Nebraska stuns GOP establishment

[starcraftzzz]

The Libertarians and fiscally responsible Republicans (non-RINO's) have begun the takeover of the big spending, big government Rs of late. Clearly not for the White House, but absolutely where it counts, in Congress. It's going to take several voting cycles, but we will get this country on a path to fiscal sustainability. The alternative is unthinkable.

You mean actually taxing people at an appropriate rate?

While one could argue an 'appropriate rate' would include taxing the nearly half of Americans paying zero percent, the answer to your question is "No", fiscal sustainability is about a path to stop spending what we don't have and reversing the growth of government. You can't fix this with tax rate increases, not even close.

Half of Americans pay no federal income taxes… Since that is only equal to ¼ of total taxes all you are doing is cherry picking and being dishonest

 

[starcraftzzz]

While one could argue an 'appropriate rate' would include taxing the nearly half of Americans paying zero percent, the answer to your question is "No", fiscal sustainability is about a path to stop spending what we don't have and reversing the growth of government. You can't fix this with tax rate increases, not even close.

Well, you should have told RR who signed off on increased taxes three times during his administration.

Some revenue increase at about 1:8 or 9 with budget reduction, cutting in Defense, leaving SS tax money in SS coffers where it belongs along with retirement age increase and an increase to $250,000 taxable income, would do the job.

Shoot. Obama should put Bowles-Simpson tax plan on the table in front of Congress and say "act or shit."

I'll just point out that RR may have signed tax increases but they were more than offset by decreases...but that's not the point. If I could find just one central planner today willing to make the cuts you mentioned NOW, I'd consider a reasonable tax rate increase. However, all we're seeing are plans to raise taxes now in return for a "promise" of future spending cuts, which never happen. Case in point: How's that PAYGO working out for us?

Obama should put forth B-S plan, but there's no way he's going to cut spending or hell, even agree to a slight reduction in the planned rate of INCREASED spending.

ope actually Reagans tax increases where equal to his tax cuts. The difference was he slashed taxes for the rich and skyrocketed them for the poor

Reagan actually reduced taxes on the rich top 10% and added taxes for the rest of us.
eRiposte Economy - Democrats v. Republicans on the U.S. economy
How the Bush Tax Cut Compares in Size To the Reagan Tax Cuts -- 2/20/01
1981 tax cut was around 2.1% of GDP-- accounts inflation and 1982 TERFRA
**1982
TERFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion.**
1982
Highway revenue act increased taxes by $3.3 billion
1983
Increase in Social security tax rate increase taxes by about 1% of GDP
http://www.newrules.org/drdave/11-socsec.html
http://www.newrules.org/drdave/11-socsec.html#_ftn5
1984
Deficit reduction act, raised taxes by $18 billion.

Obama is currently implementing 50billion in yearly cuts for the military. That’s not the future that’s now

 

[eflatminor]

Obama is currently implementing 50billion in yearly cuts for the military. That’s not the future that’s now

$50 billion in "cuts" (actually just a slightly reduced rate of increased spending) while spending TRILLIONS more elsewhere. Wonderful logic you've got there. That's like a father telling his family, "Look, I cut our food budget by 1% to be fiscally responsible...just don't ask me about spending more than ever on hookers and coke!"

 

[eflatminor]

You mean actually taxing people at an appropriate rate?

While one could argue an 'appropriate rate' would include taxing the nearly half of Americans paying zero percent, the answer to your question is "No", fiscal sustainability is about a path to stop spending what we don't have and reversing the growth of government. You can't fix this with tax rate increases, not even close.

Half of Americans pay no federal income taxes… Since that is only equal to ¼ of total taxes all you are doing is cherry picking and being dishonest

You're rambling again.

I am not being dishonest about this being a spending problem and not something that can be fixed by raising rates on anyone, including those that pay no federal income tax.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Put Bowles-Simpson on the table, Mr. President, and tell Congress to "act or shit."

 

[starcraftzzz]

Obama is currently implementing 50billion in yearly cuts for the military. That’s not the future that’s now

$50 billion in "cuts" (actually just a slightly reduced rate of increased spending) while spending TRILLIONS more elsewhere. Wonderful logic you've got there. That's like a father telling his family, "Look, I cut our food budget by 1% to be fiscally responsible...just don't ask me about spending more than ever on hookers and coke!"

Yes you failing to realize that spending is being cut is totally a LOL LOL LOL

 

[starcraftzzz]

While one could argue an 'appropriate rate' would include taxing the nearly half of Americans paying zero percent, the answer to your question is "No", fiscal sustainability is about a path to stop spending what we don't have and reversing the growth of government. You can't fix this with tax rate increases, not even close.

