Climate Change Is Totally Like The Sleeper Issue On The Ballot!

And Republicans are going to have to have a message soon or something!

The sleeper issue of 2014: Climate change

The midterms have shown that Republicans are going to need a coherent message on climate change — and soon

We have one: it’s called “No. We aren’t buying into your paranoid, ridiculous, Big Government taxing, redistributing, economy killing, Nanny state control fantasies.

Late Evening Note: there was supposed to be a WHOLE LOT more to this post, a few excerpts from that article, stuff about how “climate change” is a powerful line of attack or something, followed by this New Republic article which shows that it isn’t, with both ending up in wishful thinking for 2016. Not sure what happened. Sigh. I’m not going to rebuild it.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Climate Change Is Totally Like The Sleeper Issue On The Ballot!”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Here’s the problem for the Republicans (and the spineless Dems), but especially the Republicans. The American people will expect them to govern. Period. Immigration reform. Global warming policy. Health care.

    Republican extremists expect to cut taxes for the wealthy, again, and then do nothing. If you think that will work, enjoy your two years.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Here’s the problem for liberals like Jeffery….

    Overall, the individual issues that are most important to voters are job creation and economic growth (23 percent of registered voters pick that as their top issue), breaking Washington’s gridlock (another 23 percent), the deficit (12 percent), health care (9 percent) and Social Security and Medicare (another 9 percent)

    Notice that immigration and climate change is not on the list. In short, liberals are out of touch with the American people.

    Democratic policies have hurt the economy beyond belief and so liberals blame Republicans for the Democrats actions.

    If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny.

  3. Hank_M says:

    Climate change the sleeper issue?
    Let’s see, deficits out of control, national debt that will crush us, complete chaos in the middle east, an out of control federal govt, open borders on the south, a lowered standard of living…..

    and climate change is an issue?

    Sorry but this is beyond stupid.

  4. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    It is beyond doubt that cutting taxes helps the economy. It is beyond doubt that low corporate taxes stimulates investment. It is known that the great majority of taxes are paid by people that would be defined as “rich” by the Democrats. So if you cut taxes, you have to cut on the rich. Can you answer why the Democrats have a constant war on people who do well and are achievers and against business? Democrats do nothing to help poor people except to talk about it. For that matter, why do you hid behind a corporate structure and don’t pay your fair share?

  5. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    I’m pretty certain I pay more taxes than you do. I probably pay more taxes than most of the commenters here make in salary. But I don’t complain. I’ve worked hard and I’ve also been lucky. So what?

    How do you help the working poor? More and better jobs. A solid safety net including affordable healthcare and education.

    Cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations does help the wealthy.

    Do you think President’s Truman and Eisenhower were anti-business and anti-success? Top tax rates were 90% then. I know, I know… Yeah, but…

    Since further cutting taxes on the wealthy harms the nation by increasing the debt and adding burdens to the working classes, why do you still advocate it?

  6. Jeffery says:

    And what is the Republican plan to stimulate the economy? Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. End Obamacare. Cut Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Eliminate the minimum wage. Bust unions. Invade somebody. Build a fence. Deport the Mexicans. Increase defense spending. Drill, baby, drill. Eliminate the EPA, the Energy Dept etc.

    How much federal spending do they need to cut to stimulate the economy?

    How have Democratic policies hurt the economy beyond belief?

  7. Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations

    Yeah, the ones with the money to create jobs and give loans.

    End Obamacare

    It’s a drag on the economy and job creation.

    Cut Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid

    We’re not proposing any of those three. However, it was Democrats who cut $700 billion from Medicare.

    Eliminate the minimum wage

    Some yes, some no. Dems voted against the last MW increase, BTW. Dems want to raise it and kill jobs.

    Bust unions

    No, just give people choice. I thought Liberals liked choice? No?

    Invade somebody

    When they threaten the USA, sure. You libs want to cozy up to our enemies.

    Build a fence.

    To protect our country? You bet. (I’m not a big fan, as I’ve written, I think there are better methods.

    Deport the Mexicans.

    Illegal ones, damned right. We stand for law.

    Increase defense spending.

    Silly us for wanting to provide for the defense of the USA.

    Drill, baby, drill.

    You don’t? Have you given up use of fossil fuels?

    Eliminate the EPA,

    I don’t. I would like them to focus on their core mission, and stop overreaching. I like the idea of the EPA.

  8. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    I don’t think much of either of the two presidents that you site. I think that a 90% tax rate is not in keeping with what our government should be. It is perfect for the communistic one that you desire.

    Now, please explain how cutting taxes on the people that pay taxes, who you call rich will effect those that need any assistance. Note that only 50% pay taxes of any significance the rest don’t pay that much. We have a substantial number of takers and that needs to be addressed and corrected. We need far less government than what we have, thus a savings. We pay far too much in pensions to politicians and public servants that needs to stop. As to unions, they had a purpose, they don’t now and only represent a drag on the economy. Besides, you support allowing millions of Latins to have legal status, thus taking American jobs, so don’t cry about how you support the middle class. And no, you do not pay your fair share as defined by the communistic movements you support. You throw around allusions to enormous money that you have, big deal, many of us are well off and don’t advertize the fact. In fact, it is immature to bring that up.

