Thursday, November 15, 2012

GOP To Buy Votes?

With all the talk regarding Romney's comments about Obama's buying votes, I thought it would be interesting to see how the GOP could ever buy votes...  I mean Obama and crew have no problem doing it with tax payers money and granting amnesty, maybe the GOP could figure out a way.  Here are some random thoughts.
  • They already do it by offering the religious right new laws to limit the freedom of other Americans.
  • Of course they also offer the 1% lower taxes, but of course that is only 1% of the voters. (poor return on investment)
  • Standing up for the rights of the potential legal immigrants that are waiting in line, by demanding the illegals go to the back of the line sure didn't work out to well.
  • Supporting the needy, tortured and oppressed in Afganistan and Iran sure did not gain them any points with the supposed caring Liberal voters.  Seemingly those people dying and not getting to go to school isn't as important as American's without cell phones.
  • Well, it looks like it is going to be hard for the GOP to buy votes while maintaining their values of small government and individual responsibility.
I guess the only hope is that the majority figures out that they are paying for the gifts that Obama gave out over the past 1+ years. 

My company is doing the annual benefits enrollment, so I am painfully aware of how that free Obamacare is hitting my and their bottom line.  It reduced the max flex spending withholding from $5,000/yr to $2,500/yr, and increased my company's healthcare costs by ~$50,000,000/yr... I wonder where that money will come from and if that higher cost will encourage them to hire more employees in America?

MPP Long Knives Out for Romney
FOX News Buying Votes

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think people tend to favor their interests, and I am not sure that's bad and I certainly don't think it's surprising. Mitt Romney offered a tax plan which would have lowered the taxes on the wealthy, tax cuts to be paid for by raising taxes on the poor. It would seem to me to obvious that the rich would favor Mitt's plan and the poor would oppose it.

The problem we have in terms of economics is that the pie isn't getting bigger, and that wealthy Americans are getting wealthier. If business had done what it promised to to when they received their Bush era tax cuts; expand their businesses and create new jobs, maybe they would be doing a lot better than they are today.

==Hiram

Anonymous said...

Standing up for the rights of the potential legal immigrants that are waiting in line, by demanding the illegals go to the back of the line sure didn't work out to well.

I am not sure where this issue comes from. For one thing, like it or not, people who are here, no matter how they got here or what their status might be, have rights (and obligations) that people aren't here do not. I don't think standing up for those rights is either a conservative or liberal position. The political reality is that those Republicans who insist that illegal immigrants must be evicted from the country immediately will, as time goes on, be in position of demanding from their fellow citizens that they ship, mom and dad, grandma and grandpa, back to the old country. I will leave the morality of that position to others to argue, what I will suggest is that whatever the morality of that position might be, it's a position that will become less politically viable over time.

--Hiram

John said...

Unless the American consumers change their buying habits, it is going to be real hard for businesses to bring back or keep higher paid moderate education jobs here... Especially while the Democrats continue to increase the cost of employing people here.

It seems ironic to me that the Democrats continue to complain about businesses and fewer jobs in the USA as they continue to pass rules that make it harder for them to keep jobs here. (ie increasing expenses and regulations)

The reality is that the American consumers are not willing to pay more for American developed and built product, therefore the companies either need to send the jobs elsewhere or go bankrupt. (ie GM)

John said...

"people who are here, no matter how they got here or what their status might be, have rights (and obligations) that people aren't here do not."

I have to break into your house some evening, maybe you will make me hot chocolate and give me stuff instead of calling the police and sending me to jail.

You do have a good point though. Maybe the GOP can get ahead of the DFL on buying the Hispanic vote by giving all the illegal border violators amnesty and citizenship immediately...

And better yet, let's make the new immigration policy that if you can get to American soil, you get immediate citizenship. It would reduce the need for all those immigration forms and background checks. And the folks who have family in the USA should have a better chance of jumping the border.

Besides it would help lower wages even more.

Anonymous said...


I have to break into your house some evening, maybe you will make me hot chocolate and give me stuff instead of calling the police and sending me to jail.

That's a crime, let's recall. Being here illegally is not. Illegal aliens are far more likely to clean buildings than break into them.

If you want your candidates to run on a platform that says to your fellow citizens, that you want to ship their parents and grandparents out of the country as soon as possible, I certainly won't be the one stopping you. How has a policy of stigmatizing aliens been working out for Republicans lately?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

"The reality is that the American consumers are not willing to pay more for American developed and built product, therefore the companies either need to send the jobs elsewhere or go bankrupt. (ie GM).

That may or may not be the case. But if that is the case lets stop kidding ourselves with the notion that giving tax cuts to the wealthy will translate into more American jobs. It seems the problem is elsewhere.

By the way, I agree that we have made it too expensive to hire workers in America. That's because, unlike our competitors in the global marketplace, we impose health and pension costs on employers. I would like to find a way not to do that, but that notion seems to be a political non starter.

--Hiram

John said...

And yes violating our borders is illegal, we have been through that before.

