-committee fails & the 2 sides can't agree - again.

This is a very big problem with our country right now. I personally don’t worry about what the government will do for me. I will take care of myself and just want them to stay the fuck out of my way. I’m not sure what that makes me politically but I know I don’t expect something for nothing.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t3

The GOP simply doesn't represnt the interests of people like me anymore. In the age of polarization politics it seems their agenda is slanted more than ever to the "1%".



So if I'm not in that top tax bracket, which an overwhelming majority of Americans are not, then what the hell are you doing for me?? It's always about the "1%" nowadays with the GOP.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Democrats represent me either. There have never been darker days in politics in this country, well until the meltdown in a few weeks when the super-committee fails & the 2 sides can't agree - again.

This is a very big problem with our country right now. I personally don’t worry about what the government will do for me.

Agreed, and there are currently 1000's of wealthy individuals and companies who are doing exactly that.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t3

The GOP simply doesn't represnt the interests of people like me anymore. In the age of polarization politics it seems their agenda is slanted more than ever to the "1%".



So if I'm not in that top tax bracket, which an overwhelming majority of Americans are not, then what the hell are you doing for me?? It's always about the "1%" nowadays with the GOP.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Democrats represent me either. There have never been darker days in politics in this country, well until the meltdown in a few weeks when the super-committee fails & the 2 sides can't agree - again.

This is a very big problem with our country right now. I personally don’t worry about what the government will do for me. I will take care of myself and just want them to stay the fuck out of my way. I’m not sure what that makes me politically but I know I don’t expect something for nothing.

The problem is: They WON'T.

So if I'm not in that top tax bracket, which an overwhelming majority of Americans are not, then what the hell are you doing for me?? It's always about the "1%" nowadays with the GOP.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think your attitude is at the core of the problem with the long term direction of this country. To me you shouldn't be worried about what government does for you. You should want government to establish and maintain a basic infrastructure within which you are free to do for yourself.

The "1%" carries way more than its fair share of the load and has for a long time. You could say the same thing about the top 10%.

What we need is rejection of the attitude that government is responsible for taking care of us individually. And we don't need the "progressive taxation" mentality that results in the majority clamoring for more and more benefits that they are largely not paying for because they're assuming the top 1% or 10% or 20% will pay for it.

JohnStOnge wrote:

So if I'm not in that top tax bracket, which an overwhelming majority of Americans are not, then what the hell are you doing for me?? It's always about the "1%" nowadays with the GOP.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think your attitude is at the core of the problem with the long term direction of this country. To me you shouldn't be worried about what government does for you. You should want government to establish and maintain a basic infrastructure within which you are free to do for yourself.

The "1%" carries way more than its fair share of the load and has for a long time. You could say the same thing about the top 10%.

What we need is rejection of the attitude that government is responsible for taking care of us individually. And we don't need the "progressive taxation" mentality that results in the majority clamoring for more and more benefits that they are largely not paying for because they're assuming the top 1% or 10% or 20% will pay for it.

I'm not so sure about that. True, they may carry more than their share of the tax burden, but they also have more access to lawmakers and government than the 99%. That access should come with a price. I don't shed a tear for the 1%, I think they get what they pay for, and they can afford it.

BlueHen86 wrote:I'm not so sure about that. True, they may carry more than their share of the tax burden, but they also have more access to lawmakers and government than the 99%. That access should come with a price. I don't shed a tear for the 1%, I think they get what they pay for, and they can afford it.

Ummmm

Count me as a Republican, I'd rather be associated with the TOP 10% or 1% , instead of the losers at the bottom 20-30% of this country.

someone wrote "What we need is rejection of the attitude that government is responsible for taking care of us individually"

TELL THAT TO THE POOR, UNEDUCATED, LAZY P.O.S THAT DOESNT CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY AT ALL. (which is about 20%)

So those who still call themselves a Republican, who was the big winner in last night's debate, Herman?

