Republican response for 2024 - A new political party

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,928
12,515
113
A lot of people have to make up for the shortfall that is created by the super rich lowering their tax bases via offshore tax havens, loopholes written in at the behest of lobbyists specifically for these purposes, or through things like carried interest.

The first item on all of our agendas should be campaign finance reform, swiftly followed by a tax code overhaul that eliminates all of the myriad loopholes, subsidies, etc that create a need to even talk about raising taxes. Until that happens, where does the tax base come from when wealth & income inequality continues to be a runaway train in the wrong direction? When the class that is hoarding the wealth is also lowering their taxes on that wealth, where does the money come from to fund anything?

We're all falling for exactly what the plutocrat class wants us to - arguing over symptoms rather than root causes.
So, please point to a time when you guys on the left said that you had enough money for the poor. When the marginal tax rate was 70%? You guys just never stop wanting more vote buying money. If you taxed 100%, that wouldn't be enough.

Hey, how about you guys earning some of your own money and then giving it away?
 

tb233

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2017
5,793
11,547
113
I have lots of proof that they are. You have no proof that they aren't. I think you just say random crap.

Your proof is there are Christians who have been compassionate with their money. Are there some? Sure. Are most? Not in my experience, which is quite a bit. Are all, as you seem to claim? Absolutely not.
 

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,802
9,193
113
Maine
So, please point to a time when you guys on the left said that you had enough money for the poor. When the marginal tax rate was 70%? You guys just never stop wanting more vote buying money. If you taxed 100%, that wouldn't be enough.

Hey, how about you guys earning some of your own money and then giving it away?

Keep assigning me to a party, man. I'm speaking to policy. I just explained how my first order after campaign finance reform would be closing all of the tax loopholes and credits that are engineered toward the wealthy. That's not raising taxes. No where in your response did you even come anywhere near addressing anything I mentioned.

You're so dug into your worldview that you can't even get out of the political-party-team-sports dynamic. I wish you well on that course. It's totally working. :rolleyes:

And for the record, I do give money away.
 

DaveyDoWin

All-American
Gold Member
Nov 10, 2004
4,097
3,787
113
we want to win elections more than we want to solve problems and make a better life and society.
tenor.gif
 

kkotsch87

Redshirt Freshman
Gold Member
Nov 3, 2002
998
734
93
I often point out on here that the top 50 wealthiest people have the same wealth as the bottom 165,000,000. The reason I bring it up is if the bottom 165,000,000 decide to vote together, they could pretty much do whatever they want. We could become a socialist country in no time. (That is not what I want to happen, but just pointing out it could if the 165,000,000 decide to vote together and "redistribute" the wealth.)

People say I am a socialist for pointing that out. I don't have a problem with capitalism, but I don't think it is good for the country to have the wealthiest folks have so much power over the vast majority, just because they have the money.

As long as we have Democratic elections, the power can be taken back by the divided populace as you said. Hopefully if they do they "redistribute" the wealth in a sensible way and keep Capitalism in tact.
People always use the wealth disparity in this country to criticize Republicans, all the while the top 1% that they so hate always throw their money and support against the republican candidate. Yet no one on the left has set aside the 30 seconds of logical thinking that is required to figure out why this is.
 

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,802
9,193
113
Maine
People always use the wealth disparity in this country to criticize Republicans, all the while the top 1% that they so hate always throw their money and support against the republican candidate. Yet no one on the left has set aside the 30 seconds of logical thinking that is required to figure out why this is.

Why is it party-affiliated? The real issue is making everything a partisan issue. Which is exactly what you're doing. I don't use wealth and income inequality to criticize Rs. I use it to criticize our socio-political-economic arrangement at large, regardless of party. You're the one making this about partisanship.

But, please, do the whole painting with broad strokes thing because it absolutely gets things done in this country, clearly. I wish more people would abandon their parties that don't care about them. Neither party is what the majority of their constituents claim them to be about anymore anyways. Rs run up deficits the same as Ds. Both are addicted to bigger, bigger, bigger. Both support endless wars. Neither wants to address campaign finance reform. Neither is working for your best interests at present as the whole damn thing is controlled almost completely by corporate and special interest money.
 

kkotsch87

Redshirt Freshman
Gold Member
Nov 3, 2002
998
734
93
Why is it party-affiliated? The real issue is making everything a partisan issue. Which is exactly what you're doing. I don't use wealth and income inequality to criticize Rs. I use it to criticize our socio-political-economic arrangement at large, regardless of party. You're the one making this about partisanship.

