Will The Republicans ever figure out why they lost?

[BrainGlutton]

@Onomatopoeia

QFT:eek: Is that really the Republican’s number for lower middle class?

Let’s take it to GD.

[adaher]

So, assuming Democrats aren’t actually going to be willing to raise taxes on those making between $100,000 and $250,000, they’ll have a lot of trouble finding money to accomplish what they want to accomplish now, much less in the future.

[Fear_Itself]

I would have no problem treating capital gains as normal income for tax purposes. That should pay for a lot of socialist programs.

[foolsguinea]

@adaher

Rural conservatives want more farm spending, but everything else either came from Democrats, often things they didn’t want, or are just a result of how the federal formulas work, such as with road spending.

Who are these non-rural conservatives you speak of?
If they work in defense contracting, they’re on the federal teat.
Law enforcement? Civil servant, tax-paid.
Small business owners? Fine, oppose socialized medicine, make it harder for yourselves to compete, nitwits.
Park Avenue billionaires? Yeah, huge voting base there.
Middle management who vote how their bosses tell them so they can keep their jobs? Now you’re talking! That’s your base. No one need respect such ninnies.

[adaher]

@Fear_Itself

I would have no problem treating capital gains as normal income for tax purposes. That should pay for a lot of socialist programs.

Capital gains tax increases don’t yield much in the way of revenue and have always been a small part of the revenue pie in any case.

See: Buffett Rule and how much it would raise in reality. Not much.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Capital gains tax increases don’t yield much in the way of revenue and have always been a small part of the revenue pie in any case.

See: Buffett Rule and how much it would raise in reality. Not much.

The Congressional Research Group has reported in 2012 that $71.4 billion a year in revenue are missed thanks to the past capital gains cuts and loopholes.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2012/05/02/3-inconvenient-truths-about-taxes

[adaher]

Problem is, a lot of that loophole is sales of a home. Are you proposing to charge capital gains taxes on primary residence sales?

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Problem is, a lot of that loophole is sales of a home. Are you proposing to charge capital gains taxes on primary residence sales?

“Hey look there”, it is a distraction so others will not look that once again you got it wrong.

IAC I do agree that we should mean test the residence sales.

[adaher]

You got it wrong. Taxing capital gains as income does not imply in any way that you’ll remove all the capital gains deductions.

I don’t even think home sales should be means tested. Profit on a home sale should be 100% taxable.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

You got it wrong. Taxing capital gains as income does not imply in any way that you’ll remove all the capital gains deductions.

Once again, you said that ¨Capital gains tax increases don’t yield much in the way of revenue¨ that was at best a very off the mark remark.

And dealing with deductions should also be on the table.

[adaher]

Tax increase= tax rate increase. Eliminating deductions could qualify as a tax increase, but it’s generally not what the layman means when he says “tax increase”.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Tax increase= tax rate increase. Eliminating deductions could qualify as a tax increase, but it’s generally not what the layman means when he says “tax increase”.

Tax Credits or Spending? Labels, but in Congress, Fighting Words (Published...

“Eliminating tax exemptions is a tax increase,” said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, “You can’t spin it any other way.”

[Robot_Arm]

@adaher

Tax increase= tax rate increase. Eliminating deductions could qualify as a tax increase, but it’s generally not what the layman means when he says “tax increase”.

Have you run that idea past Grover Norquist? He seems to be the last word on how Republicans define the words “tax increase”.

[adaher]

I was dealing with the issue in context. The proposal from a previous poster was to treat capital gains like regular income.

[Robot_Arm]

@adaher

I was dealing with the issue in context.

Have you run that by Grover Norquist? I’m pretty sure the pledge he holds so many Republicans to is not “I promise not to raise taxes except in the right context.”

[adaher]

No, you’re right about Norquist.

[BrainGlutton]

I think I know now where adaher is getting his oft-repeated confidence that the GOP can win on the white vote:

Remember the days after the 2012 election when it looked like Republicans would finally be persuaded, if only by self-interest, to support immigration reform? Brit Hume of Fox News blamed Mitt Romney’s loss on his abysmal showing among Latinos and his “hard-line position on immigration.” Hume’s colleague Sean Hannity came out in favor of a pathway to citizenship. “Yes, amnesty,” implored Charles Krauthammer. “Use the word.”

That panicked counsel proved to be the high point of GOP minority-outreach efforts. In Congress, as immigration reform went from cheap talk to real legislation, the hard-liners circled the wagons, pressuring Speaker John Boehner into declaring the measure “dead on arrival.” Now Hannity is opposed to reform because he thinks “it won’t help the GOP in future elections,” and Hume calls his own argument “baloney,” contending that the Latino vote is “not nearly as important” as the white vote. This is an example of what psychologists call “adaptive preference formation,” or as Aesop allegorized in “The Fox and the Grapes”: if you can’t get something, convince yourself it wasn’t very good in the first place.

The most insidious of these arguments—because it comes wrapped in the cool logic of charts lacking explicit racial animus—belongs to Sean Trende, an analyst with Real Clear Politics, who composed an influential four-part series purporting to show that Republicans can survive and indeed thrive as a de facto whites-only party. Simply by finding the 6 million “missing white voters” who sat out 2012, Republicans can roll Democrats in presidential elections 2016 to 2044 (sorry, Hillary!)—even in a worst-case scenario in which 90 percent of all minorities vote Democratic. As Ruy Teixeira and Alan Abramowitz point out at Think Progress, there’s a heavy dose of magical thinking in Trende’s math, which assumes a boost in turnout exclusively among whites instead of the electorate as a whole. Even more magical is Trende’s strategic advice to the GOP: court downscale, rural white voters by embracing the economic populism of Ross Perot, whose platform included higher taxes on the rich and universal healthcare. Good luck selling that to the Tea Party.

[adaher]

I thought if it long before Trende did. The fact is, white turnout fell below minority turnout as a percentage of registered voters. Trende also points out that white voters are being more and more turned off the by Democratic Party.

Furthermore, whites will never fall below 70% of the population in our lifetimes, if we count whites of Hispanic descent as white(which we do now, apparently).

Contrary to Democratic belief, there are no voters that are more virtuous to win than other voters. If Republicans manage in the future to hold a lock on the electoral college by winning 75% of the white vote, that’s absolutely fine.

[computergeek]

adaher, what’s wrong with embracing minorities though? Why should the Republican Party want to depend soley on the white vote? Perhaps if they didn’t piss off minorities with their hard line stance on everything, they wouldn’t have such a hard time attracting minorities and they wouldn’t look like such a racist party. Surely you can’t believe with the rising tide of minorities that the Republicans can survive solely on the white vote, or more specifically, the white vote that isn’t turned off by their racist, misogynist, dumbass, anti-science, etc, nonsense? Just because whites might remain in the majority doesn’t mean the party can hold on to all of them.

[computergeek]

Trende thinks the party should continue depending mostly on whites and be ok with raising taxes and supporting universal healthcare??!! He really thinks someone can sell that to the right wing and more specifically, the Tea Party? Yeah, good luck there.

And yes Republican Party, just continue on the same path you’ve been on where you piss off the moderates in the party, like me. See if you can ever get us back again.