Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

I Won't Be Voting Republican Anytime Soon

Recs

17

August 26, 2012 – Comments (40) | RELATED TICKERS: B , S

I've voted for Democrats and Republicans depending on who I thought was the right person at the moment.  But after watching 60 minutes I will never vote for a Republican as long as they are beholden to Grover Norquist.  I confess, tonight was the first time I became aware of his strong influence.  So apparently if you want to run as a Republican you will come across Grover.  Grover will basically "advise" you to sign his "never raise taxes under any circumstance" pledge.  If not, trust Grover to "work hard" in getting you replaced or defeated.  So now this person pretty much has control over certain Congressmen.

While I do not criticize people who are anti-taxes in general.  I do question why a lawmaker would stand by that stance regardless of the circrumstances and even if he/she doesn't even agree to it.

I now understand what Boehner and Jeb Bush mean by "common ground."  It simply means it is their way or the highway.  For a government to represent such a diverse culture such as the USA COMPROMISE was how we have dealt with issues.  I used to say when both sides to an agreement are unhappy it probably was a fair deal.  

This is not a vote of confidence to the Democrats.  This is a vote against a party I have voted for from time to time.  But this country is now stuck.  We will forever be deadlocked as long as the Republicans or the Democrats control one of the Houses. So in order to break that deadlock one party needs to lose a bunch of seats.  And in light of Grover I am hoping it will be the Republicans.

40 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 26, 2012 at 8:12 PM, goodwalkspoiled (< 20) wrote:

Don't believe all that lefty spin.  We have enough laws, and pay enough taxes already.  The more gridlock, the better.  Stop the runaway spending.

Report this comment
#2) On August 26, 2012 at 8:40 PM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

First step to healing: Stop watching 60 minutes.

Next step: Understand this is all what they want you to hear. Republicans have no problem with taxes.

What Boehner, Jeb, and the rest of the GOP scum agree on are bombs, and lots of them, preferably with brown people on the other end of them.

They love big government, big money printing, big spending, big taxes (just not quite as big as Democrats.) And LOTS and LOTS of welfare, usually in the form of big handouts to corporate cronies, especially in the MIC.

^That's why you should NEVER vote Republican.  And I applaud you for your half-stance against the corrupt two party system.

(It was a single hand clapping... did it make a sound?)

Tax revenue is irrelevant. That's a technical question of how to fund the ever growing warfare/welfare/police state.  You could do away with all federal income taxes tomorrow, and the State would continue to grow and expand.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#3) On August 26, 2012 at 8:53 PM, MichaelKnows (66.39) wrote:

People say the darnest things

Report this comment
#4) On August 26, 2012 at 8:56 PM, TMFBlacknGold (98.77) wrote:

I don't think tax revenue is irrelevant. That seems pretty obvious. I also disagree with the statement "Republicans have no problem with taxes". Were you alive for the tax ceiling debate last year? The "no new taxes" pledge is why the Doomsday Clock got pushed forward and our credit rating (one of them anyway) was lowered.

I cringe at the two party system and certainly don't agree with all of the Democrats either. I just think the Republicans are the more extreme/radical party right now.

That's my 2 cents anyway. 

Report this comment
#5) On August 26, 2012 at 10:40 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.69) wrote:

Exxxccelant!!

Awallejr's Libertarion side is shining through,

Report this comment
#6) On August 27, 2012 at 12:15 AM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

Lol Harry.  Nah my anti 2-party side is shining.  I would so love to see a viable 3rd party.  I really don't care what the platform is.  I just want it large enough where no 1 party can control or prevent Congressional action.  I am pro compromise.  I accept the reality that not all agree.  I accept that people DO need to compromise for the betterment of society.

No wonder Congressional approval rating is 9%.  We have people in office who kiss the ring of Grover "Gecko."  Even Romney has done so.  As long as that party is bowing to Grover, I will not vote for it.  Doesn't mean I will just vote Democrat either.

Just for laughs I might vote for Ron Paul heheh unless Ralph Nader is on the ballot.

Report this comment
#7) On August 27, 2012 at 1:01 AM, whereaminow (25.00) wrote:

BlacknGold,

Did you know that they've had that same Debt Ceiling debate for 70 years and have passed the higher budget year?  (Actually 80 times, since a few years they had to do it twice.)

It's a side show meant to trick you. Republicans LOVE taxes.

David Liberty

Report this comment
#8) On August 27, 2012 at 1:46 AM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

Actually that is true David.  Once in awhile it is used as a side show like last year.

