My hope....

[alax2]

My hope is that the Republicans (and I begrudgingly claim them) use this opportunity to legislate and put forth their ideas. They should be able to pass their agenda out of both houses. I am ok with Obama vetoing everything and I understand that they don't have a veto proof majority, and therefore, nothing is going to get done for 2 years. However, at least they will have acted and not been the party of "no" and each sides agenda will be clear. Then in 2016 we have a choice. My fear is that the Republicans just whine and cry about the Obama agenda and offer nothing. My fear is they wait for him to produce ideas. If that is the case, I will wash my hands of them. Step up or step out of the way. I am almost to the point that something is better than nothing. I will give them some time, but not forever. I walked away from the Repubs before and I may have to again.



This post was edited on 11/5 9:43 PM by alax2

 

[Sope Creek]

Can the GOP agree within its own ranks?

You had one "stalwart" on this board all but disavow the GOP on Monday, only to turn around and both claim that yesterday's results were a repudiation of "progressive" ideas while at the same time complaining about the GOP's candidates being "party" candidates rather than more radical. My sense is that the divisions within the GOP are as deep as those between the GOP and Democrats . . . is that an overstatement?

 

[mjvcaj]

I hope they stick to important issues

Such as economic policy and regulatory burdens instead of meddling with social issues. That is where (like you) I tend to get alienated.

 

[alax2]

I am not connected and have no clue about other Republicans.

I just hope that the "conservatives" understand that my wing of the Republican Party does not want to spend the next 40 years wandering in the wilderness. That is why I am ok with the candidates being "party" candidates and not more radical. We'll see. Frankly, if the party goes "radical," all we become is the same dysfunctional party that the Dems were my whole young adult life.

 

[alax2]

Yes, I agree. My Republican Party stays out of my bedroom

and spends its time in the Boardroom.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The GOP house has passed scores of bills.

They all died in the Senate. The bills didn't even die after a full debate. Reid simply never put them on the calendar. The reason was to protect the vulnerable red state dems from having to take a public position of either agreeing with the house or agreeing with Obama. Glad to see that strategy blew up in his face. The point is that there is a huge backlog of GOP bills in the Senate as I write this. There is plenty of work for the senate to do and I think they will do most of it. First on the agenda will be lowering corporate tax rates which the house already passed. Then energy. Some in the GOP think they can legislate Keystone, I don't see how since that decision lies with the executive department but we'll see. I really think we will see an immigration bill of some sort. There will also be Obamacare legislation, it remains to be seen how that shakes out since there are lots of different opinions about how to fix it. The tough nut will be medicare and SS reform that Ryan proposed 4 years ago. I think we will see some action there but that will be a difficult problem with lots of lying and scare tactics from those opposed to any meaningful reform.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm worried about corporate tax reform...

...while I do believe that there are too many loopholes that profitable corporations are able to take advantage of, I'm afraid that most of my fellow Dems are on the wrong side on this battle. Unfortunately, most Americans on the street don't understand why lowering taxes for businesses is good, and most business leaders don't understand why certain excesses of the corporate world are bad. To really pass meaningful corporate tax reform, with bipartisan support, we need two things:

1. An overall, meaningful decrease in corporate taxes, not just a token slash. Something that really increases the attractiveness of doing business in America.
2. A willingness to partner such reform with a few hedges, such as a minimum wage increase, to appease those who are scared that the tax savings will never make it down to workers (and who find tax cuts disturbing for companies whose full-time employees are eligible for welfare).

I can't possibly imagining that happening. I don't see the GOP allowing the two to be tied together, and I don't see the Dems, whether Senate or Obama by himself, willing to give up #1 (and give credit to the GOP in the process) without at least some promise for #2.

Of all the things our new Congress (and the President!) could do to make a difference right now, one of the biggest would be to come to a deal on lowering corporate taxes. That alone is enough for this cynic to doubt it will happen.

goat

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Absolutely not

This is the problem with government now. We act as though every bill must be "comprehensive" which is just another way of saying bills must contain a crap-load of ornaments in order to get broad based political support. All this does is empower special interests and waters down policy proposals. (Remember the cornhusker kickback?) This way of legislating important policies needs to stop. We do tax reform in one bill. Do minimum wages in another. Don't condition your support on one thing with my support of the other thing.

 

[SSB]

With a half trillion in new debt this year and 18 trillion in

total debt I certainly hope we replace that revenue. You are starting to sound like a Republican Goat, "lets lower taxes and increase the debt".

 

[gbmhoosier]

I think the congress will pass a lot of bills. However the real key is going to be whether they can reach across the aisle and craft bipartisan legislation for things like immigration. If the republican congress can pass immigration reform which is supported by some members of both parties and O vetoes the legislation, it will give the Repubs a huge advantage in 2016 election.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Re: Reading comprehension..not a strong point?

Tactics, ethics, abuse of power, corruption of the political process to maintain their hold on power. Those were the points expressed in support of the resolution.
The successful results of the election don't absolve the GOP of their unethical behavior, which will lead to infighting and blunt the effectiveness of much needed legislative achievement.

As is said, even a blind sow finds an acorn once in a while.

The so-called 'progressives' were slaughtered on issues.

 

[ARMZP]

But here is the problem

The minimum wage increase won't hurt the large corporations. They have the economy of scale and other devices to deal with it. Who it will hurt is the small and middle sized business, and it does NOTHING to help the worker getting it.

