2016 Presidential Horse Race

[phgreek]

Carly Fiorina appears to have come down with a case of Clintonitis.

Fiorina Spins a New Lie, and Her Issues With Truth Look CompulsiveMichigan|MichiganEric Schmeltzer

OK...this may all be true...Since she doesn't have a machine to attack people who seek the truth, I suppose we'll find out. That said...I LMFAO at Winning Progressive Message & Strategy | The Website and Blog for Schmeltzer PR...Seriously...they wouldn't be biased...AT ALL!

 

[phgreek]

Hair seems too...REAL.

 

[pkt77242]

Carly Fiorina versus HP's other CEOs, in charts

An interesting look at Fiorina and her time at HP in comparison to other CEO's of HP.

 

[phgreek]

Carly Fiorina versus HP's other CEOs, in charts

An interesting look at Fiorina and her time at HP in comparison to other CEO's of HP.

...I think we are safe to say HP wasn't or isn't currently suffering because of Fiorina, and Trump is a Boob.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Carly Fiorina versus HP's other CEOs, in charts

An interesting look at Fiorina and her time at HP in comparison to other CEO's of HP.

She will have to answer questions about HP, but comparing any CEO against all the others without bringing in all the other circumstances and factors isn't comparing apples to apples.

 

[brick4956]

You have also got to take into account that she had also fucked up at Lucent Technologies the spin-off of AT&T

 

[BGIF]

Government finds new emails Clinton did not hand over | Reuters

Sep 25, 2015 8:32pm EDT

The U.S. Defense Department has found an email chain that Hillary Clinton did not give to the State Department, the State Department said on Friday, despite her saying she had provided all work emails from her time as secretary of state.

The correspondence with General David Petraeus, who was commander of U.S. Central Command at the time, started shortly before she entered office and continued during her first days as the top U.S. diplomat in January and February of 2009.

...

News of the previously undisclosed email thread only adds to a steady stream of revelations about the emails in the past six months, which have forced Clinton to revise her account of the setup which she first gave in March.

...

The emails with Petraeus also appear to contradict the claim by Clinton's campaign that she used a private BlackBerry email account for her first two months at the department before setting up her clintonemail.com account in March 2009. This was the reason her campaign gave for not handing over any emails from those two months to the State Department.

The Petraeus exchange shows she started using the clintonemail.com account by January 2009, according to the State Department.

Clinton's spokesmen, who did not respond to questions, have acknowledged that other work emails from later in her tenure were also missing from the record Clinton handed over. They have declined to say why.

...

 

[Cackalacky]

A little post debate humor

Bad Lip Reading

 

[phgreek]

A little post debate humor

Bad Lip Reading

That was awesome...

 

[pkt77242]

So a question to the Conservatives on this board. Does the GOP really care about deficits? I keep looking at the "tax" plans for the GOP presidential candidates and it tells me that, that is a big fat NO.

Tax Group: Trump Tax Plan Would Cost $12 Trillion - NBC News

The conservative Tax Foundation, which has been scoring candidates' tax proposals throughout the race, found that Trump's changes to the individual tax code would add $10.2 trillion to the deficit using traditional scoring methods, his corporate tax cuts would add $1.54 trillion and his proposal to eliminate the estate tax would add another $238 billion.

In addition, the gains from the cuts would disproportionately benefit ultra-wealthy Americans like Trump, whose personal income, business earnings and inheritors all stand to gain from a number of its provisions. According to the analysis, the wealthiest 1% of Americans would see their after-tax incomes increase by 21.6% versus just 1.4% for the poorest 10%.

For perspective, the same group pegged the cost of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's tax plan at $3.66 trillion, Sen. Marco Rubio's at over $4 trillion and Sen. Rand Paul's flat tax proposal at roughly $3 trillion.

Now I understand that this article doesn't include dynamic scoring but from the dynamic scoring that I have seen in other articles, all of the tax plans add significantly to the deficit over the next 10 years even when using dynamic scoring.

So back to the original question, do deficits matter? or do they only matter when Obama is President?

 

[ACamp1900]

To the GOP? Nah... I think the majority of those who are economic conservatives like myself are pretty fed up with the GOP due in large part to stuff like that...

 

[wizards8507]

Now I understand that this article doesn't include dynamic scoring but from the dynamic scoring that I have seen in other articles, all of the tax plans add significantly to the deficit over the next 10 years even when using dynamic scoring.

So back to the original question, do deficits matter? or do they only matter when Obama is President?