Wedgebuster wrote:So those who still call themselves a Republican, who was the big winner in last night's debate, Herman?

Obama

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
If I'm understanding you correctly, I think your attitude is at the core of the problem with the long term direction of this country. To me you shouldn't be worried about what government does for you. You should want government to establish and maintain a basic infrastructure within which you are free to do for yourself.

The "1%" carries way more than its fair share of the load and has for a long time. You could say the same thing about the top 10%.

What we need is rejection of the attitude that government is responsible for taking care of us individually. And we don't need the "progressive taxation" mentality that results in the majority clamoring for more and more benefits that they are largely not paying for because they're assuming the top 1% or 10% or 20% will pay for it.

I'm not so sure about that. True, they may carry more than their share of the tax burden, but they also have more access to lawmakers and government than the 99%. That access should come with a price. I don't shed a tear for the 1%, I think they get what they pay for, and they can afford it.

kalm wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. True, they may carry more than their share of the tax burden, but they also have more access to lawmakers and government than the 99%. That access should come with a price. I don't shed a tear for the 1%, I think they get what they pay for, and they can afford it.

Glad to see you agree that they carry more than their share.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:

Glad to see you agree that they carry more than their share.

Why wouldn't I? They just need to continue manipulating the system to their advantage and pretty soon their tax rates will be low enough that they can start creating jobs again and fix that there deficit problem

Here's what the top 1% pay for:

Security from the masses.

That's it, really.

If the masses are denied everything, they will eventually storm the castle. That, given the numbers, would mean death to the rich. So, the smart move was to set up a middle class as a buffer. Give some of those damned townsfolk a glimpse beyond the walls into how well the rich live and...surprise...and let them have a small piece of it. Homes, cars, dishwashers, air conditioning, big TVs, clothes, education, leisure time, and money to play with (versus living paycheck to paycheck). Place them between the rich and the poor so that the poor interact with or rob the middle class...after all, the poor are too lazy to make it all the way out to the rich country estates (notice there are no "Occupy Rancho Santa Fe, CA" movements).

Unfortunately, with TV and internet, almost everyone....even the poorest, now want comfort and more things than what a job at McDonalds can afford. The problem is that every job isn't paying a good wage (and won't, unless we are at zero % unemployment...and that would cause its own problems), so you are just expecting that a lot of people will lay down and accept that they won't live a better life while some other folks get to be born into the fast lane (tough to get one of the top jobs without having connections...and even tougher to get a job or create a business plan where the government allows you to practically steal other people's money).

So, what we are seeing is another renegotiation of the cost of not storming the castle. The interesting part is to see whether the middle class will accept the megarich getting richer while the middle class turns on itself (creating more poor) or whether they will demand that the megarich give up more of its share to the middle class and poor in order to maintain their own little fiefdoms.

Fun times.

Cluck U wrote:Here's what the top 1% pay for:

Security from the masses.

That's it, really.

If the masses are denied everything, they will eventually storm the castle. That, given the numbers, would mean death to the rich. So, the smart move was to set up a middle class as a buffer. Give some of those damned townsfolk a glimpse beyond the walls into how well the rich live and...surprise...and let them have a small piece of it. Homes, cars, dishwashers, air conditioning, big TVs, clothes, education, leisure time, and money to play with (versus living paycheck to paycheck). Place them between the rich and the poor so that the poor interact with or rob the middle class...after all, the poor are too lazy to make it all the way out to the rich country estates (notice there are no "Occupy Rancho Santa Fe, CA" movements).

Unfortunately, with TV and internet, almost everyone....even the poorest, now want comfort and more things than what a job at McDonalds can afford. The problem is that every job isn't paying a good wage (and won't, unless we are at zero % unemployment...and that would cause its own problems), so you are just expecting that a lot of people will lay down and accept that they won't live a better life while some other folks get to be born into the fast lane (tough to get one of the top jobs without having connections...and even tougher to get a job or create a business plan where the government allows you to practically steal other people's money).

