What Happens To The GOP If Obama Wins In 2012?

The Republican message is that they were totally irresponsible with the finances of America for 8 years and ruined the country.

But now they say please trust us again because we learned our lesson.

And I tell you that ordinary Americans that are in their right minds are not buying it.

Most Americans really just want President Obama and the Democrats to finish cleaning up the mess the Republicans made of the nation and get us back on the right track.

our bill of rights are being repealed in the senate right now. there is a new law that will destroy our rights if no one acts. the information is here..

please let everyone know and contact congress

I'd be more likely to trust "TOONSIS" THE CAT THAT CAN DRIVE" Than anymore republicans!

I would hope that you are correct. But the GOP is not to be underestimated. They are the masters of half truths and fear mongering. Their base is still substantial. Not to mention the new voter laws being put in place by GOP governors all over the country. They have already successfully stolen the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore with the help of the SCOTUS. It can happen again. IF President Obama wins, it will be very close. There are many states he won in 2008 that will probably swing GOP this time. The electoral college will have to swing his way. The GOP has a better chance to win this than people think. Who would have thought they would regain the house in 2010 after all the damage they did? A lot can happen between now and next November. Reelection will not be easy for the president.

No one will go insane or crazy within the GOP if President Obama is re-elected. The current course we are on will continue. The republicans made it through okay after President Clinton won his second election. The possible course of action is that it would bring moderate republicans to begin to reform the party and close off those extreme elements within the GOP. But let's be fair in to say that the DNC is far from perfect either and it has it's own element of members that block and prevent any real movement without the "my way or highway" approach. It is apparent that no matter what, the republicans will be blamed for everything until the very end.

Or better yet become an independent party and get rid of the right wing baggage that is the republican/tea bag party, big business, evangelical party it has become.

Well if you want to re-start the "Bull Mouse Party" then I would join. TR was not a bad President.

Mac, you are most likely correct. The problem however is the uneducated followers of the rheteric, they will be a problem. Also the DNC is not perfect, but when we are faced with nearly every single Republican signing a special interest group's pledge and holding our country hostage. The DNC looks alot more moderate. I am an independant, but will vote a straight Dem ticket, because they have to be stopped.

GW F'd us over so badly, I do not want to see a repeat of that.
G

No one will go insane or crazy within the GOP if President Obama is re-elected.

That's because the GOP is already crazy. There's no further crazy to go.

They went bugsh1t nuts when he was elected in 2008. I remember wondering how long it would be before Pat Buchannan just started screaming "n!!!er!" over and over again during the approaching election, as it became apparent that the clown-car of McCain/Palin was headed over a cliff.

But I am quite sure that a second Obama win will be met with quite a bit of right-wing violence.

But I am quite sure that a second Obama win will be met with quite a bit of right-wing violence.

Yup. Everyone knows that teabaggers are unstable and violent.

sorry Monster...there is something beyond crazy...its called paranoia...

It's not paranoia real michaud when everything Monster says is true!

sorry Monster...there is something beyond crazy...its called paranoia...

You could be right about that. John Cole likes to quote on his blog that "Peak Wingnut was a lie." Because it does seem every time we hear something so outrageous and indefensible and hypocritical and we say "OK, this will discredit the GOP for all time and they will have to back away from this idiocy and repudiate it" they double down and say something even crazier, more violent, more hateful, more stupid.

But overall, I do not expect the GOP to view their almost-guaranteed ass-kicking at the polls in 2012 as a wake-up call to start stepping towards the middle. They will instead purge their party of impurities and start over again -- with an even smaller demographic and a narrower appeal than before.

If the Republicans have a chance to win, it would be their tactic of obstructing all legislation that would help the economy for average Americans has worked. People often vote from their wallet. Bad times are not favorable to incumbents. That would be unfortunate as Obama and the Democrats have been trying improve the economy for average Americans while Republicans have stubbornly refused to do more than work for the richest one percent of Americans.

My guess is if Romney wins the nomination he will have to run with a right wing vice presidential candidate. That's the ol' McCain - Palin tactic that didn't work in 2008. Teapublicans have already said they would not accept that. My guess is that they would split from the GOP, become their own party and run their own candidate. And my next guess is that this would has the same result of Ross Perot running for president - it would split the Republican vote. Perhaps a Rick Perry - Michelle Bachmann ticket?

Romney has made too many concessions to the right wing which will not sit well in a general election. He is against withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He has also said if he is elected we would prepare for war with Iran. Those positions in a general election will be political suicide. It is a blatant gesture to get the financial support of the military industrial complex who stand to continue making billions of dollars in war profits.

Privatization of social security and Medicare cannot be defended in a nation wide election. Simply follow the money and its obvious Republicans are being paid huge amounts of money to do this by the corporations that stand to make trillions of dollars in the long term with privatization. This is also a political suicide position.