They absolutely matter, and dynamic scoring is a big part of your answer. To truly get a picture of what these plans would look like, you need dynamic scoring for economic growth and you also need to include the other side of the equation, i.e. spending. The models you reference that show a growing deficit even with dynamic scoring are 1) too conservative in their dynamic assumptions, and 2) are based on a baseline budget. If you throw out the baseline budget and replace it with a zero-growth budget or (GASP!) a budget that actually includes smart cuts, the deficits vanish.

 

[pkt77242]

They absolutely matter, and dynamic scoring is a big part of your answer. To truly get a picture of what these plans would look like, you need dynamic scoring for economic growth and you also need to include the other side of the equation, i.e. spending. The models you reference that show a growing deficit even with dynamic scoring are 1) too conservative in their dynamic assumptions, and 2) are based on a baseline budget. If you throw out the baseline budget and replace it with a zero-growth budget or (GASP!) a budget that actually includes smart cuts, the deficits vanish.

Um, most of the dynamics scoring that I have seen has been by Conservative think tanks, I highly doubt that they are being too conservative in the assumptions.

Also Americans can't even agree on what to cut, to magically think that we will up and agree tomorrow on what needs to be cut is not reality.

To think that we can cut taxes, and cut spending enough to balance a budget (without cratering the economy) is a fairy tale. Sorry. Honestly that is laughable. If we cut spending enough to cover the tax cuts and to cover the current deficit, our economy would fall apart. It is more likely that it would grow the deficit as we would likely go into a recession, and would lower tax receipts even more.

Wait, unless that is your plan to then cut even more spending as deficits start to go up.

 

[wizards8507]

To think that we can cut taxes, and cut spending enough to balance a budget (without cratering the economy) is a fairy tale. Sorry. Honestly that is laughable. If we cut spending enough to cover the tax cuts and to cover the current deficit, our economy would fall apart.

That's because you have a second grade understanding of how economics work. Cutting tax rates does not equal a corresponding decrease in revenue. Going from 25% of a pie to 15% of a pie sounds like less pie until you realize that the pie itself has doubled in size. You don't have to "cover" tax cuts with spending cuts because tax cuts pay for themselves by growing the base.*

Laffer Curve Definition | Investopedia

*This is how it works in a well-designed system. I'm not endorsing any particular candidates' plan, as I haven't had time to review them in detail.

 

[ACamp1900]

That's because you have a second grade understanding of how economics work.

 

[pkt77242]

That's because you have a second grade understanding of how economics work. Cutting tax rates does not equal a corresponding decrease in revenue. Going from 25% of a pie to 15% of a pie sounds like less pie until you realize that the pie itself has doubled in size.

Laffer Curve Definition | Investopedia

LOL. Nice insult. The pie doesn't double. That is laughable. Also the problem with the laffer Curve is that we might be at the peak right now. If we are cutting taxes cuts revenues. I have never seen any kind of dynamic scoring that in any way, shape or form shows what you are talking about. You are just making shit up and hoping that no one calls you on it. Even the dynamic scoring form conservative think tanks shows that with Jeb's tax cuts, the increased growth is about .5% a year. Care to explain away?

 

[RDU Irish]

LOL. Nice insult. The pie doesn't double. That is laughable. Also the problem with the laffer Curve is that we might be at the peak right now. If we are cutting taxes cuts revenues. I have never seen any kind of dynamic scoring that in any way, shape or form shows what you are talking about. You are just making shit up and hoping that no one calls you on it. Even the dynamic scoring form conservative think tanks shows that with Jeb's tax cuts, the increased growth is about .5% a year. Care to explain away?

The curve is a theoretical framework - nobody knows the point of maximum revenue but there is little doubt that lower taxes equals faster growth. Dems are hung up with maximizing taxes collected where some Republicans want to juice growth (many more want to max revenue). We also never have the benefit of a placebo economy running identically in the background to compare to whatever route is taken so neither side can ever be proven 100% right or wrong that their solution was the source of success (or failure) when there are infinite variables impacting the world that drive growth or recession outside of this binary discussion.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The curve is a theoretical framework - nobody knows the point of maximum revenue but there is little doubt that lower taxes equals faster growth. Dems are hung up with maximizing taxes collected where some Republicans want to juice growth (many more want to max revenue). We also never have the benefit of a placebo economy running identically in the background to compare to whatever route is taken so neither side can ever be proven 100% right or wrong that their solution was the source of success (or failure) when there are infinite variables impacting the world that drive growth or recession outside of this binary discussion.

Don't the economists who favor demand side economics or whatever generally think that's not a fact?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Is there a way to edit posts on tapatalk? Seeing errors immediately after pressing send, and not being able to do anything about it, makes me want to claw my eyes out.

 

[wizards8507]

Is there a way to edit posts on tapatalk? Seeing errors immediately after pressing send, and not being able to do anything about it, makes me want to claw my eyes out.