But, please, do the whole painting with broad strokes thing because it absolutely gets things done in this country, clearly. I wish more people would abandon their parties that don't care about them. Neither party is what the majority of their constituents claim them to be about anymore anyways. Rs run up deficits the same as Ds. Both are addicted to bigger, bigger, bigger. Both support endless wars. Neither wants to address campaign finance reform. Neither is working for your best interests at present as the whole damn thing is controlled almost completely by corporate and special interest money.
LMFAO. I must have misunderstood this entire thread then.
 

kkotsch87

Redshirt Freshman
Gold Member
Nov 3, 2002
998
734
93
The sim
Why is it party-affiliated? The real issue is making everything a partisan issue. Which is exactly what you're doing. I don't use wealth and income inequality to criticize Rs. I use it to criticize our socio-political-economic arrangement at large, regardless of party. You're the one making this about partisanship.

But, please, do the whole painting with broad strokes thing because it absolutely gets things done in this country, clearly. I wish more people would abandon their parties that don't care about them. Neither party is what the majority of their constituents claim them to be about anymore anyways. Rs run up deficits the same as Ds. Both are addicted to bigger, bigger, bigger. Both support endless wars. Neither wants to address campaign finance reform. Neither is working for your best interests at present as the whole damn thing is controlled almost completely by corporate and special interest money.
The simple fact is that the top 1% have figured out a way to make the middle class distribute their wealth to support the poor while creating loopholes for them to be able to keep their money. All the while they guilt enough of the middle class through identity politics and emotion into continuing to vote to give them more power and more money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,802
9,193
113
Maine
The sim

The simple fact is that the top 1% have figured out a way to make the middle class distribute their wealth to support the poor while creating loopholes for them to be able to keep their money. All the while they guilt enough of the middle class through identity politics and emotion into continuing to vote to give them more power and more money.

Completely agree. And we need to stop focusing on differences, because we all agree on far more than we don’t. They just keep us focused on the differences as they know a united populace is the end of the gravy train. We need to stop talking in political party rhetoric and start talking to each other about policy without the prejudices. This is why being active locally is so important. And it’s unsurprisingly where we need to make up ground quickly.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,928
12,515
113
Keep assigning me to a party, man. I'm speaking to policy. I just explained how my first order after campaign finance reform would be closing all of the tax loopholes and credits that are engineered toward the wealthy. That's not raising taxes. No where in your response did you even come anywhere near addressing anything I mentioned.

You're so dug into your worldview that you can't even get out of the political-party-team-sports dynamic. I wish you well on that course. It's totally working. :rolleyes:

And for the record, I do give money away.
I'll ask again a different way. When was there a time when people who want to have more tax money for the poor said that they had enough money for that purpose?

Also, when we close all of these "loopholes" and end these "credits", and we still don't have enough money for the poor, what will be your next step? Most of these "loop holes" exist to incentivize people in this country to invest and that investment leads to higher tax revenue and more jobs, which means more money for poor people.

Give me a list of these loopholes and we can discuss what they are for. If your approach is not to "raise taxes" and you're definition of not raising taxes is not raising "tax rates", then we can discuss how each individual item or loophole results in a net gain or loss in revenue to the government.

My last question is one that has me really curious. Are you just generally against people who make a lot of money getting tax credits or taking advantage of tax loopholes, no matter what, or are you just against the ones that if taken away, won't ultimately end up in a loss of revenue to the government?

I ask this because it's my view that the government ALWAYS does things in their interest and they wouldn't sacrifice any of their power to spend money to give some set of companies or individuals tax breaks. No politician ever campaigns on the notion of giving tax breaks to people who make a lot of money. These decisions are made at the working level after the elections are over and the sole intent of these loopholes and credits is to ultimately enhance the revenue of the government. It's not even an issue of getting campaign contributions in exchange for these loopholes and credits because there are so many conflicting interests in Washington, that the tit for tat with regard to taxes and political donations is essentially a wash.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,928
12,515
113
Your proof is there are Christians who have been compassionate with their money. Are there some? Sure. Are most? Not in my experience, which is quite a bit. Are all, as you seem to claim? Absolutely not.
If you limit things to "your experience" I can see why you would think what you think.

Further, we're not in Junior High. When I say Christians are generous and compassionate with their money, of course I don't mean EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY CHRISTIAN.

In my experience, most Christians are generous and compassionate with their money, but that's just my experience. Christian charities give away around $40B every year of the $400B in overall charity. 81% of charity is directly from individuals, many of them Christian. In general, the USA gives a higher percentage of income to the poor than any other industrial nation, based in many ways on our religious heritage and the values that follow.
 

jsachisler

Senior
Gold Member
Jul 6, 2005
2,528
831
113
75
chadron, ne.
Sounds good on paper (for you), but actually making that happen would be unbelievably more difficult than taking @Red_Hack 's suggestion of actually growing your party instead of trying to rat f*ck the other party.