If Gingrich, the most ethically bankrupt, corrupt candidate, gets nominated, he will be eviscerated in the press. If we are to believe the polls, he is currently the front runner.

If you want 4 more years of no jobs, no money, and no hope, go ahead and re-elect him, we can weather the storm, can you?

If you want 4 more years of no jobs, no money, and no hope, go ahead and re-elect him, we can weather the storm, can you?

Unless the Republicans decide it's no longer in their best interest to be obstructionist.

Democrats linked with Pay-Go, That's Funny! Hahahahahahaha !!!

The problem however is the uneducated followers of the rheteric

You just can't make this stuff up. Thanks for the LOL!

PAY-GO? THAT is what is funny... Pay-go only applies to something like 17% of spending

That's because the GOP is already crazy. There's no further crazy to go.

Never underestimate human stupidity. There's always further crazy to go. More of them sympathizing with and building platforms in line with the WBC's thinking to appeal to the evangelicals would be one possibility.

Steve, for you to make a strong argument, I'll need some kind of idea of the Plan. I need to know how you believe that after decades of decay that the Republicans have an idea on how to solve unemployment. I'd like to hear all the good news about reforming our dismal healthcare system (skip the buy insurance across states lines please, its old and isn't true anyways). Debt? I am anxious to find out how you can lower debt without raising taxes. I know the party line is to eliminate government but that's not true and never happens and even if it was possible you'd still have the problem increased unemployment. I'm very keen on knowing what "hope" you are willing to instill. Please elaborate. No money? Are the Republicans going to give us some? So, I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Don't forget the "hope" please.

Democrats linked with Pay-Go, That's Funny! Hahahahahahaha !!!

That comment has no substance at all.

PAY-GO? THAT is what is funny... Pay-go only applies to something like 17% of spending

What is truly funny is that the GOP continues to claim to for fiscal responsbility and lower deficits is words, but in deeds consistently weaken rules that cut the deficit.

House Republican Rule Changes Pave the Way For Major Deficit-Increasing Tax Cuts, Despite Anti-Deficit Rhetoric

Again and again the GOP claims ACTIONS demonstrate that their number one priority over all others is cutting taxes for the wealth and damn the consequences. This is highlighted by the SuperCommittee where the GOP said the before we could even talk about cutting spending that there had to be permanent tax cut that would increase the deficit by over 3 and half trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

Sorry to disappoint you but President Obama is going to win reelection. The gop doesn't have a chance.

You are going to be the one dissapointed, he will lose by at least the same margin that he won by in '08. If some unforseen negative event happens before next November, then his historic presidency will end historically as well...by electoral rout.

... need some kind of idea of the Plan. I need to know how you believe that after decades of decay that the Republicans have an idea on how to solve unemployment.

That's the crux of it! When you vote Republican, you do so on faith, not on ideas or a plan. The plan is always the same: get government out of the way (by starving it's appetite for revenue). Republicans view our current state not as a temporary recession, or depression, but as the way things are going to be: a future where we cannot afford even to maintain our common infrastructure. It would be unnecessary to cut spending so deeply, if you had faith that the economy would rebound, restoring the government's tax base.

Don't let the "village idiots" fool you. The USA is still a wealthy nation, with the ability to marshall the best of the world's thinking on any problem. Not only do our state and local governments benefit from this, but so does the world. We contribute the science that goes into the regulations, and building codes, that protect us from diseases and disasters, and which serve as a model for the rest of the world. Not only do most Americans, but the world, appreciates our USDA, CDC, FDA, EPA, FAA, NTSB and FEMA. We CAN afford this stellar a government. Much more important than being military power is being the standard bearer of a society in which people dream and thrive. Despite the third-world-like image of those victims of hurricane Katrina begging for help, we are far from that kind of nation.

In the mixed-economy America I grew up in, there existed a post-capitalist, post-Marxian vision of middle-class identity. It consisted of shared assets and entitlements, of which the bedrock was public education, access to college, good housing, full employment at living wages, Medicare, and Social Security. These programs, publicly provided, financed, or guaranteed, had softened the rough edges of Great Depression capitalism, rewarding the sacrifices that won the Second World War. They also showcased America, demonstrating to those behind the Iron Curtain that regulated capitalism could yield prosperity far beyond the capacities of state planning. (This, and not the arms race, ultimately brought down the Soviet empire.) These middle-class institutions survive in America today, but they are frayed and tattered from constant attack. And the division between those included and those excluded is large and obvious to all.

The Predator State

Yo Joe, bet ya a dollar yer wrong. ;)

Yo Joe, bet ya a dollar yer wrong. ;)

Uh, huh, and with this bet the safest way to double your money will be to fold it over once and put it back in your pocket.

;) backatcha

I am anxious to find out how you can lower debt without raising taxes.