Half of Americans pay no federal income taxes… Since that is only equal to ¼ of total taxes all you are doing is cherry picking and being dishonest

You're rambling again.

I am not being dishonest about this being a spending problem and not something that can be fixed by raising rates on anyone, including those that pay no federal income tax.

Yes you lying is totally not dishonest. Learn English plz
Govt spending is increasing less than it did in the 70’s 80’s and 2000’s. However taxes are at their lowest levels in 50 years. So as always reality says the opposite of what you say

 

[eflatminor]

Obama is currently implementing 50billion in yearly cuts for the military. That’s not the future that’s now

$50 billion in "cuts" (actually just a slightly reduced rate of increased spending) while spending TRILLIONS more elsewhere. Wonderful logic you've got there. That's like a father telling his family, "Look, I cut our food budget by 1% to be fiscally responsible...just don't ask me about spending more than ever on hookers and coke!"

Yes you failing to realize that spending is being cut is totally a LOL LOL LOL

Yes, let's watch those 'cuts' kick in here:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Wait a minute, if we're cutting, why are the numbers getting bigger?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Half of Americans pay no federal income taxes… Since that is only equal to ¼ of total taxes all you are doing is cherry picking and being dishonest

You're rambling again.

I am not being dishonest about this being a spending problem and not something that can be fixed by raising rates on anyone, including those that pay no federal income tax.

Yes you lying is totally not dishonest. Learn English plz
Govt spending is increasing less than it did in the 70’s 80’s and 2000’s. However taxes are at their lowest levels in 50 years. So as always reality says the opposite of what you say

 

[eflatminor]

Govt spending is increasing less than it did in the 70’s 80’s and 2000’s.

Link please.

 

[Avatar4321]

A three way race where two candidates are conservative and one still beats the establishment candidate. Definitely an interesting race.

 

[Missourian]

The Libertarians and fiscally responsible Republicans (non-RINO's) have begun the takeover of the big spending, big government Rs of late. Clearly not for the White House, but absolutely where it counts, in Congress. It's going to take several voting cycles, but we will get this country on a path to fiscal sustainability. The alternative is unthinkable.

You mean actually taxing people at an appropriate rate?

Here's the real problem- When you idiot supply siders cut taxes and started borrowing, you made government more attractive.

You get all these goodies and no one has to pay for it.

If you really want to shrink government, raise taxes across the board. Then people might want to take care of their own grandmothers than letting government do it.

Totally agree with you Joe...every American should pay some Federal Income taxes.


Half the country with no skin in the game consistantly vote to "get all these goodies" then DEMAND that the OTHER 50% pay MORE to keep those free goodies coming.

That is the problem.

Everyone should pay a fair share.

 

[starcraftzzz]

The Libertarians and fiscally responsible Republicans (non-RINO's) have begun the takeover of the big spending, big government Rs of late. Clearly not for the White House, but absolutely where it counts, in Congress. It's going to take several voting cycles, but we will get this country on a path to fiscal sustainability. The alternative is unthinkable.

You mean actually taxing people at an appropriate rate?

Here's the real problem- When you idiot supply siders cut taxes and started borrowing, you made government more attractive.

You get all these goodies and no one has to pay for it.

If you really want to shrink government, raise taxes across the board. Then people might want to take care of their own grandmothers than letting government do it.

Totally agree with you Joe...every American should pay some Federal Income taxes.


Half the country with no skin in the game consistantly vote to "get all these goodies" then DEMAND that the OTHER 50% pay MORE to keep those free goodies coming.

That is the problem.

Everyone should pay a fair share.

Everybody should pay their fair share
Report: 25 Percent Of Millionaires Pay Lower Taxes Than 10.4 Million Middle-Class Americans | ThinkProgress
^25% of millionaires have lower tax rates then around 11 million middle class Americas.

One Chart Shows Obama Is Right About "Buffett Rule" - BlueOregon
^The average millionaire with 2/3rd income from investments pays 30% less taxes then someone making 50,000 a year

Top 25 Hedge Fund Managers Make As Much As 440,000 Middle-Class Americans, But Still Get Tax Loophole | ThinkProgress
^Hedge fund managers make over 500 million dollars a year yet pay an effective tax rate that is 10% lower than the average working American due to tax loopholes, and republicans refuse to close that loophole.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf
^Richest 400 Americans have an effective tax rate of 15%, compared to a rate of 30% for the poorest 50% of Americans

Billionaires Use Tax Loophole To Lower Their Tax Rates To 1 Percent | ThinkProgress
^Some billionaires pay a tax rate of less then 1%

http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
^The bottom 50% of American have a 35% higher effective tax rate compared to wages then the richest 400 Americans.