Report this comment
#9) On August 27, 2012 at 7:59 AM, jason2713 (< 20) wrote:

Until we admit we are bankrupt as a nation, neither Republicans nor Democrats will change anything.  They have little fringe differences on the edges, but their budgets, the debt growth, spending and tax policies are basically the same.

Report this comment
#10) On August 27, 2012 at 8:26 AM, ncinterpreter (< 20) wrote:

Has anyone noticed the Republican Platform and the Republican base are crazy ?

Report this comment
#11) On August 27, 2012 at 10:23 AM, edwjm (99.87) wrote:

ncinterpreter:  I certainly have!

Report this comment
#12) On August 27, 2012 at 11:37 AM, drgroup (68.81) wrote:

Just the slight chance that obama might be re-elected should be a motivating factor to vote republican. You can't honestly want 4 more years of higher taxes, more gov take over of industry, total implementation of obmacare to name a few.

You will not be able to recognize this great country if the deceiver in the white house is re-elected. Our rights and freedoms will be taken away under the guise of national security. If this is what you want, then vote for obama.. 

Report this comment
#13) On August 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Eudemonic (64.00) wrote:

"There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats," George Wallace

Report this comment
#14) On August 27, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Mega (99.96) wrote:

So you agree with George Wallace?

Report this comment
#15) On August 27, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Mega (99.96) wrote:

I should really stay out of political blogs, they only serve to annoy me.

Report this comment
#16) On August 27, 2012 at 2:05 PM, mtf00l (46.45) wrote:

We lost more freedoms under GW Jr. than anytime I can remember.  That Obama is a continuation is in the noise...

Report this comment
#17) On August 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM, motleyanimal (83.28) wrote:

We have a one party system with two factions.

Report this comment
#18) On August 27, 2012 at 8:36 PM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

Well with respect to tax increases, Obama has kept the Bush rates all during his term.  He has even asked to extend them for about 93% of all workers.  It has been the Republicans who will be causing a massive tax increase by their refusal to do so, despite the fact that it is "common ground."

I was wondering why things got so ugly last year during the debt ceiling "crisis."  I didn't understand the stubbornness. Now I know.  King Grover has most of the Republicans in his pocket.  A deal will never be able to be made.  Since they will never agree now to any tax increase whatsoever the only way to reduce the deficit and debt is through massive cuts (except to the military) which means guess who pays that bill?  Yup the ever vanishing middle class  since the wealthy really don't need entitlements anyway.

The greed and selfishness has gotten way out of hand.

Report this comment
#19) On August 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Melaschasm (52.22) wrote:

Obamacare includes middle class tax increases.  The republican controlled House has passed a clean extension to the Bush tax cuts, and the republicans in the Senate have agreed to support that legislation.  How can this possibly be defined as republicans refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts?

I do not understand why you are so upset about the leader of an anti tax organization opposing politicians who want to raise taxes.

Are you equally angry when NOW opposes anti abortion candidates?  Or when the Sierra Club opposes candidates who are not green enough?

Report this comment
#20) On August 28, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Rasko (< 20) wrote:

Why kind of a post is this?  I come here to learn about investments in businesses, not to hear political drivel. I do know that I would never rely upon 60 minutes to make an investment decision, or any other decision for that matter. 

Report this comment
#21) On August 28, 2012 at 12:19 PM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

Melaschasm

You are missing what I am saying.  Boehner uses the term "common ground."  The Democrats oppose extending the cuts to those over $250,000 but agree to extending for those under $250,000.  There is your "common ground."  But since it doesn't include the top earners The Republicans won't pass it.  So the term "common ground" is BS.

Go watch that 60 minutes show and tell me if King Grover is similar to NOW or Sierra Club.

Rasko

No one told you to read the blog so please use that whine on the Yahoo message boards, you would fit right in.  You are so into investments that you don't even make picks but just was compelled to throw your "drivel" here. 

Report this comment
#22) On August 28, 2012 at 12:29 PM, edwjm (99.87) wrote:

For a long time now I have been advocating that ppl that don't rate stocks should not be allowed to post here, but no one listens ....

Report this comment
#23) On August 28, 2012 at 7:43 PM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

Here's a youtube link:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=60%20minutes%20grover%20norquist%20interview&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DK25kqP0YdZ0&ei=BFQ9ULNpiv_pAf6AgagB&usg=AFQjCNEma-b35taEdarZaVBwQpPPcJBKlQ

Report this comment
#24) On August 28, 2012 at 8:03 PM, SUPERMANSTOCKS (59.13) wrote:

I wanted Ron Paul and I got dips- hit!