This has been explained on this board thousands of times. Why do dems insist on still pushing this idea, when it won't help, and in most cases, will hurt the employees and the business?

Unless we deal with this imigration problem, nothing else really matters.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'm no supply-sider. But...

...one really doesn't need to be a Mundell disciple to appreciate that US tax coffers get absolutely nothing when some $2 trillion in corporate cash remains parked overseas so as to avoid our stupid tax policies on the repatriation of foreign-earned monies.

So long as that money remains parked overseas, not only do we get no direct tax revenue from it, we also don't get the benefits of at least some portion of it being repatriated and invested here.

I'd say that's one particular instance where, yes, a tax cut of some kind or another would result in higher tax revenues (not to mention all kinds of other benefits) than leaving it at the status quo. The revenue we'd have to "replace" from making this change is zero: we get nothing so long as that money stays elsewhere.

Rand Paul said on TV the other night that we should marry this long overdue tax reform with infrastructure spending. And I was heartened to hear the President mention something along these lines in his presser yesterday.

 

[ARMZP]

Yes I think it is. You also had

democrates refusing to have the POTUS campaign for them. So I guess you could say the same thing about the democrate party as you did about the Rpublicans.

 

[SSB]

Im not buying it.

You want to reduce revenue by approximately 350 billion, increase spending on infrastructure, in an environment where we already rack up an additional 500 billion a year in debt? I've played this game before and once those cuts are in place, regardless of outcome, there is no going back. I'm all for reform but for once lets know where the revenue is coming from.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm cool with extra debt.

I want lower corporate tax rates. I don't care if the lost revenue is offset.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Here's why:

1) an argument can be made that the two are at least related.

2) you'll get more people on board this way, allowing for more meaningful cuts.

Packaging laws is one important type of compromise.

 

[ARMZP]

You mean like we did with the

$787B STIMULUS?

He told you where it would come from. Also the jobs created when those corporations come home.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

This depends on specifically what we're talking about.

The only aspect of corporate tax policy I'm talking about is the profoundly stupid rules we have about foreign earnings. It's causing a couple undesirable problems -- (a) the "inversions" that have garnered headlines, and (b) the parking of roughly $2 trillion in cash, the proceeds of foreign earnings.

Matt Levine, of Bloomberg, did a very good job putting the inversion subject in layman's terms:




So the purpose of an inversion has never been, and never could be, and never will be, "ooh, Canada has a 15 percent tax rate, and the U.S. has a 35 percent tax rate, so we can save 20 points of taxes on all our income by moving." Instead the main purpose is always: "If we're incorporated in the U.S., we'll pay 35 percent taxes on our income in the U.S. and Canada and Mexico and Ireland and Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, but if we're incorporated in Canada, we'll pay 35 percent on our income in the U.S. but 15 percent in Canada and 30 percent in Mexico and 12.5 percent in Ireland and zero percent in Bermuda and zero percent in the Cayman Islands."

Once you understand that, it's obvious that the appeal of this strategy will vary in direct proportion to how much business you do in the U.S. and how much you do in, say, Bermuda.


I guess the difference between you and me here is that I think we'd ultimately gain more tax revenues by fixing the stupidity he describes. You look at it and see only the direct costs of fixing it -- and apparently disregard the costs inherent in more Burger Kings finding it irresistible to jump ship (or Apple, etal keeping their foreign earnings foreign).

Between inversion and US multinationals who haven't sought inversion, but have responded to our policy by keeping earnings from foreign subsidiaries offshore, it surprises me that you think we'll end up with less tax revenue as a result of making the right tweaks.

Done right, it seems like it has the potential of being -- for a while, anyway -- more of a windfall.


This post was edited on 11/6 11:36 AM by crazed_hoosier2

 

[mjvcaj]

Great slogan alax, I may steal it (referencing you of course)*

*

 

[alax2]

Reference my a$$. I am a Republican, I want a royalty, cash ,moolah... Nt

Nt
This post was edited on 11/7 9:58 AM by alax2

 

[Tracon]

And mine stays out of my 32 ounce Coke, my school lunch,

my beer, cigarettes, guns, automobile and everything else the Feds have no business sticking their fat noses in.

 

[NPT]

Good things/ bad things

Good things:
Won't have to see Reid any more or not near as muchIf R pass bills and Obama vetoes them he can't complain that the Rs don't do anything.
Bad things:
Will probably have to see McConnell & Boehner more.

Rs will probably come strutting in like a peacock and fall on their face.

 

[NPT]

I had to chuckle

at your 32 ounce Coke comment because I think it's hilarious that the Democrats will support abortion claiming that it's a woman's right since it's her body yet tell you that you can't have a large Coke because it might make you fat.

 

[NPT]

Liberals are

always cool with extra debt.

Seriously, I agree with you about corporate taxes. It kind of amazes me that politicians will take every loophole/deduction they can on their individual taxes and then expect corporations to act differently and not do things to lower their corporate taxes.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Three things about debt from this liberal...

1) I don't think it's bad for government to be in debt. It's bad for individuals to be in debt, but government doesn't work like that, and the tendency for people to resort to that analogy is faulty.

2) There are two things government can do to help the economy: lower taxes and increase spending. Both cause debt. In order to offset debt caused by lowering taxes, you need to either raise taxes somewhere or cut some spending somewhere, both of which will tend to cancel out whatever benefits you gained by lowering taxes.

3) If I were terrified of debt, I wouldn't be complaining about tax cuts for corporations. I'd be complaining about defense spending and Medicare.