What you're describing is the perfect storm that trump lucked out on in 16' with Stein. Pretty difficult to shoot the moon twice.
luck! don t think so.
 

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,802
9,193
113
Maine
I'll ask again a different way. When was there a time when people who want to have more tax money for the poor said that they had enough money for that purpose?

Also, when we close all of these "loopholes" and end these "credits", and we still don't have enough money for the poor, what will be your next step? Most of these "loop holes" exist to incentivize people in this country to invest and that investment leads to higher tax revenue and more jobs, which means more money for poor people.

Give me a list of these loopholes and we can discuss what they are for. If your approach is not to "raise taxes" and you're definition of not raising taxes is not raising "tax rates", then we can discuss how each individual item or loophole results in a net gain or loss in revenue to the government.

My last question is one that has me really curious. Are you just generally against people who make a lot of money getting tax credits or taking advantage of tax loopholes, no matter what, or are you just against the ones that if taken away, won't ultimately end up in a loss of revenue to the government?

I ask this because it's my view that the government ALWAYS does things in their interest and they wouldn't sacrifice any of their power to spend money to give some set of companies or individuals tax breaks. No politician ever campaigns on the notion of giving tax breaks to people who make a lot of money. These decisions are made at the working level after the elections are over and the sole intent of these loopholes and credits is to ultimately enhance the revenue of the government. It's not even an issue of getting campaign contributions in exchange for these loopholes and credits because there are so many conflicting interests in Washington, that the tit for tat with regard to taxes and political donations is essentially a wash.

Oh dear... you really do believe that government isn't being largely controlled or influenced by corporate interests today. I'm sorry, but we just won't have a fruitful discussion. Your last paragraph tells me enough.

And you keep asking me about people as if I'm "out to get" certain people. But, I keep talking about policy. Anecdotes are for journalists and the media. $574 billion worth of taxes went unpaid in 2019. A huge chunk of that is due to loopholes, pass-through companies, etc. I don't care about the people. I care about the outcomes of their actions. Do you think we could use that $574B? Should that money not be paid in? Statistically, someone making 25k in the Mississippi Delta is more likely to be audited than a high earner.

The system is broken. I'm suggesting that we clean it up. You're playing the identity politics game.
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,233
20,226
113
So you think that Christians should give $100 per month for every man, woman, and child who is a Christian, and if they don't, then they come up short.

Do you think that every Christian is employed, not a child, not elderly, etc? When you get to the people who have any money who are Christians, 60 million people and $100/month would be 72 billion. We print that much in a month now.

Should every family of 4 who are Christian give $4,800 per year for the "desperately poor"?

To you, are the only "good" people in the world liberal douches who take people's money and give it to other people for their votes?

Good Lord, we have government program after government program for poor people. We have private charities on top of that, many of them Christian. People can work in this country to earn money too.

"Helping the poor" for you guys is just a cynical catch phrase to shame people who are successful and to get votes. You guys don't give a rats ass about the poor past what they can do for you.
Bro do you even Jesus?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sklarbodds

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,233
20,226
113
Are they bad people because they take a vacation, maybe go out to eat once in a while, or pay for their kids to play little league and not devote that money to the poor, essentially making them "the poor"?
I personally don't think so but Jesus and God sure AF look down on that.

Jesus: Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth.
2020 Christians with 500k in the bank: Well I can still take a vaca and drop 5k a year on the boys pitching coach right. I mean not that many kids starve to death everyday.
Jesus: 🤦‍♂️
Satan:
Vps.gif
 

corvettez06

Sophomore
Gold Member
Apr 1, 2007
1,307
546
113
Omaha
You know what would make the socialist talk go away more than anything? If capitalism would stop bending 90% of the population over and taking it to pound town daily
You mean like get up every day and go to work and not rely on a carrier government hand out?
 

ScarletNCream

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 4, 2007
13,518
24,269
113
So what's your solution?

Vote for candidates with good economic backgrounds and ideas to tip the scales in favor back to small businesses without sending hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas. Hopefully someday we’ll get one, in the meantime the best I can do is bitch about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

corvettez06

Sophomore
Gold Member
Apr 1, 2007
1,307
546
113
Omaha
Vote for candidates with good economic backgrounds and ideas to tip the scales in favor back to small businesses without sending hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas. Hopefully someday we’ll get one, in the meantime the best I can do is bitch about it.
Is that not what Trump was trying to do? You know America first.
 

Latest posts