Odd how to republcinas paying your fair share means rich people paying less in taxes then poor people

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree the poor should pay a nominal tax, even if it is $10 or $20.

 

[Listening]

This thread was about how a no-name has been propelled into a federal senate race because Nebraska folks chose to do something unexpected.

Back on topic people.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/224163-nebraska-battle-complicates-gop-effort-to-retake-senate-

The Senate Republican primary in Nebraska has turned into a proxy war between conservatives and establishment Republicans that could complicate efforts to wrest control of the Senate from Democrats.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a leading voice for Tea Party conservatives in Washington, has made an aggressive bid to defeat Jon Bruning, the front-runner in the primary, because of lingering doubts about his commitment to conservative principles.


DeMint has stuck fast to his claim that he would prefer to serve with 30 Republicans in the mold of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a rising conservative star, than with 60 Republicans like former Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), who joined Democrats in 2009 before losing reelection.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R), DeMint’s home-state colleague, Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the third-ranking Senate Republican leader, and other GOP senators have supported Bruning. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also backed him.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist, said GOP discord in Nebraska has helped his party’s chances of clinging to Senate control.

“In Nebraska we’re 50-50 and I think in Nebraska, once the primary is over and people get to focus on who the Republican actually is, Kerrey’s going to do even better,” he said of Democratic candidate Bob Kerrey, who represented the Cornhusker State in the Senate from 1989 to 2001.

“There’s only one state where the strong likelihood is there’s a pick-up. That’s Maine and that’s ours. You go to the next group, it includes North Dakota and Nebraska, and they’re 50-50 states, which is great for us,” Schumer said.

The Senate seat is currently held by a Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson, who has announced he will retire.

Some Republicans question whether DeMint’s strenuous intervention will do anything more than alienate a likely future colleague.

“There’s no question he’s the front-runner,” said David Kramer, a former Nebraska Republican Party chairman who ran for Senate in 2006.

“There would have to be a monumental effort for someone other than Jon to be the nominee,” he said, predicting Republicans would win in November because “Nebraska is a lot more conservative than it was 18 years ago,” when Kerrey last won election.

Yet conservatives remain concerned about Bruning’s record, and the candidate has been dogged by questions over how he amassed personal wealth while serving in public office.

***********************************

If the GOP pulls this one off....you know Obama's gonna sink. This looks like it could be quite a bellweather race.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist, said GOP discord in Nebraska has helped his party’s chances of clinging to Senate control.

“In Nebraska we’re 50-50 and I think in Nebraska, once the primary is over and people get to focus on who the Republican actually is, Kerrey’s going to do even better,” he said of Democratic candidate Bob Kerrey, who represented the Cornhusker State in the Senate from 1989 to 2001.

Schumer's an idiot. 50-50 my ass. The Democrats have no hope of retaining that seat.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Running a no-name against a former Senator and Medal of Honor winner?

Don't know how well that's going to work out.

Running a current state senator against a carpet-bagging plug-in should tell you a bit more.

You know that Bob Kerrey was born and raised in Nebraska, and served as Governor of Nebraska '83-'87, then Senator from '89-2001, right?

You might want to look up "carpetbagger".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist, said GOP discord in Nebraska has helped his party’s chances of clinging to Senate control.

“In Nebraska we’re 50-50 and I think in Nebraska, once the primary is over and people get to focus on who the Republican actually is, Kerrey’s going to do even better,” he said of Democratic candidate Bob Kerrey, who represented the Cornhusker State in the Senate from 1989 to 2001.

Schumer's an idiot. 50-50 my ass. The Democrats have no hope of retaining that seat.

What makes you say that?

 

[Truthmatters]

Friends and foes call Deb Fischer formidable - David Catanese - POLITICO.com



She’s a Sarah Palin endorsee who supported higher gas taxes and benefits from a federal farm subsidy. The campaign team that labeled her “the true conservative” has deep ties to moderate former Sen. Chuck Hagel. And while she doggedly logs more than 30,000 miles a year on the road visiting constituents, she hasn’t mustered even a half-million dollars for her campaign.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76419.html#ixzz1v9jH0Wma

 

[Truthmatters]

I hope she is as honest as she seems