The Goat Pen

I suspect you people take a measure of vainglorious delight in this undeniable illustration of your power as a bloc (loathe as you no doubt are to admit it)

You keep ascribing to social conservatives some kind of electoral might in the R party that we simply have seldom actually demonstrated. As a power block, we failed far more than we succeeded. Out of the last 6 GOP nominees, we only nominated two that appeared at the time to be socially and/or fiscally conservative. I also note that the two who were nominated as social and fiscal conservatives - Reagan and Bush Jr. - also won in the general election. Of the other GOP nominees - Bush Sr., Dole, McCain, Romney - all had dubious credentials as social and/or fiscal conservatives. They also all lost in the general election. So it would appear that it is mushy moderate-ism that kills Republican candidates in November while social/fiscal conservatism actually gets them elected.

If the social and/or fiscal conservatives were as all-powerful in the R party as you think, why have we been so unsuccessful in nominating candidates that we like?

But be of good cheer, hedge. IMO, the involvement of social conservatism in the R party is probably coming to an end. Your beloved party will soon, finally, be rid of those detestable termites. Without their tens of millions of inbred yokel votes, the R party will revert to its natural state of being the party by billionaires, for billionaires, as it was before Reagan. And since there aren't that many voting billionaires (and their butlers, chauffeurs, chambermaids), your plutocrat party will get its collective ass kicked every election for the next 50 years, just like it did before Reagan.

Enjoy your next permanent status as electoral losers.

I don't ever think I've ever seen a republican lose the race for President this early. Oh well. It was bound to have happen eventually.

Dole was out pretty early and McCain all but conceded defeat to Obama at the Alfred Smith dinner. But neither on of them gaffed it up as bad as Romney has. Well, unless you call choosing Sarah Palin as your running mate a gaffe. Which, come to think of it, was probably a bigger gaffe than anything Romney will be able to come up with. But it doesn't appear that he's going to give up trying...

See I agree with Romneys statement. It was accurate but he was a little low on the percentage of people that pay no income tax. Its sad that the mainstream media is so much in the pocket of BHO that they attack Romney on his statement about the atacks (which he was proven right BTW), don't call out BHO on the lie that it's the movie when in reality they had a 3 day warning it was going to happen, it was a well planned terrorist attack and he was asleep at the wheel. That won't be played much.

Then on this he speaks the truth and people act like it's just awful. You know what, those people that don't pay income taxes by and large are gonna vote for whoever promises them the most of other peoples money.

We have reached the point that the moochers are going to vote themselves a pay raise.

I have said this all along, and it will prove to be true. Moochers rule the US now and before too much longer the number of people that don't pay income tax will be well over 50% and good luck getting ANYBODY elected that wants to change the dependancy mentality.

As for me Hedge, I most certianly did decry Bushes spending like a democrat. I most certianly did oppose the bank bail outs and "too big to fail". No doubt about it I did and anyone that was posting with me at that time should remember it, I never supported a bail out of any kind for any politician that I can remember, ever.

Over 60% of people who pay no income tax are still paying payroll taxes. Which means they are employed but earn less than the amount in tax credits they've earned. The number also includes seniors on medicare and SS. Are they all just moochers abusing the system as Mittens implied?

"See I agree with Romneys statement"

And I hope you never stop agreeing with statements like that. Because that, and you, and people like you, are precisely and totally why the republican party is in total shambles and will continue to be for years to come. Congratulations. Your entire realm of influence (such as it is) has now been reduced to a very low volume internet chatroom in which at least (ahem) 47% of the participants regard you as an ignorant, wrong-headed, uncultured redneck, all of which are true. But I know you don't care. Your kind never do...

I heard on the radio tonight so you know it's gotta be true that 49% pay no income tax and in 1962 the number was 18%

Owlman wrote:

AlabamAlum wrote: Now, why would someone want that is another question...

It would seem to be expensive in my mind. Seriously, a lot of dough just for multiple pussy.

I have a friend here who is not an American citizen but is from a country that allows polygamy. He has three wives - all of whom are from his home country but were basically raised and educated in the USA. One of his wives is an M.D., another is a PHD microbiologist working in Biotech. The youngest (he's 48, she's 28) also has a PHD and is on a tenure track at USC.

He used to work as an accounting analyst at my old job, but when wife #2 started making 6 figures, he quit and started businesses with his wives' money. He now owns 5-6 McDonald's franchises and at least that many Taco Bell's/KFCs, along with a boatload of rental property. He also has a wonderfully modest mansion in an upscale (but not too upscale neighborhood) where each wife has a seperate suite of 5-6 rooms and he basically spends 2 nights/week with each wife.

He married each wife in the home country and has no issues. Because all of his wives are fairly high earners, he hasn't really punched a time clock since he was in his late 20s. Of course, in younger days he was one of the cheapest SOBs I knew. He brown-bagged it every single day (strictly Top Ramen/yogurt/PB&J), caught the bus (even though he had a car) because the company reimbursed us for ridesharing and taking public transportation, etc., and only shopped at Payless/Ross/K=Mart.

That sounds like heaven...

hedge wrote:That sounds like heaven...

I'm sure it has it's downsides and it's prolly not the norm, but it is intriguing.