Report this comment
#25) On August 28, 2012 at 11:35 PM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

Well I am not sure what that means but this Country was created off the concept of compromise.  Compromise created the Constitution and the Constitution works through compromise.  Apparently this has become a "dirty" word amongst certain people.  To Boehner and King Grover they do not believe in compromise.  Except compromise acknowledges the reality that this country is comprised of a wide diversification of viewpoints.

Without compromise the system crashes.  And that is exactly what happened last year and what will happen at least during the next election cycle.  King Grover won't let the pledgees use their own minds to deal with national issues.  He has them in his pocket.  Boehner, on the Kudlow show, told you he is in Grover's pocket as well with the bs line of "common ground."

There is a reason why Congress now has a 9% approval rating.  Because of the refusal by one side for compromise the system almost collapsed last year.  The bulk of the people were clearly pissed as per the low rating.  We only dodged a bullet because the can was kicked down the road.

Sooner or later an agreement needs to be made.  But as long as King Grover keeps the Republicans under his thumb and forces them to not engage in what the Founding Fathers of this country envisioned, namely compromising, things are just going to get ugly.

Report this comment
#26) On September 02, 2012 at 4:49 AM, 34redhunter (< 20) wrote:

I think this is a new Republican Party and they want to redeem themselves by getting back to our roots. Romney is a holy man I think he really cares about everyone. Its worth a shot to vote in Romney cause its wont be worse than what Obamas done.

Report this comment
#27) On September 02, 2012 at 10:46 PM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

Well red I wouldn't go down the "holy" road.  Mormons are fairly young (started in 1820s) and even believe in polygamy which is illegal in many states.  Since Mitt is married to just one woman, it (polygamy) is a non-issue to me.

However, I am not going to vote for someone simply because "it is worth a shot."  So far all I have heard is lower taxes (where the rich gain the most), less entitlements (where the bulk of the country loses) and less regulations (where those corporations can be free to be greedy).

It always amused me listening to the Kudlowites arguing how the rich pay the most INCOME taxes.  They never say just taxes.  Point in fact is the rich don't pay the most taxes.  About 47% comes from income taxes, about 35% comes from payroll taxes (your average worker), about 9% comes from corporate taxes (which is passed on to the consumer)  and the rest comes from exise taxes, tolls, etc..  The rich pay most of the income taxes, the rest of the country pays for nearly all of the rest. So lowering the income tax without lowering the rest helps who?  You guessed it, the rich.

What happened last year was a clear message being sent by King Grover.  The Republicans purposefully gridlocked Congress to undermine Obama. Obama blew it by not taking advantage when he had control of both houses, but this gridlock was calculated.

The only person actually trying to improve things (whether you agree with him or not) is Bernanke.  But he needs help from Congress.  And Congress has withheld it in favor of engaging in politics and not caring that real people are suffering as a result.

Report this comment
#28) On September 02, 2012 at 11:11 PM, damilkman66 (< 20) wrote:

I generally agree that an absolute refusal to compromise is a bad thing.  You never know when you get an offer you cannot refuse.   I believe the bigger issue is the systemic gap between what all governments require verse revenue coming in is way out of balance.  If the Dems actually commited to very large spending cuts in conjuction to modest tax increases even directed towards the wealthies might be worthwhile.   However, there is zero commitment by Obama to investigate meaningful spending cuts.   The extra 100B in revenue generated is not useful for long term deficit reduction.

Report this comment
#29) On September 04, 2012 at 12:36 AM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

I am a firm believer that most Americans want to do the right thing in the end.  If they thought taking cutbacks will help the country in the long run they would endure them.  But it comes a point in time where enough is enough.  It is beyond contestation that the 1% cleaned up for over a decade.  See these charts here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#

Asking the average Joe to take further hits while the rich gain even more with Romney tax cuts is insulting.

Report this comment
#30) On September 11, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Melaschasm (52.22) wrote:

#21  If anything, NOW has been more effective and less willing to compromise than King Grover.  when is the last time a pro life democrat has voted against abortion when his vote will make the difference.  Prolife Representative Stupak (D) retired after voting in favor of abortion during the Obamacare debates, rather than opposing NoW. 

During the budget ceiling debates the republicans are the ones that caved in and agreed to increase the ceiling without spending cuts. 

If all the incumbents win, and compromise is not achieved, income tax rates will go up when the Bush tax cuts expire.  Once again showing the political weakness of Grover.

The Tea Party movement started because Republicans are so quick to compromise with Democrats and essentially cave in that people on the right are essentially without party representation.