We gave tax cuts to everyone. Interesting how folks forget to note that. Personally I think we should let them all lapse until someone gets the spending under control. Spending cuts are unlikely if only the top 10% are feeling the pain.

Based on the $50,000,000 adder driven by Obamacare on my company alone and the additional costs incurred on my family, it seems this socialized healthcare idea is heading the wrong direction on reducing employment costs in America.

John said...

More work for the lawyers.

FOX News Dream Act

Anonymous said...

And yes violating our borders is illegal, we have been through that before

But there is no particular reason to think that any given illegal alien has violated our borders. They may very well have arrived here legally.

--Hiram

John said...

Out staying one's paperwork is also illegal... Details... Make sure you treat the next intruder you find in your home just as nice.

Now other than opening our borders, how else can the GOP buy some votes? Or do they have to give away tax payer money to do it also?

Anonymous said...

Out staying one's paperwork is also illegal.

Is it?

"Now other than opening our borders, how else can the GOP buy some votes?"

Maybe the real problem with the GOP is that they think Americans are in the business of selling their votes. The curious thing about Mitt Romney, and this observation is hardly original with me, is that as much as he talks about how much he loves America, he doesn't seem to like Americans very much.

I am fond of saying that elections are like job interviews for politicians, and that the voters are the boss. And I just don't think criticizing the guy who is going to hire the politician is a very effective strategy for getting a job. I am pretty sure it's a good idea to tell the interviewer that he is corrupt.

--Hiram

John said...

Good point. GOP needs to tell citizens that the government will pay for their healthcare, education, food, clothing, phones, etc from the wealth of others who saved, invested and worked hard. And they should tell them they deserve these things because they are Americans.

Oops. That might not work so well. The voters wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the DFL and GOP candidates. Hahahahahahaha

Anonymous said...

At the moment, the GOP message was that rich people should get tax cuts, to be paid for by the rest of us. That proved not to be a winning message in the recent election. I am not sure what other the message the Republicans had.

I think the problem the Republicans have in crafting a winning message is that a lot of the stuff they believe is wrong, and what's worse for their electoral prospects, known to the American people as wrong. In a curious backhanded way, this was almost assumed by many during the election, where the argument seemed to be, elect Mitt Romney because he really doesn't believe any of the nonsense he had to say to get the Republican nomination, and that if he becomes president he will govern like a moderate Democrat. And that strategy came a lot closer to winning than I would like.

--Hiram

John said...

Actually they offered us all a tax cut in hopes that more folks would have jobs so they could pay taxes. (instead of collecting unemployment and TANF checks) Kind of like the good times during the Bush Presidency.

Of course they did want to change from fixed benefit to fixed contribution programs which would require personal responsibility from the citizens. And would result in lower government expenditures, even lower taxes and more jobs.

Some of the voters must have liked checks and govt responsibility more than the chance at jobs and personal responsibility...

The good news is that the popular vote was still pretty close. So there is hope for 2014 and 2016. Of course the GOP will need to figure out how to attract the support of responsible voters without buying them.

My hope is that they give up fighting Roe V Wade and Gay marriage, stop trying to save everyone in other countries (ie wars) and start focusing exclusively on the fiscal conservative / personal responsibility message. Hopefully then enough Americans will understand that jobs are more important than checks.

Anonymous said...

Actually they offered us all a tax cut in hopes that more folks would have jobs so they could pay taxes.

They offered all of us a tax rate cut. But you can't take a tax rate cut and buy ten jars of peanut butter with it at Costco. Under Mitt Rommney's plan the taxes of most of us would have gone up.

I do understand this Republican concept of hope. Take out a loan on the national debt, and turn the money over to the wealthy hoping they will use it to create jobs. But they didn't do that during the Bush years, and we have no reason at all to think they would do that had Mitt Romney been elected president. The most disappointing thin to me about the Mitt Romney campaign was how little this supposedly brilliant businessman had to offer in terms of concrete proposals for change and even hope.

--Hiram

John said...

Yoda says "the denial is very strong in this one"...

I think we should let all the tax cuts lapse just so folks will remember how much money the poor and middle class saved through the evil "Bush / Rich Person" tax cuts.

Each middle class family could buy hundreds of jars of peanut butter each year with those savings....

John said...

Interesting details.
ABC Tax Change Scenarios

The single guy can buy a hundred jars... The married with kids folk are ~1000 jars...

Anonymous said...

I think we should let all the tax cuts lapse just so folks will remember how much money the poor and middle class saved through the evil "Bush / Rich Person" tax cuts.

As my conservative friends have argued often and eloquently, the bulk of the tax cut money went to the wealthy. It's the president who proposed middle class tax cuts over the opposition of Republicans in Congress, and it's the president who is arguing now that they should be saved against the opposition of Republicans in Congress who are trying to hold those middle class tax cuts hostage in their effort to prevent tax increases on the wealthiest Americans.

--Hiram

John said...

Okay. We are moving into the next post. More soon.