You can cut spending. There is a lot of corporate welfare going on that needs to be cut to the bone.

http://youtu.be/yjBoAQw7bgo

the word "patriots" does not deserve a capital P when you're talking about Teabags.

the word "patriots" does not deserve a capital P when you're talking about Teabags.

Since this thread seemed to be a meeting of the Obama Haterz club, I figured it was best to play it safe.

Where the heck did you see anyone hating on Obama but maybe 2 small comments. This is the Vine ... most of us know better.

The funny thing is that they think all of us "young hippie types" don't own guns...

The really funny thing is...

We're still young enough to see what we shoot at.

Challenge the FBI to as duel ? Would that be lawyers with guns vs. rednecks with guns? Wouldn't even be a fair fight, Holder will make sure the rednecks don't run out of bullets.

Is that even possible?

They'll have to start raiding mental hospitals for candidates...

With the GOP anything is possible (except for compromise of course).

Didn't you hear?

They've resurrected the Soviet Union (and we're afraid, very afraid)!

No matter which party is in the WH, it is the other party that tries to make it a one term presidency. If that were not true why would we have presidential election every 4 years.

The reality is that people who have capital to invest wont do it while Obama is in the WH, Obama can spread his wealth around all he wants, but they arent going to let him spread theirs.

The reality is that people who have capital to invest wont do it while Obama is in the WH, Obama can spread his wealth around all he wants, but they arent going to let him spread theirs.

If you're referring to commercial banks, much of their wealth used to be tax-payer wealth but was transferred to them in the Bush bailouts.

If a business doesn't invest because of Obama, who has lowered taxes, their businesses probably wouldn't survive in your precious competitive market, as they're letting personal feelings motivate bad business decisions. Businesses invest when trends indicate there is a market for such expansion: i.e., when demand requires investment and expansion. Additionally, if the market for investment is poor it's EXACTLY because the government has "spread wealth" too excessively in the direction of the 1%. We live in a consumer society. If the 99% don't have disposable income, and 70% of the GDP is consumer spending, it's in the interests of those investors to share the wealth. It's probably in the interests of their personal safety as well, as inequality breeds crime and, taken to an extreme, social revolution.

Finally, do you speak for the entire business community? Are you on the dole of The Chamber of Commerce or the Koch brothers?

Steve,

I am a part owner of a business, I don't invest because the business conditions don't warrant it at this point. When that changes, investment will happen. This has NOTHING to do with Obama, nor the democrats.

However, what the republicans are proposing is going to hurt the country long term, so my investment strategy will change from longer term investments and into shorter term investments. That will also hurt the country.

Linda - 1) I would say that it is Obama who is the worried one. If he was confident that his 1st term deserved a 2nd one, he would not need to be in campaign mode over a year before the election.

2) If Obama is not reelected, calling Americans stupid does nothing to further the dem agenda.

3) If the repubs lose, they may very well do what you suggest. It would sound just like the dems who stomped their feet, thumbs in mouth as did the dems when Bush was elected.

My opinion

nospin,

more spin from the spinner? Bush was in campaign mode years before that, Clinton was as well, and reagan was as well. The only reason why Bush I wasn't was because he was busy with the first gulf war.

Let us not forget also that the gop has not been out of campaign mode since Obama was elected. They said themselves their only mission was to oust Obama. And say no and shake their little heads. Yeah, something tells me America has been watching and doing some head shaking of their own. (in disgust). So it is Obama 2012 hands down, and if you wanna know why? Cause the pubs aint got nothing smarter than a third grader to shove down our throats and we aint swallowing the snake oil. imo

Jonathan - not true. Clinton, Reagan, Bush Jr did not go into full campaign mode until they knew who they were running against.

Let us not forget also that the gop has not been out of campaign mode since Obama was elected. They said themselves their only mission was to oust Obama.

The GOP is fighting against Ron Paul more than Obama. Romney is Obama-white and Newt is Obama-fat. Obama , Romney, and Gingrich are all controlled by the very ones the people keep saying they want out of power. There is no real difference in either of these 3 candidates.

nospin,

that is bs and you know it.

actually because your constant spin is making me dizzy, I am going to put you on ignore. There really isn't even any point in reading your posts.

What is the difference between campaign mode and using the bully pulpit to garner public support?

In this case I doubt the Republican Congressional Caucus of both house is running for the Presidency as a unit. So it doesn't sound like a political campaign, but a policy one.

nospin1

Jonathan - not true. Clinton, Reagan, Bush Jr did not go into full campaign mode until they knew who they were running against.

