I think the Party has to be taken into account when voting. All you have to do is look at the nearly locked in step party line voting in the Houses, of late. Once people are elected and begin to serve they soon find out who's in charge and what they have to do to rise in the ranks and further their careers and their fortunes.

Saying that, I haven't seen a name in the Democrat column, not counting very local contests, that I would have pulled the lever for in many a year.

Maybe when Reid and Pelosi are history, and if then the Democrat Party moves away from it radical leanings I will reconsider, but not until then.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I think the Party has to be taken into account when voting. All you have to do is look at the nearly locked in step party line voting in the Houses, of late. Once people are elected and begin to serve they soon find out who's in charge and what they have to do to rise in the ranks and further their careers and their fortunes.

Saying that, I haven't seen a name in the Democrat column, not counting very local contests, that I would have pulled the lever for in many a year.

Maybe when Reid and Pelosi are history, and if then the Democrat Party moves away from it radical leanings I will reconsider, but not until then.

I would agree that party must be taken into account when voting, however part of the problem with the "nearly locked in step party line voting" is that they know, in order to be reelected, that they must pander to the extremes of their party because they are the ones who vote in the primaries to a large extent. If more people thought, and voted, independently, especially in the primaries we might be able to break the hold of the Grover Norquist's on the right and the Pelosi's on the left.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

I would agree that party must be taken into account when voting, however part of the problem with the "nearly locked in step party line voting" is that they know, in order to be reelected, that they must pander to the extremes of their party because they are the ones who vote in the primaries to a large extent. If more people thought, and voted, independently, especially in the primaries we might be able to break the hold of the Grover Norquist's on the right and the Pelosi's on the left.

I agree, to a point, but those "independent" candidates mostly just fall in line with the leaders of the party. We've seen it over and over.

Really the only recent examples of challenges to the status quo has been the Tea Party candidates who've won election. Maybe not all of them, but enough to shake the foundations of the Republican establishment.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I agree, to a point, but those "independent" candidates mostly just fall in line with the leaders of the party. We've seen it over and over.

Really the only recent examples of challenges to the status quo has been the Tea Party candidates who've won election. Maybe not all of them, but enough to shake the foundations of the Republican establishment.

When those tea party candidates begin to refuse to sign norquist's no tax pledge and refuse to attend his breakfasts, I will beleive they might be able to do some reforming.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I agree, to a point, but those "independent" candidates mostly just fall in line with the leaders of the party. We've seen it over and over.

Really the only recent examples of challenges to the status quo has been the Tea Party candidates who've won election. Maybe not all of them, but enough to shake the foundations of the Republican establishment.

You got to be kidding. Tea Party candidates cost the Republicans control of the senate in 2010: Christine O'Donnell in DE, Sharon Angle in NV, Buck in CO, one in WV (name escapes me), and they're going to cost the Republicans the White House in 2012. And don't forget that loser Joe Miller in Alaska who lost to a write-in candidate.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

I would agree that party must be taken into account when voting, however part of the problem with the "nearly locked in step party line voting" is that they know, in order to be reelected, that they must pander to the extremes of their party because they are the ones who vote in the primaries to a large extent. If more people thought, and voted, independently, especially in the primaries we might be able to break the hold of the Grover Norquist's on the right and the Pelosi's on the left.

eweissenbach: It may be simplistic but I believe voters fall in line with that oft referrd to bell curve. However there are periods wherein hard shifts to one side or another are made because circumstances require it. We have had a very liberal president and congress that unfortunately has rapidly heading into european socialism. We will ned a hard shift to the right to get us back on track. I say that because not everything a president proposes gets voted in.

My wish list includes a very strong deense and foreign policy. We need to retake our place at the head of the global table.

I believe that the Departments of energy and Education have to be reduced and redefined becuase they are ineffective and misguided. I believe the EPA has to have it swings clipped because its green policies are creating a serious danger of power shortages across this country.

I do not believe a tax incease will help us as it is like going to an ATM to meet your home budget shortages. Congress will spend tax increases at an alarming rate. We can however invest in revenue neutral solution.

Spending needs to be cur but again there are a number of ways to accomplish that without hurting people. For instance welfare programs shoud be turned over to the individual states because they will be able to manage them better. the federal government is just too big.

I am certain there are members here who have better solutions . Its now solutions were short on its poltical people will the intestinal fortittude and desire to push through these solutions.

Originally Posted by rubicon

eweissenbach: It may be simplistic but I believe voters fall in line with that oft referrd to bell curve. However there are periods wherein hard shifts to one side or another are made because circumstances require it. We have had a very liberal president and congress that unfortunately has rapidly heading into european socialism. We will ned a hard shift to the right to get us back on track. I say that because not everything a president proposes gets voted in.

My wish list includes a very strong deense and foreign policy. We need to retake our place at the head of the global table.

I believe that the Departments of energy and Education have to be reduced and redefined becuase they are ineffective and misguided. I believe the EPA has to have it swings clipped because its green policies are creating a serious danger of power shortages across this country.

I do not believe a tax incease will help us as it is like going to an ATM to meet your home budget shortages. Congress will spend tax increases at an alarming rate. We can however invest in revenue neutral solution.