  9. jl says:

    “Top rates were 90%. ” Give it up,J. And the “rich” (whatever that is) paid as a group much less than they do now. Why do you continue to deny economic science?

  10. jl says:

    Have the Republicans only cut taxes for the wealthy in recent times, J?

  11. jl says:

    Cutting taxes for corporations would keep more of their headquarter here, which is a good thing. Building a fence and deporting illegals, not just Mexicans, would help American workers. You have some problem against up holding the law. Allowing people the option of whether or not to join a union is hardly union-busting, it’s free choice. What do you have against free choice? But I understand, “union -busting” has a much more drama queen ring to it than choice. I’ve never heard of anyone wanting to eliminate S.S., just reform it, as in some form of privatization. Same with Medicare.

  12. Jeffery says:

    j,

    “Top rates were 90%. ” Give it up

    Do you deny that top rates were 90%? Or is this a Yeah, but… moment?

    Cutting taxes for corporations would keep more of their headquarter here

    Sadly, No. It has been shown repeatedly that taxes on corporate profits are not related to job production. The actual rate paid on profits by US corporations is under 13%. The proportion of total US revenues that comes from taxes on corporate profits is at an all-time low. Corporate profits are at record highs. Shouldn’t unemployment be at a record low if your ideology is accurate? Or is your argument that corporate profits still aren’t high enough for them to hire people? (Or are they not hiring because there is not enough demand for their goods and services? Do you really believe that companies hire more workers for reasons not related to their business???)

    Building a fence and deporting illegals, not just Mexicans, would help American workers.

    That’s your plan? Deport 11 million? That’s 220,000 busloads of folks. Do you agree that jail time for business owners that hire non-citizens illegally would help? Would you at least consider that bringing these folks out of the shadows and having them within the system so that employers can’t abuse them might help all workers?

    Allowing people the option of whether or not to join a union is hardly union-busting,

    Nice deflection. Labor unions and collective bargaining laws balance the power between workers and employers. “Right to Work” laws allow workers to pay nothing and still get all the benefits of union membership, weakening the union. The current “Right to Work for Less” states have lower wages, higher poverty and “takers” of federal largesse than union states. That is not to say that the “Right to Work” laws are the only reason these states are in dire straits since they are all Republican dominated states and are poor economic performers (except TX).

    I’ve never heard of anyone wanting to eliminate S.S., just reform it, as in some form of privatization. Same with Medicare.

    Policy requires a bit more detail than “some form of privatization”. Sorry to inform you of this but privatization is elimination. What major problems do you see with S.S. and Medicare that require major reforms? How will “some form of privatization” solve those problems? Do you trust Wall Street to handle these trillion dollar programs?

  13. Hank_M says:

    re: “The actual rate paid on profits by US corporations is under 13%.”

    Perhaps at the state level but federally,
    it’s 15 percent on taxable income under $50,000, 25 percent on income between $50,000 and $75,000, and rates ranging from 34 to 39 percent on income above that.

    As for your blather on labor unions, you are correct, for the private sector.
    For the public sector, it does not apply as FDR so aptly explained in his letter to Luther Steward in 1937.

  14. Jl says:

    Who denied the top rate was 90? Can you read? The point being, which you still can’t refute, is that even with a top rate of 90 the rich as a group paid less than they do now with a top rate of 39%. As I’ve said, with rates that we have today the tax code is as progressive as it’s ever been. Which of course contradicts everything you’ve said. “Privatization is elimination.” No, privatization is privatization. Though I don’t believe what to do with SS and Medicare came up big, or at all in any of the races. “The proportion of US taxes that come from corporations is at an all time low.” Proportion is meaiingless in this case. Taxes from individuals or,other areas could be even higher which would cause, math wise, the proportion for corporate to go down. In other words, the total revenue from corporate taxes could be way up, which is the important thing, but as a proportion to the whole be down. Math not a strong subject for you? “Bus them all out?” Only if you’re genuinely concerned about your union friends. The other side of the subject would be “you mean to let them stay here without any consequence to breaking the law? What federal law do the rest of us get to break without any consequences? And yes, of course I’d be for penalties for a corporation knowingly hiring an illegal. As far as unions, no, it’s not a “nice deflection”. Are there not unions in right to work states? What do you have against freedom of choice as far as individual workers go?

  15. Jl says:

    And as far as RTW states: for the last 25 years, RTW states have averaged job growth at about twice the rate as NRTW states. 21 out of the 25 states with below national average job growth are fored unionization states. For the latest figures, 1990-2012, RTW states made up 13 of the 20 states with the fastest median household income growth. Of the 15 states that had slower than national average income growth, 10 of them were forced unionization states.

  16. Jeffery says:

    Hank m,

    The ACTUAL average rate that US corporations pay on their profits is less than 13%. Apology accepted.

    My blather on unions is correct. I feel exonerated!

    FDR opposed collective bargaining for public workers in 1937, and most Federal employees do not have collective bargaining rights today.

  17. Jeffery says:

    J,

    a top rate of 90 the rich as a group paid less than they do now with a top rate of 39%.

    So 90 is less than 39? And you claim I have trouble with math.

    Let’s say a guy has $100 and the gov’t takes $90. He will have $10 left.

    Let’s say a guy has $100 and the gov’t takes $39. He will have $61 left.

    See the difference?

Bad Behavior has blocked 7898 access attempts in the last 7 days.