In regards to President Obama's early campaigning. the Presidents you mentioned didn't have to campaign against three parties even though they (GOP,TeaParty,Libertarians) appear to be operating under one umbrella (the GOP). I would argue that the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party should be legally designated as separate official political parties for election purposes and run their own candidates separate from the GOP. IMO the GOP lost much credibility with Independents when they included the Tea Party (only because they knew they had lost their votes because of the failed Bush administration) and the TP lost any claim to independence by joining with the GOP. The same goes for the Libertarians. This election kinda reminds me of fighting against terrorists in an un-symetrical war and from the Presidents perspective, and if it were me, I would consider the GOP and the TeaParty to be the political adversarial equivalents to Al Qaida and the Taliban. One faction is a lifetime enemy of progress and instead of promoting an Islamic superiority agenda, this one promotes a wealthy interests superiority agenda, and the other faction appears to be easily herded, misinformed, undereducated, regressive, repressive and a theocratic religious based hate faction in partnership with the first and they work in concert to attack the President from all sides, selfishly with only their political interest in mind and certainly not the Nation's interest

In fighting an un-symetrical war, one must also use unexpected new tactics to be successful in defeating the enemy. Prior strategies and tactics won't be effective and new more drastic actions must be taken. If I were President (I wouldn't want that job, ever !), I would be using every tactic necessary to defeat them, from now until election time. To take the high road and refrain from dirty politics would be political capitulation. I would dog the other side constantly on their lies, mis-statements, crimes, and attempts to cloud the truth. I would dig up every single bit of personal trash I could heap on them to point out the hypocritical ways they live in their personal lives. I would do everything possible to destroy everything they unjustly stand, for simply pandering to get votes. I would fight dirty and mean and the battle against them would be relentless. Admittedly I digress, but that's just me ranting about how hyper-critical and imperative that I think the gloves must come off early in the election. Fighting dirty is only considered unacceptable when fighting a fair minded opponent, but in the case of the 2012 election, the opponent has proven over and over again that he will stoop to the lowest of lows to lie, deceive, manipulate, coerce, intimidate and fight unfairly. Of course in an election, the public usually deplores this type of political battle, but the 2012 election is one case that two wrongs will become a necessary evil. I don't approve of it, but it is nonetheless a reality.

In this coming election, partially due to a partisan and clueless US Supreme Court that unleashed unrestrained $$$$$$$ from hell to fuel the political battle about to take place, we will see the most dirty campaigning and election tricks ever perpetuated on the Nation. It will be ugly and destructive for all sides and there will be casualties and collateral damage in it's aftermath. No matter what happens, and regardless of what I hope for, I will unfortunately predict that post election, the american people will be even further divided (either side as angry embittered losers) and the state and federal governments will either maintain the status quo or become something worse in either case.

larry - Repeating left wing rhetoric does not make it true.

Jonathan - thank you for making my day as your fringe left attitude is not worth further comments

linda - Referting to name calling is what is 3rd grade stuff.

nospin, "pub's is short for Republicans and not really name calling...come on.

maggie - it is not the word pub's it is what follows it in Linda's last sentence in 14.3 that is childish.

You said name calling...I responded to that

Southern colloquialism, no?

maggie,

:(( I wanna go to the pub. :((. Damn I could do with a nice pint of Guinness right about now.

I agree, I could see a moderate Republican winning in the general election, but I can't see a moderate Republican getting to the general election.

Pablo, the problem, as I see it, is that if a Koch TParty Repub sounds moderate, how to tell if it's just the lies we need to hear.

Witness Walker in Wisconsin who DID NOT mention, even once, even in passing, that if elected he would seek to destroy the unions and the education system.

There are hidden agendas behind hidden promises all held together by hidden commitments made behind closed doors, in the dark while hiding under beds.

I'd rather be safe than sorry and vote the idiots I know, Obama 2012. Screw me once, shame on you, a second time NEVER.

THERE ARE NO MODERATES IN THE KOCH TPARTY.

We don't really need the evangelical vote in the manner you suggest. We just have to put enough of the fear of god into them so they vote against Obummer. If they believe that he can win the election they will push for a VP that mollifies their angst. NOT SP so you can forget that right now. Been there done that.

We don't really need the evangelical vote in the manner you suggest.

Well... that's a shame, since it's pretty much the only vote the GOP has locked up...

They've alienated pretty much everyone else : women, minorities, lower class, middle class, gays, and pretty much anyone who has any respect for the previously listed groups.

Pablo-123

"I don't see any way the GOP can win this election."

Good points. But I think with the hate factor we are going to see some unusual patterns this time around. Consider Obama's "highly disapprove" number. That is usually around 40-45%. If you strongly disapprove of a candidate you are far more likely to vote against them than for their opponent. This is how someone like a Romney could win. And I don't see someone like Newt scaring away anyone but the most moderate Republicans and that would probably cost them only a few hundred votes with the shift towards extremism in the past 3 years. With a high turnout from the Right he would only need a split among independents and that is virtually assured.