So, what we are seeing is another renegotiation of the cost of not storming the castle. The interesting part is to see whether the middle class will accept the megarich getting richer while the middle class turns on itself (creating more poor) or whether they will demand that the megarich give up more of its share to the middle class and poor in order to maintain their own little fiefdoms.

Fun times.

After you fetch me a beer, how bout condensing that down a little there, Boy?

Cluck U wrote:Here's what the top 1% pay for:

Security from the masses.

That's it, really.

If the masses are denied everything, they will eventually storm the castle. That, given the numbers, would mean death to the rich. So, the smart move was to set up a middle class as a buffer. Give some of those damned townsfolk a glimpse beyond the walls into how well the rich live and...surprise...and let them have a small piece of it. Homes, cars, dishwashers, air conditioning, big TVs, clothes, education, leisure time, and money to play with (versus living paycheck to paycheck). Place them between the rich and the poor so that the poor interact with or rob the middle class...after all, the poor are too lazy to make it all the way out to the rich country estates (notice there are no "Occupy Rancho Santa Fe, CA" movements).

Unfortunately, with TV and internet, almost everyone....even the poorest, now want comfort and more things than what a job at McDonalds can afford. The problem is that every job isn't paying a good wage (and won't, unless we are at zero % unemployment...and that would cause its own problems), so you are just expecting that a lot of people will lay down and accept that they won't live a better life while some other folks get to be born into the fast lane (tough to get one of the top jobs without having connections...and even tougher to get a job or create a business plan where the government allows you to practically steal other people's money).

So, what we are seeing is another renegotiation of the cost of not storming the castle. The interesting part is to see whether the middle class will accept the megarich getting richer while the middle class turns on itself (creating more poor) or whether they will demand that the megarich give up more of its share to the middle class and poor in order to maintain their own little fiefdoms.

Fun times.

That's a very, very good take on things.

BTW, you're not alone BHB. Quinnipiac has the Rep Party favorability rating at 28% and unfavorable at 57%. I'm sure the Dems aren't much better than that. Come to think of it, neither is the Tea Party or OWS. I don't think Americans view any political movement or party favorably. Might not be a bad thing.

kalm wrote:BTW, you're not alone BHB. Quinnipiac has the Rep Party favorability rating at 28% and unfavorable at 57%. I'm sure the Dems aren't much better than that. Come to think of it, neither is the Tea Party or OWS. I don't think Americans view any political movement or party favorably. Might not be a bad thing.

Good quote from Denzel Washington's character in "Glory" sums it up nicely:

Yeah, It stinks bad. And we all covered up in it too. Ain't nobody clean. Be nice to get clean, though.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t3

The GOP simply doesn't represnt the interests of people like me anymore. In the age of polarization politics it seems their agenda is slanted more than ever to the "1%".



So if I'm not in that top tax bracket, which an overwhelming majority of Americans are not, then what the hell are you doing for me?? It's always about the "1%" nowadays with the GOP.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Democrats represent me either. There have never been darker days in politics in this country, well until the meltdown in a few weeks when the super-committee fails & the 2 sides can't agree - again.

This is a very big problem with our country right now. I personally don’t worry about what the government will do for me. I will take care of myself and just want them to stay the **** out of my way. I’m not sure what that makes me politically but I know I don’t expect something for nothing.

Ditto. The problem with this country is too many "what the hell are you (the govt) doing for me" types...

So, what we are seeing is another renegotiation of the cost of not storming the castle. The interesting part is to see whether the middle class will accept the megarich getting richer while the middle class turns on itself (creating more poor) or whether they will demand that the megarich give up more of its share to the middle class and poor in order to maintain their own little fiefdoms.

The "Middle Class" of today is better off than the "Middle Classes" of the 50s, 60s or 70s were. One of the biggest myths of popular culture is that the "middle class" has generally gotten worse off over time. It hasn't.