Spending needs to be cur but again there are a number of ways to accomplish that without hurting people. For instance welfare programs shoud be turned over to the individual states because they will be able to manage them better. the federal government is just too big.

I am certain there are members here who have better solutions . Its now solutions were short on its poltical people will the intestinal fortittude and desire to push through these solutions.

Nothing wrong with what you say, except the part about no tax increase, in my opinion. Tax rates on people with taxable income above $250,000 need to be raised. They are at historic lows and maybe even more importantly tax credit and deduction loopholes need to be closed, as the wealthy are currently the biggest benefactors of the American Taxpayer. People scream about social programs, but the wealthy, who don't need any help, get far more taxpayer supported benefits than anyone else. Social Security can also be fixed by increasing the income limits subject to SStax. A self-employed person making up to $106k will be taxed (ss tax) 12.4% in 2012 - A self-employed person making $1million will be taxed at about a 1.2% rate. Ask yourself, which of these people could stand to help us keep social security solvent? Before I get branded with the dreaded class warfare label, let me say that for the last 25 years of my working life I made more than the SS tax limit, and would not have blinked an eye had that been raised - Also, two of my three children currently make more than $250k and they can afford to pay more. They own a business and employ over 100 people, and none of them have been hired or fired because of my kid's personal income tax, they hire or fire them on merit, and for what they add to the company's bottom line. None of this is possible as long as the republicans continue to do grover norquist's (as a front to who knows who - koch brothers maybe?)bidding

Tax rates on people with taxable income above $250,000 need to be raised. They are at historic lows and maybe even more importantly tax credit and deduction loopholes need to be closed, as the wealthy are currently the biggest benefactors of the American Taxpayer.

This is where I think the problem begins for me. My accountant says that because of the lose of income for going over $250,000 per year because of the higher taxes I need to earn no more than I do now.
That means do not expand my business because it it only more work for less money.
So if you think it does not hurt job creation, I am telling you I will not be creating any more jobs because the government gets all the money for that extra work I did and I get nothing.

To some that kind of income seems like a lot but when you factor in all the cost of living in this time it ain't!

This sounds like tax them but not me but I think you need to earn much more than $250,000 for it not to hurt. The uber rich can absorb it much better than some one in my situation.

Just say'in

Originally Posted by notlongnow

This is where I think the problem begins for me. My accountant says that because of the lose of income for going over $250,000 per year because of the higher taxes I need to earn no more than I do now.
That means do not expand my business because it it only more work for less money.
So if you think it does not hurt job creation, I am telling you I will not be creating any more jobs because the government gets all the money for that extra work I did and I get nothing.

To some that kind of income seems like a lot but when you factor in all the cost of living in this time it ain't!

This sounds like tax them but not me but I think you need to earn much more than $250,000 for it not to hurt. The uber rich can absorb it much better than some one in my situation.

Just say'in

No offense but your accountant is wrong, unless he just wants you to shift the money into next year, which really doesn't cost you in the long run. You will not be taxed at 100% so any money you make above any marginal tax breakpoint, will mean more money in your pocket. If keeping more than 60% of every dollar you make above that point is not attractive to you, then you are in an enviable position indeed. Also if you make more than $250,000 in TAXIBLE INCOME and you are having a hard time making ends meet, you need a new accountant and a little lifestyle adjustment. I don't mean to be strident, but you and me and my kids are not hurting, the country and many people in it are. I just picked the $250k mark from discussions during the last campaign - maybe it should be higher, but it should be somewhere. I am still convinced that the far right has pushed the argument that raising taxes on the wealthy will cost jobs so they can get buy-in from the vast majority of people who don't fall into that category. It is simply not a viable argument - why did we have almost full employment during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations when the highest marginal tax rates were double what they are today?

Also if you make more than $250,000 in TAXIBLE INCOME and you are having a hard time making ends meet, you need a new accountant and a little lifestyle adjustment.

This is not something you would know but I have to keep up a second household for my mother-in-law so that is a bunch so lifestyle is not above the normal person I think.
I think that 40% of my income is a bunch, especially if you do not agree with how it is being used.

why did we have almost full employment during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations when the highest marginal tax rates were double what they are today?

I would guess because we MADE THINGS! We now just buy things. It was a totally different economy and we use to make things and sell them, called jobs, gas was 19 cents and bread was 10 cents. That would be my guess.

By the way my CPA is my stepmother and is also a Obama lover so why would SHE say that. She is quite good at what she does and she lives in the Villages along with my democrat to the bone father, Love them both.
When it comes to taxes she has it covered!
The way I see it is the extra money my company would make with the lower tax is about a entry level job that I could create!!

Sorry, didn't mean to insult your step-mother. I still maintain that 60% of the gross is worth some effort.

I did not take it like that. I understand what you meant.
If I am to be honest it is really that I can pay more I just don't want to.
If the economy was stronger and had anything that looked like a future I would be much softer on this point.

Originally Posted by notlongnow

I did not take it like that. I understand what you meant.
If I am to be honest it is really that I can pay more I just don't want to.
If the economy was stronger and had anything that looked like a future I would be much softer on this point.

We don't agree on everything but you're a class act.

Thank you sir.