This election will be a referendum on Ayn Rand style economics versus the New Deal and The Great Society. Republicans truly believe they have sufficiently dumbed down the voters enough that they can win such an argument. A scary concept.

The only guys in the campaign who can pull the independents ( Me ) are Romney and Huntsman. The rest of the GOP is clown show of washed up has beens and complete nutjobs.

Current polls of true independents are showing something like 30% would vote for Obama again. Of course all that can go up or down as the election process continues.

If the evangelicals don't vote for Romney, do you think they will stay home? I can't agree with that statement. I believe they would vote for Romney. Just my opinion. I'm not trying to start an argument.

I think the independents will go with Obama over any Republican other than Romney or Huntsman.

I think the Republicans will vote for Romney or Huntsman over Obama.

I think that some of the dissatisfied Democrats would vote for Romney or Huntsman.

I am an evangelical, and I would like to see a Romney/Huntsman or Huntsman/Romney ticket. I think they could win.

i'm not sure independents will go for obama. there was alot of anti-bush sentiment last time that worked well for obama. there is probably alot of anti-obama sentiment next time around. as an independent, i won't vote for obama (fast and furious is unforgivable and his support of holder after it is unforgivable imo). my voting record over the last 15 years has been about 50/50 with respect to the different parties, therefore i consider myself independent.

Pablo-123

If they had any sense, they would look to NJ as model for republican candidates. Republicans can win the independent voters when they stop with the social issue nonsense, show a willingness to compromise, and address real problems facing this country.

That can't happen until the GOP sheds the TeaParty faction of social nonsense, a No compromise ideology, and getting a grip on true reality.

kevin , overall a decent rant. now lets say everything goes as you wish, how do you propose to make any one that has the money , spend, invest or seed other businesses , the way you want? What is to stop anyone that thinks , ok ive made enough money , i dont need anymore ( after all , one can only spend so much really ) so what happens if they say decide to retire , so no income from a paycheck , and even if they are in the bottom part of the 1%( which to be in the 1% only requires an income over $300k for the yr) in any given yr, thats still a chunk of change not going into the federal revenue stream , and whats to stop a person , from not investing? that is a choice now so if they dont invest in the markets or businesses , what happens to the tax revenue that generates?

Finally kevin , and here is one that will really hurt the people that wish to do a start up , what happens if someone does as occupy has started , and removed those funds from savings or financial institutional use for making loans? See Kev , there is no law that says anyone HAS to have an income of any kind , no law that says they have to invest or reinvest if they personally dont choose too, and there is no law requiring anyone to do business with financial institutions if they choose not to. matter of fact , alot of those things are left to a matter of personal choice , dependant entirely on what the individual decides to do .

So Kevin , what actually will a completely democratic party controlled government be able to do? especially since alot of the funds will simply disappear and evaporate into thin air . out of the governments reach and not be available for redistribution.

At that point , as some others said , it might get real nasty . but , it would never come to that because a total democratic party control over the government wont happen , there are too many that disagree with democrats , or what falls under the democratic party , same as there are those that are against those that fall under the republican party umbrella so a total repub controlled government isnt likely either .

So kevin , whats the answer to going galt , or starving the beast as its called ? especially among those not enticed or inclined to compromise ? And yes , i think this is the future we will see from now on in politics in this nation . if a persons party or candidate isnt elected , they will just withhold , the funds to the economy so they can not do anything , funding is the lifeblood of government , its what greases , votes ,its what lets the government function . withhold even a small portion , and the government runs like a vehicle out of time and misfires alot , withhold enough , and the governmental engine ceases to run at all. thats whats being seen today , thats what we have to look forward to . But thats only a single opinion , among many .

I guess it could also be written off as someone paying the government what they think its worth , if the government is mispending those funds in the first place.

Mark,

you don't force it, you just change the tax code to encourage it. You can't force anyone to do anything, but you can make it beneficial. For example, right now the tax code is structured as to make it less beneficial to invest in job creating ventures. How is that? Well the capital gains tax rate (most of the capital gains is stock market transactions, nothing else) is 15%. The taxation rate for me investing in my company is technically around 40% (though we pay less through writeoffs), the taxable rate is just under that 40% mark. So based on that, what do you think is the smarter way to make money? I don't even have to make as much raw profit just day trading to bring home the same amount of money as I would with my company. If you reverse that, or at least make the capital gains rate the same as your regular income tax rate, you would most likely get more investment into job creation activities.

(and no, investing on the stock market does NOT create jobs, because when you buy stock on the stock market, you are not giving that money to the company, you are giving that money to the person that previously owned the stock, even with an IPO, the money goes to the company, but the way things work right now, other than with say facebook, or google, the money doesn't really go to the company, but to the original investors that floated the money that financed the start up. You can't list on the stock market until you reach a certain size and have enough revenue stability to meet the listing requirements).