Report this comment
#31) On September 11, 2012 at 5:13 PM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

Melaschasm did you watch the link in #23?  A stance on one issue is not the same.  King Grover "makes" the Republicans  sign a pledge card which he holds over their heads.  Should they renege he and his machine (very well funded by undisclosed sources)  fight their re-election.  He is actively trying to control Congress.  And the Republicans are letting him.

Republicans certainly didn't do any caving in last year.  They were the ones that made the debt ceiling an issue, when all the other times it wasn't. Since then the Republicans simply refuse to agree to any tax increases.  What they want are spending cuts (except to the military) which cuts basically impact the vast majority.

They won't compromise or even agree on "common ground." If all the Bush tax cuts expire it will be because of the Republicans.  A bill is being stalled by them that would keep those cuts for nearly the entire country.  So much for common ground.

This basically year and a half Congressional gridlock was calculated by them.  While I have my issues with Obama King Grover intentionally hindered Obama from doing much afterwards by this gridlock.

I am sure he is ecstatic that the economy wound up stalling, much to the suffering of many.

This is why I hate the 2 party system.  The Constitution never provided for it and we wind up enduring it.

Report this comment
#32) On September 13, 2012 at 12:25 AM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

I do want to repeat this in bold letters lest the message is not clear: If all the Bush tax cuts expire it will be because of the Republicans.  A bill is being stalled by them that would keep those cuts for nearly the entire country. That is right, the bulk of the country will keep the Bush tax cuts if the REPUBLICANS pass it.  But they aren't because their rich buddies won't share.

Report this comment
#33) On September 13, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Melaschasm (52.22) wrote:

#32  You can keep blaming the republicans as long as you want, but it is obvious that the democrats refusal to extend all the Bush tax cuts is just as much to blame as the republicans refusing to extend some of them.

A real compromise would be 5% extended for all and 5% expiring for all, since that is half way in between a full extension and a full tax increase.  But you don't seem to be interested in compromise.  It seems the only acceptable deal is one which gives the democrats everything they are asking for, and nothing that the republicans want.  That is how compromises usually occur in DC, so I understand why you are demanding that the republicans cave in again this year, just like they did on spending cuts last year.

Report this comment
#34) On September 13, 2012 at 12:15 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

This seems like a political diatribe rather than a post appropriate for an investing website.  I agree with David in Liberty that you should stop watching 60 Minutes.  It's certainly not going to give you an unbiased perspective, and certainly not a perspective that will treat Republicans fairly.  Democrats have their pledges and platforms too.  And I am suspicious of Democratic platforms (such as the one about supporting Israel) that will change depending on polls and an upcoming election.

Report this comment
#35) On September 13, 2012 at 12:18 PM, mtf00l (46.45) wrote:

A quick comment or two, first, Mormons don't support polygamy.  They do support the law of the land.

Second, the last candidate I heard referenced as a righteous man was GW Jr..  We all know what he's done.

Report this comment
#36) On September 13, 2012 at 3:34 PM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

Melaschasm both the House Republican Leader Boehner and King Grover said outright they don't believe in compromise.  Boehner said it while on the Kudlow show and Grover on 60 minutes.  Your suggestion at a real compromise won't work for that simple reason, it is a compromise.

What Boehner did say (and been hearing Jeb Busch use the same term) is finding "common ground."  Both parties, let me repeat, BOTH parties want to extend the Bush tax cuts for those earning $250,000 or less,  Obama sent a bill to do exactly that.  Now since BOTH parties agree to that why has Boehner stalled on it? It is obvious why. So please stop denying reality.  

Report this comment
#37) On September 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

#34 if you don't think tax policy has no relation to investing fine by me.

And mtfool:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=mormons%20on%20polygamy%20today&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMormonism_and_polygamy&ei=rTVSULPiEIXf0QHx0YHwCg&usg=AFQjCNGUYQJujvXOYC0pQaSaZVxsZRYfEA

 

Report this comment
#38) On September 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

Rats I used a double negative there, delete "don't."

Report this comment
#39) On September 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM, mtf00l (46.45) wrote:

"The public practice of polygamy by the church was terminated in 1890 by the Manifesto issued by church President Willford Woodruff"... Today, all of the 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) are strictly monogamist, and members who are known to practice polygamy are excommunicated.

Still, the practice of plural marriage continues among tens of thousands of members of various fundamentalist splinter groups long disassociated from the main body of the church"

from your reference...

Report this comment
#40) On September 13, 2012 at 3:55 PM, awallejr (81.44) wrote:

I know.  I said it was a non-issue with me regarding Romney. 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement