Can you say ... Speaker Boehner

• QuakerOats

  Leftist congress down to 11% ------------ November cannot arrive soon enough.
  
  http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/Congress-Ranks-Last-Confidence-Institutions.aspx
  
  I look forward to the implementation of Boehner's 3 main goals should he become speaker of the house:
  
  Repeal obamacare
  
  Prevent Cap-n-Tax
  
  Keep taxes low
  
  Now there is some real ...................... change we can believe in !!
• gibby08

  

  Can you say NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
  
  Get real Quaker....the Pubs will not be taking back the house this year
• isadore

  his major reform
  no tanning tax
• gibby08

  

  RNC Chaos Threatens Chance of GOP Takeover
  Marc Ambinder: "The chaos at the Republican National Committee threatens to cost Republicans the chance to take control of the House of Representatives, Republican strategists fear. During midterm elections, the national committee plays two essential roles. First, it serves as a bank account that can be drawn upon to shore up House races or put others into play. Second, it coordinates the party's field operations and funds joint Victory committees with state parties. The RNC, at the moment, is barely fulfilling the second function and has less than $10 million on hand, so it cannot help much with House races."
  
  Meanwhile, Politico reports Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) is considering a run for chairmanship of the RNC "and has begun talking to associates about taking on Michael Steele, should the embattled current chairman seek another term in January."
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I found Q.O.'s link interesting.
  
  Question: Who is the "CEO" of the military? Answer: The commander in Chief
  
  
• majorspark

  

  gibby08;430306 wrote:Can you say NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
  
  Get real Quaker....the Pubs will not be taking back the house this year

  
  Your namesake Robert Gibbs is hardly as confident as you.
  
  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39574.html

  “I think there's no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There's no doubt about that,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on NBC’s “Meet the Press. “This will depend on strong campaigns by Democrats and again, I think, we have to take the issues to them.”

• gibby08

  

  He says there will be enough seats in play...not that he thinks they will take it back
• majorspark

  

  gibby08;430358 wrote:He says there will be enough seats in play...not that he thinks they will take it back

  
  True but like i said he is not nearly as confident as you. He did not say "NOT GOING TO HAPPEN".
• majorspark

  

  isadore;430313 wrote:his major reform
  no tanning tax

  
  The tan tax is going to hit him hard.
• cbus4life

  I think it is a definite possibility, and wouldn't be shocked at all if it happened...Democrats deserve it.
  
  With that said...i think Boehner is just about as big a douche as Pelosi is, just different sides of the aisle...
• isadore

  ccrunner609;430385 wrote:Do you realize how stupid this tax is? Its a tax on rich white people because poor minorities dont tan.
  
  How about other taxes that are welcomed back by the left? Do you think its fair that if you die next year that 45% of everything you have is handed over to the government instead of the family of the dead person? Does the government own us after death?

  "“a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich”
• BoatShoes

  ccrunner609;430385 wrote: Do you think its fair that if you die next year that 45% of everything you have is handed over to the government instead of the family of the dead person? Does the government own us after death?

  
  It's a tax on an accession to wealth clearly realized by the recipient completely consistent with a tax on income.
• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;430958 wrote:It's a tax on an accession to wealth clearly realized by the recipient completely consistent with a tax on income.

  
  It's a double-tax on income already earned.
  
  http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/36643/20100719/taxes-estate-steinbrenner-senate-congress.htm
  

  Steinbrenner is believed to be the fourth American billionaire to have died this year.
  In February, Mary Janet Morse Cargill, whose family owns food and fertilizer conglomerate Cargill, died, leaving behind a fortune estimated at $1.6 billion. In March, Texas energy mogul Dan Duncan, co-founder, chairman and majority shareholder of Enterprise Products (NYSE: EPD), died -- his estate was estimated at nearly $10-billion, meaning his family was spared a stupendous $4-billion tax bill.
  Also, commercial real estate titan Walter Shorenstein died in June, with a net worth valued at $1.1. billion.

  Great timing. Haha- take that leftists in Congress.
  

  Jack Nuckolls, national director of BDO's Private Client Tax Services in San Francisco, said he was surprised that legislators in Washington failed to address the estate tax issue heading into 2010.
  
  “At the end of 2009, Washington policymakers were completely absorbed with health care/financial reform, but I really thought they would have reached a compromise on this estate tax issue,” he said.
  “Each side dug their heels in and there was no agreement.”
  

  Again-take that leftists in Congress. You put all your eggs in the health care basket and missed out on stealing from dead people.
  

  Horwin indicates that there are some rumblings among tax experts that the estate tax for next year might indeed be imposed retroactively for 2010.
  “That would probably be a worst-case scenario for the Steinbrenner family,” she said. “However, making the tax retroactive would likely raise numerous constitutionality issues.”
  

  Can you imagine if they tried to impose a retroactive estate tax for 2010?
  
  Quaker was right- November can't get here fast enough.
• QuakerOats

  jhay78;430982 wrote: Quaker was right- November can't get here fast enough.

  
  Have I ever been wrong!
  
  Have a good weekend all you great tea party patriots, and the rest of you aspiring to be real conservatives!
• Footwedge

  j wrote: Can you imagine if they tried to impose a retroactive estate tax for 2010?
  
  Quaker was right- November can't get here fast enough.

  Jay, I really don't understand your "conservative" thinking on being pro nobility class or pro aristocracy class in having no estate tax for the extreme wealthy. Especially given the fact that conservatives espouse having a lower national debt. IMO, true conservatives would want their children to cut out their own niche in life, and work to make an honest living. A perfect example of this would be Paris Hilton. What a waste of space on our planet. I'm not talking about a million dollars left to the kids...I'm talking about the Steinbrenners of the world.
  
  That flaming liberal Bill Gates has said no to leaving his kids money. Now I think shutting out the kids completely is ridiculous, but over and above that, I think he has the right idea.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;431007 wrote:Jay, I really don't understand your "conservative" thinking on being pro nobility class or pro aristocracy class in having no estate tax for the extreme wealthy. Especially given the fact that conservatives espouse having a lower national debt. IMO, true conservatives would want their children to cut out their own niche in life, and work to make an honest living. A perfect example of this would be Paris Hilton. What a waste of space on our planet. I'm not talking about a million dollars left to the kids...I'm talking about the Steinbrenners of the world.
  
  That flaming liberal Bill Gates has said no to leaving his kids money. Now I think shutting out the kids completely is ridiculous, but over and above that, I think he has the right idea.

  Philosophically I agree with you. I just don't like the idea of the government, by law taking the wealthy individual's freedom to dole it out to he sees fit. Your example of Gates is a good one. No need for government to force him to be conservative with his cash. He freely did it on his own. I do wonder however how much the flaming liberal Bill Gates will be leaving (freely and not by coercion of law) the federal government?
  
  Conservatives like myself love the idea of having a lower national debt. But we all know this new found trough of cash in the hands of the federal government will not find its way to paying down the debt. Like I said before I will go along higher taxes, but only with assurance there will be a cut in spending.
  
  As for Paris Hilton, there are a large number of men that have banged her. I am sure they would disagree. Maybe she is good for something and not a total waste of space.
• fish82

  

  cbus4life;430498 wrote:I think it is a definite possibility, and wouldn't be shocked at all if it happened...Democrats deserve it.
  
  With that said...i think Boehner is just about as big a douche as Pelosi is, just different sides of the aisle...

  
  This. I'm not that enthused at the prospect of The Orange One running the show. I'd take Eric Cantor over him all day long. But despite Gibby's delusions, the GOP is taking the house. Mark it down. The only question mark at this point is how close they'll come to taking the senate too.
• Footwedge

  majorspark;431014 wrote:Philosophically I agree with you. I just don't like the idea of the government, by law taking the wealthy individual's freedom to dole it out to he sees fit. Your example of Gates is a good one. No need for government to force him to be conservative with his cash. He freely did it on his own. I do wonder however how much the flaming liberal Bill Gates will be leaving (freely and not by coercion of law) the federal government?
  
  Conservatives like myself love the idea of having a lower national debt. But we all know this new found trough of cash in the hands of the federal government will not find its way to paying down the debt. Like I said before I will go along higher taxes, but only with assurance there will be a cut in spending.
  
  As for Paris Hilton, there are a large number of men that have banged her. I am sure they would disagree. Maybe she is good for something and not a total waste of space.

  
  From what I understand, Gates is becoming quite the philanthropist. I think he gave a tens of millions to AIDS research and several other humanitarian agencies. As for Paris, yeah every city needs a couple of town pumps.
• Footwedge

  I used the wrong terms...I should have used the term plutacracy. To WB, Mr. 300, Mr JHay, QO, and in some respects Sparky, what's your take on pultacracy? From wiki.....
  
  "Modern politics
  
  The second usage of plutocracy is a pejorative reference to a disproportionate influence the wealthy have on political process in contemporary society: for example Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government."[3]
  
  The influence the wealthy minority of the population has over the political arena includes campaign contributions, as well as bribing to achieve corporate objectives (exclusively profit related), refusing to support the government financially by refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, and essentially any form of manipulation of the government. It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues (see also: fourth estate).
  
  Recently, there have been numerous cases of wealthy individuals and organizations exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favorable legislation (see also: Lobbying). Most western democracies permit partisan organizations to raise funds for politicians, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate, labour union, or other advocacy groups). These donations may be part of a cronyist or patronage system. Some describe these donations as bribes, although legally they are not unless a quid pro quo exists. Ostensibly, campaign donations should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives[says who?]; however it would be unlikely that no politicians are influenced by these contributions.
  
  In the United States, campaign finance reform efforts seek to ameliorate this situation. However, campaign finance reform must successfully challenge officials who are beneficiaries of the system which allows this dynamic in the first place. This has led many reform advocates to suggest taxpayer dollars be used to replace private campaign contributions; these reforms are often called clean money or clean election reform as opposed to simply campaign finance reform which does not address the conflict of interest involved where most or all of the campaign money is from private, often for-profit sources. Critics of clean elections point out that it allows the sitting government to decide which candidates would qualify to receive tax dollars - and therefore influence who would be allowed to win - thus solving one problem by creating another problem; courts in the U.S.A. have also agreed that some "clean election" legislation has discriminated against independent or third-party candidates, and has violated the constitution".
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
  
  I actually read a book by Kevin Phillips awhile ago. He's a smart man...and I agree with him that the US is a plutocracy. And before people start playing the "Phillips is a flaming liberal" card...better check his background.
  
  I don't think there is anybody around that wants to see any system that punishes the successful. But the fact is, the divide between the haves and have nots continues to widen, not just here in the states, but in Europe too. Is this what we really want? This is one area where I part ways with the libertarians who speak out of both sides of their mouth. If you have a true free market economy without any government, well then enjoy the imminent 2 class society, sans a middle class, with an unemployment rate of 35% in America with starving people. Because that is exactly what you will get.
• gibby08

  

  QuakerOats;430994 wrote:Have I ever been wrong!
  
  Have a good weekend all you great tea party patriots, and the rest of you aspiring to be real conservatives!

  
  I for damn sure am not aspiring to be any kind of "conservative"
• gibby08

  

  Angry White Men May Swing Election
  The latest Public Policy Polling survey shows net approval of congressional Democrats is 16 points better than that of congressional Republicans. Yet when it came to the generic ballot there was a tie.
  
  Key finding: "The reason for that disconnect is that Republicans are cleaning up with a voting bloc that accounts for 26% of the country and could end up being the most important group of people at the polls this fall: voters who hate both congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans. The GOP has a 57-19 generic lead with this group of voters that could perhaps be described as the angriest segment of the electorate. Their support is fueling the GOP's success right now."
  
  Who are they? 44% are Republicans, 34% are independents, and 21% are Democrats. They're largely male (60%) and white (82%
• IggyPride00

  

  The left has a montage of some of their favorite videos of Obama making fun of Boehner They had better make sure they retain the house some how though otherwise the jokes about Boehner won't be so funny anymore when he is issuing one subpoena after another to root out the corruption in the regime.
  
  Can anyone in remember a time a recent history when a sitting President has so often gone out of his way to mock to the minority party leader like this? Obama certainly has no fear.
  
  [video=youtube;Ubq2JZCcKU4][/video]
  
  [video=youtube;fMl5XJkBNfc][/video]
  
  [video=youtube;iAtTShcu6EA][/video]
  
  [video=youtube;DmlgwwCHof8][/video]
• ts1227

  

  cbus4life;430498 wrote:I think it is a definite possibility, and wouldn't be shocked at all if it happened...Democrats deserve it.
  
  With that said...i think Boehner is just about as big a douche as Pelosi is, just different sides of the aisle...

  
  That's a good way to explain Boehner.
  
  It's obvious the R's will pick up seats, but I don't think they will get enough to regain a majority. At least from some local races/levies back home in May, the people doing all of the talking didn't show up to vote (and if they did, they're simply outnumbered). Now, that's a small sample size, but that seems to be the case in a lot of places.
• cbus4life

  I mean, it will be interesting to see what Boehner does if/when he is speaker, but i've not talked to one conservative/Republican that is thrilled with the idea of Boehner as "leader" of the group, after probably taking back the House in as crucial a midterm election as i've ever seen, with so many items to be addressed.
  
  I understand excitement over taking back the House in 2010, but i can't honestly believe that anyone is excited about only the idea of Boehner as Speaker, except for the fact that, if he is speaker, it means the 'Pubs have control.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I don't know. It seems to me that Obama would be better served worrying more about what people in his own party are saying. Some of them are kookier than hell!