Kevin-458252 AMEN !

how do you propose to make any one that has the money , spend, invest or seed other businesses , the way you want?

Okay, you added the caveat "the way you want". But continuing on in your post, I have one question for you. What are they going to do with the money other than invest it? Liquidate all their assets and hide it under their mattresses? From a hypothetical perspective, your question is valid. From a practical perspective it is meaningless.

How do we get the money invested in the economy? Simple we create demand. Sufficient demand, requires hiring additional workers. Additional workers creates additional demand. There is no "force". It is using nature. No there is another catch in this. Increased demand will increase hiring, but where? How do we get the lions share of this hiring to take place in the US? For that we need to reevaluate our current trade policies. These policies were developed when we were the sole economic superpower in the world by a huge amount. They were developed to grow foreign economies so we would have markets for our products. So they were slanted to favor foreign development at all costs.

Well the world has changed. It is time our policies changed to match the new realities. WE are not the sole economic superpower. We can not continue to act as if we are. Our policies have worked very well, almost too well considering we are to slow to recognize they have out lived their usefulness and are now becoming a detriment to our well being. It is time to level the playing field and stop discriminating against domestic businesses.

This entails one simple change to our policy. All goods and services imported into the domestic markets must be produced in accordance with all domestic standards, rules, and regulations. These are the conditions we place on domestic companies. It does not address in anyway the activities of foreign governments. It applies universally to all companies around the world, domestic and foreign based. It is non-discriminatory so is in compliance with GATT and WTO. It allows domestic companies to compete from a position of equity with foreign companies.

It actually eliminates much of the present negotiations done in trade agreements today. And it is done unilaterally, since it does not involve government agreements. It is true free trade with everyone on equal footing; i.e. FAIR TRADE.

tim s.

didn't see where you got that quote from, but the answer to that is that you change the tax code so that economic behaviour that is considered beneficial is encouraged through lower taxation than economic behaviour that is not considered beneficial.

For example, people are stuck on the concept that capital gains is a good economic behaviour because in the old world, that would be someone invests in a company, builds it up then sells it. Well for one, that isn't the case anymore, people invest in wall street, which is not investing in the company anymore, it is trading in a good, that of an equity certificate. If you are buying on the stock market, you are not giving that company any money, the company has already gotten their money when the stock was first issued.

So a capital gain from a stock investment is not actually beneficial to the concept of jobs growth, or the economy in general, it is just personalized profit. The few instances where capital gains tax should not be applied can be handed in the tax code in other ways, for example, no CG tax on personal home sales.

Right now the impact of the capital gains tax being so low is that it makes it much more expensive to invest in a real venture than to invest in the stock market and do very little good.

Jonathan , he got it from the first sentence of my post . and i agree with your assessment , that it cant be forced , and the present way things are set up with the tax structure its less expensive tax wise to do as you stated , go through the market , rather than seed or start a business. Something to think about .

Tim , thats not the only caveate i added . but adressing that one in particular , of course the way someone would want another to invest or spend , has some to do with it , unions i am sure would love if everyone agreed to buy only Union made products or services . As for what would someone do? that goes to the OTHER caveate , what if someone decides they have enough ? they wouldnt nessisarily be in it to make money now would they ? In that case , they very well could feasably do as you said and just sit on it , be it in a matress, mason jar , or whatever , just remove what they have and let things go as they will .

The premise that people are all greedy and always want more I think is erronious there are many factors that can and do influence what an individual can do and , those usually end up being their own personal set of ideas and beliefs .

It is that sidelined , funds , that would have to be enticed back into the economic stream , the so called sidelined funds that Mr Obama has been trying for a couple yrs now to get people to do something with and has met with limited results . And the reason i think there has been limited results is a combination of many things , from some of the things Jonathan has brought up , to political beliefs , as well as other personal beliefs individuals might have . Just because one thinks that what another does is ludicris or a poor economic move , doesnt mean that the person doing so doesnt have their own reasons for doing them , and those also have to be accounted for , like them or not, it all depends on what outcome the individual decides they want .

mark,

there are certain things you can do with market forces and there are things that have to be done with a collective effort. Market forces today cannot succeed in convincing companies to make longer term investments, because it just doesn't serve the interests of the company's shareholders, however, initiating a social program (social in the sense that it is society, not that it is a social welfare type program) DOES create that incentive because that takes the risk off the shareholders and onto the larger entity, society. That is actually how it should be. Society benefits from those large scale endeavours, so it should be part of the contribution to create them.

johnny angel, don't forget that if the Kochs can engineer control of the federal government, they can eliminate the estate tax, and that will save them maybe 25 billion dollars. That's more than the GDP of most states, and all for them and their family. It's not enough that an additional 3 million childred are now living below the poverty line. That only put's about 3 billion dollars in their pocket, which is a pittance. There are only so many children that can be starved and impoverished, so it's important that they gain more political power.

senate is already under the whims of the GOP with supermajority.
The way forward is as Toomey said, replace all the bought reps., but I would keep Toomey as Speaker of the House.

senate is already under the whims of the GOP with supermajority.

You were smiling when you said that, weren't you ?

Have you ever heard a "guffaw"?

Plus, agagnu, you want to demote Toomey from the Senate to the House? You really are batting a 1.000 here.

....non of the above, cynical guffaw if you will, how about Toomey for president?

I guess this is what you get when you elect a Community Activist as a president

That's getting pretty f&cking old. He was a US Senator, then President.

you'right, Spo....who ever ends up running against B.O.---will get all the support!---anti-Obama votes!---43% approval--sheesh!----he's toast!

he has 415 days-left!

When Obama has to face up to his record and cant blame it on the tsunami, the ATM's, the Hurricane, the Arab Spring, or Bush, whats he going to do, say it wasnt him? A lot of people will vote AGAINST, Obama even if they dont fully support the GOP.

That would be interesting to watch. He can try to blame Bush again but that excuse can't keep working. The time will come when recent events will only leave his administration to blame. I didn't vote for him the first time, and like many others I will most likely waste my vote on a third party, something that is well within my right to do. If enough of us do it, we might actually get someone that doesn't make us cringe and hold onto our money for dear life.

@ #23: Unless Obama can pull out a rabbit from his hat in 2012, then the election won't matter.

When you know something you wish not to happen is bound to happen and you can't prevent it, your best comfort indeed is to live in denial of the inevitable reality. Take heart!

@ # 23.3: When Obama has to face up to his record and cant blame it on the tsunami, the ATM's, the Hurricane, the Arab Spring, or Bush, whats he going to do, say it wasnt him?

When Obama has to face up to his record" he will certainly notice that he has cleaned a big mess left by his predecessor which includes reviving a comatized economy, endind two wars, capturing OBL advenging 4000 American lives and has left nothing extraordinary behind for his successor to take care of. He can therefore be blamed for his successor's boredness .

@ 23.4 : That would be interesting to watch. He can try to blame Bush again but that excuse can't keep working. The time will come when recent events will only leave his administration to blame.

And what is there yet for his admonistration to be blamed for? His only blame so far is for fixing all the messes Bush left behind. Honestly, if you were to pretend to be fair and give credit to a president for good deeds, who would it be, Bush or Obama? If Bush, name a couple good things he did.

"If Bush, name a couple good things he did."

Why are you asking such hard questions, truth?

he did release 8 turkeys.

he did release 8 turkeys

He says he did, but I heard they got sent to gitmo for water boarding practice

if Obama wins re-election the emergency rooms will be filled with conservatives being treated for heart attacks and strokes

Funny, I need to go check my US government books. I could have sworn there were 3 co-equal branches to the federal government. Now lets see what those 3 did these past 3 years.

The Supreme Court legalized bribery with the Citizens United case.

The executive branch was lame and left leadership in the hands of a committee, called Congress

The Congress did virtually nothing because a minority party put holds and filibusters on every piece of business put before it.

Sounds like all of them are screw ups. The only glimmer of hope is the Presidency has started writing and promoting coherent legislation for the Congress to kill from old age. But at least the people now know in detail what the Presidency wants to accomplish.

Truth be Told,

When Obama has to face up to his record" he will certainly notice that he has cleaned a big mess left by his predecessor which includes reviving a comatized economy, endind two wars, capturing OBL advenging 4000 American lives and has left nothing extraordinary behind for his successor to take care of. He can therefore be blamed for his successor's boredness .

And to think Obama did all this single-handedly! He really is a miracle worker. Also, when did he quote "endind two wars?"

And to think Obama did all this single-handedly! He really is a miracle worker

Yep! just like Bush was a miracle worker when he created all the messes single-handedly.

Also, when did he quote "endind two wars?"

What you talking about?
I said he ends two wars that were destroying our economy. Our troops are coming back home, ain't they?

Truth be told,

Sorry but only one big headed president at a time, and that would be Barry. He likes to play the part of a celebrity as witnessed when he tried to be a Junior Senator, and in his recent campaign appearances. He is a regular Wizard of OZ that has duped the LEFT into thinking he is a real Miracle Worker. Reminds me of Lemmings!

I know what I am talking about, and IRAG and AFGANISTAN are not over, and this POTUS can't take all the credit for pulling out the troops. Any President can do that if that is what they need to do for a Campaign Ploy.

You seem to have talking points and truth mixed up.

Truth be told, your "Wizard of OZ" rhetoric is juvenile, and your psychological projection on to the so called the "LEFT" is just a self-serving rhetorical strawman (HINT: there is no monolithic the LEFT and the views of those that tend to be so associated are not uncommonly opposed to him..

The President has not taken "all the credit for pulling out the troops." Nor are his actions with respect to Iraq just "a Campaign Ploy."

Well, look! it doesn't matter if he plays celebrity or whatever as long he does his job. Bush spent 8 years in power doing nothing but playing golf while his VP was hunting almost killing his lawyer. They cried "Mission accomplished" only to refer to his unbreakable record of doing nothing as president.

What is it exactly that you guys, grudge Obama for the most ? His presidency, his ears, or his celebrity?. I guess it's all of the above or maybe just his ears, because those ears sure listen to and hear the people's needs. unlike the Reps who turn a deaf ear to the people and have them arrested for least noise them make.

Truth be Told,

Well, look! it doesn't matter if he plays celebrity or whatever as long he does his job.

Unfortunately, I believe Obama thinks his job is that of a celebrity when in reality he is nothing more than a talking head. Therefore, the Wizard of Oz analogy.

Congress is not doing it's job and they are trying to divert attention from that fact by complaining about President Obama.

All the Republicans want is for Obama to work out the legislation and sign it to so they can blame him for it.

Unfortunately, I believe Obama thinks his job is that of a celebrity when in reality he is nothing more than a talking head

If he were not doing his job, you would have admired him and this is how I know he is doing his.Therefore, you and the Wizard of Oz, you're talking about, fit together.

Unfortunately, I believe Obama thinks his job is that of a celebrity when in reality he is nothing more than a talking head

Unfortunately a lot of people believe in self-serving fantasy. Your assertion that the President thinks his job is that of a celebrity is false on its face and in any case a totally subjective and unproveable opinion.
Your assertion that he is "nothing more than a talking head" likewise doesnt pass the slightest factual scrutiny since unlike talking heads he REALLY has significant authority responsiblity and power over and above the bully pulpit.

Therefore, the Wizard of Oz analogy.

Given that both of your stated psychological assumptions are not supported by facts or logic, therefore the attmpted juvenile analogy fails.

Truth be told and Catch22,

Are the two of you taking the same Logic Class together in College, because apparently you believe you can spin a conversation to make yourselves believable? Personally, I find that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

It's good that the president does the town halls, the foxfart stench sure needs the blasting. Some people need spoon-feeding to know what's good for them.

Truth be told and Catch22,

Are the two of you taking the same Logic Class together in College, because apparently you believe you can spin a conversation to make yourselves believable? Personally, I find that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

We were just trying hard to make you "Catch" the "Truth" before time expires.
But sorry, we didn't know you had a "mental disorder" that affect your reaction time. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. The truth can really hurt especially if the brain is not stable. We won't persist. Accept our sympathy. Peace.!

Truth be looking,

Glad to hear that you and Catch22 might also be taking a Comedy Class together. Keep working at it and you might get a passing grade, unless of course it is just another elective course. Sympathy accepted for both of you, and peace be with you too!

Personally, I find that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

Such absurd adhominem comments suggest you should read the Newsvine recommendations on comments.

If you honestly hold that belief, then it suggests trying to have a rational discussion is not possible. If you want to have one feel free to provide something rational and factual.

Back to the topic of the seed, unfortunately such polarizing views are not uncommon among those with strong influence on the GOP.

I am keeping an eye on Americanselect.org. Some people say it is Republican leaning, but I think that is because more Republican candidates are turning to it than Democrats. It is a great idea and it may be a way to get away from the bought and sold polititicians we now have.

http://www.americanselect.org/

Please check it out.

Americans Elect have a place on the ballot in 10 states now, the rest are pending, but I expect they will be approved. If you want to get Ron Paul on the ballot, this may be the way to go.

http://www.americanselect.org/

i'd go for the Romney/Huntsman team,

Franklin

That may be true about a bowl of fruit.

But it will not be true concerning either Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman, John Huntsman, and especially Rick Santorum.

Against any of them it will be Obama by a mile.

...the GOP could run a bowl of fruit against Obama in 2012 and win.

Too bad the GOP doesn't have any candidates that are as smart as a bowl of fruit.

Newt will bury Obama in the polls.

Newt won't make it to the polls, he will quit before then, he is only in the race to sell his books......

Most of the bad stuff about Newt is out there already, and he is a much more dangerous opponent than Herman Cain.

Mitt Romney couldn't seal the deal with conservatives when his strongest challengers were Rick Perry and Herman Cain.

Newt is much more formidable

Newt would be formidable, if he took his campaign seriously. He is yet to get a campaign staff after his last staff left him because they didn't think he was serious about the campaign.
His campaign is already millions of dollars in debt.
And rather than capitalizing on his poll surge by campaigning in states like Iowa or New Hampshire, he is busy selling his books in book-signing events. Like the one he had in Naples, Florida 5 days ago