My wife didn't know about the makeup of his household until we ran into him and wife #3 a year or so ago at an alumni function at USC. Mrs. J.D. asked me what was he donig with that young woman. My <silent> response was "He's fucking her, that's what."

hedge wrote:"See I agree with Romneys statement"

And I hope you never stop agreeing with statements like that. Because that, and you, and people like you, are precisely and totally why the republican party is in total shambles and will continue to be for years to come. Congratulations. Your entire realm of influence (such as it is) has now been reduced to a very low volume internet chatroom in which at least (ahem) 47% of the participants regard you as an ignorant, wrong-headed, uncultured redneck, all of which are true. But I know you don't care. Your kind never do...

If being for personal responsibility is uncultured and wrong headed well then I guess that's me and no I don't care what supposedly "cultured" liberal folks that think it's just fine and dandy to steal everyone elses money to "redistribute the wealth" think about it.

The number of people that don't pay income taxes should at the very least be close to the poverty level, which is about 14 or 16%, not close to half like it is now (Romneys number was low).

If it's redneck to think that people should support themselves and not rely on somebody elses hard work, well then I'm just a wrong headed, uncultured redneck I guess.

The number also includes seniors on medicare and SS. Are they all just moochers abusing the system as Mittens implied?

Also included in that 47%: Everybody in the military. Wounded vets who use the VA. Anybody who bought their house on a FHA loan. Anybody who started their business on a SBA loan. Farmers who get Dept. of Agriculture backed crop insurance. Researchers for the TVA and NASA (when they aren't too busy doing Muslim outreach). Air traffic controllers. Food safety inspectors. FBI, CIA, Border Patrol agents. Nuclear reactor and mine safety inspectors. Corps of Engineers dam operators. Conservatives tend to like these kinds of people. They're not all dirtbags.

BOJ, did you go to med school on a federally guaranteed loan? If so, you're probably in that 47%.

46.4% pay no income tax. 81% pay federal taxes though.

Professor Tiger wrote:

The number also includes seniors on medicare and SS. Are they all just moochers abusing the system as Mittens implied?

Also included in that 47%: Everybody in the military. Wounded vets who use the VA. Anybody who bought their house on a FHA loan. Anybody who started their business on a SBA loan. Farmers who get Dept. of Agriculture backed crop insurance. Researchers for the TVA and NASA (when they aren't too busy doing Muslim outreach). Air traffic controllers. Food safety inspectors. FBI, CIA, Border Patrol agents. Nuclear reactor and mine safety inspectors. Corps of Engineers dam operators. Conservatives tend to like these kinds of people. They're not all dirtbags.

BOJ, did you go to med school on a federally guaranteed loan? If so, you're probably in that 47%.

I have been in that 47% in the past.

As for my student loan, I had no loans for undergrad because I worked and paid as I went. For med school I had to go through the turnstyles like everyone else but I have been paying those back. See it's a loan, and my credit was good enough I could have gotten those loans without the help of the gubment.

I think the number is closer to 49% but haven't seen it lately so I could be wrong.

As I said, the number should be around the poverty level. Even if it is 47% instead of 49% it is still totally unacceptable, and I don't think the number includes the retired folks. I think it's "wage earners".

As for 81% paying "federal taxes" you are counting social security so that isn't a tax, it's a retirement plan per the libs. They are supposed to get benifits for that.

Income tax is the more proper thing to talk about because that is the actual tax the other is supposed to be a retirement plan (it's a ponzi scheme but still).

See it's a loan, and my credit was good enough I could have gotten those loans without the help of the gubment.

Now, that's some great credit that a bank would give you a loan without any collateral. No wonder we went through a crash in 2008.

IB, like Talent, isn't here anymore because he made an ass of himself defending a total fraud and doesn't have the balls to admit it.

81% includes payroll taxes which is a tax and is not limited to social security (which is a tax that goes into the general fund)

You mean it's not in a "lockbox" somewhere?

10ac wrote:You mean it's not in a "lockbox" somewhere?

Dang Tick beat me to it. I am fully aware that the payroll tax isn't limited to SS, but it's supposed to be (or was maybe not now).

As for my credit, yes I could get loans with no colateral, it's called a signature loan, because my credit score was around 800 (780-810). I worked hard and paid my bills on time or early so I was rewarded with it. I actually had private solicitations for student loans from banks but the rates were a couple of percentage points higher and they didn't have the "forgiven if you die" clause in them so I went ahead and took what every other student got at the time. Private banks still got the loans, it's my understanding that the couple of percentage points in intrest rates that were lower were because it was less risk due to them being garenteed by the gubment, but that unless I defaulted it didn't cost the gubment/taxpayers one penny.

Even at that only part of them were subsidized, the rest were private loans through the school (low risk pool for med school I guess cause the intrest rates weren't that much different). Seems like it was 1500 bucks per semester that were Stafford loans and the rest were private but I can't remember now that was a long time ago.

I just know I make my payment every month and everybody is happy and I didn't cost the gubment anything.

10ac wrote:You mean it's not in a "lockbox" somewhere?

Nope. The SCOTUS gave the election to Bush II. Of course, at the time, I didn't understand what Gore was talking about when he was proposing a lockbox