It won't let you right when you post it because it's not recognized as "yours" yet. If you leave the thread and come back, you can edit.

 

[RDU Irish]

Doesn't the economists who favor demand side economics or whatever generally think that's not a fact?

It is a core underpinning of the entire Laffer Curve concept, I get that opposition would attack a core principle of a concept they don't like.

The collection of taxes does not equate to spending. Deficits and whatnot make it a somewhat unrelated matter. Velocity of money matters and I believe government collection and subsequent spending is a slower velocity than individuals keeping it in their own pocket, would be curious to see any data on that but I suspect it is another point of debate in the world that is completely unproven one way or the other.

 

[pkt77242]

The curve is a theoretical framework - nobody knows the point of maximum revenue but there is little doubt that lower taxes equals faster growth. Dems are hung up with maximizing taxes collected where some Republicans want to juice growth (many more want to max revenue). We also never have the benefit of a placebo economy running identically in the background to compare to whatever route is taken so neither side can ever be proven 100% right or wrong that their solution was the source of success (or failure) when there are infinite variables impacting the world that drive growth or recession outside of this binary discussion.

I am not arguing that lower taxes = faster growth. I am arguing that tax cuts don't pay for themselves because of the growth (well unless your tax rates are somewhere around 95%, then maybe). For example, I have seen that tax cuts that taking statically cost about 4 trillion over 10 years but when done under a dynamic model would only cost 3 trillion due to economic growth (which from what I understand of it, makes sense). Wizard on the other hand is saying that by going from 25% to 15%, the pie would double and it would more or less pay for itself. I find that to be a complete lie.

If we want to get serious about deficits, we need to find a way to increase revenue, and cut spending (by increased revenue, I mean close loop holes and maybe lower some rates). I just find it funny how Republicans have been going on and on about deficits, but then want to cut taxes even though it would increase the deficit (even using the dynamic scoring model). I find it particularly funny because deficits didn't matter under Bush, but then people screamed bloody murder about it under Obama, and now many of the GOP presidential candidates are throwing out plans that would increase the deficit.

 

[wizards8507]

Wizard on the other hand is saying that by going from 25% to 15%, the pie would double and it would more or less pay for itself. I find that to be a complete lie.

I thought it was clear that the 25%, 15%, and doubling were all pulled out of the air to illustrate a principle. I wasn't suggesting that those are the actual figures.

The rest of your point seems to speak specifically about individual income taxation. Reductions in corporate rates will have a much more dramatic impact on domestic growth, especially when you consider competitive tax environments between different countries. The company will grow organically but it will also grow by shifting jobs and resources from foreign countries back to the United States.

 

[pkt77242]

I thought it was clear that the 25%, 15%, and doubling were all pulled out of the air to illustrate a principle. I wasn't suggesting that those are the actual figures.

The rest of your point seems to speak specifically about individual income taxation. Reductions in corporate rates will have a much more dramatic impact on domestic growth, especially when you consider competitive tax environments between different countries. The company will grow organically but it will also grow by shifting jobs and resources from foreign countries back to the United States.

I think from your posts it seems that you believe that tax cuts pay for themselves, though I could be wrong.
So lets ask the question, do you think that tax cuts add to the deficit? Do you believe that they pay for themselves?

I might be for lowering business tax rates but it depends on how it is done. One of my biggest complaints concerns about it (besides the actual rate that they pay) is that the money from those lowered rates will get stuck at the top. For example, it will lead to higher CEO (and other executives) pay, larger dividends, etc. but that it won't find its way back to the average employee. I know that in theory it should lead to increased hiring but with how businesses have been slashing payroll (even successful companies) I have a hard time believing that it will be the huge boon that everyone promises it will be. Let me rephrase that, I have no problem believing that it would be a huge boon for the companies themselves, their executives and their shareholders, but I am not quite so sure that it will be a big boon for the average employee.

 

[ACamp1900]

I get pkt's point but I have long hated the idea of 'paying for tax cuts'... to me that implies that our money is really the govs to begin with and I think that's the wrong way to look at it from the word 'go'.

 

[RDU Irish]

ACAMP gets to the bottom of the entire issue. Progressives think every dollar starts in Uncle Sam's pocket and we are lucky he lets us keep any of it. Fiscal Conservatives see it as government taking our money from us. This difference in viewpoint means a lot when making choices on spending and the roll of government.

Bush was no Fiscal Conservative. He could spend with the best of them. The evil Tea Party types do not defend Bush's spending.

 

[Wild Bill]

I am not arguing that lower taxes = faster growth. I am arguing that tax cuts don't pay for themselves because of the growth (well unless your tax rates are somewhere around 95%, then maybe). For example, I have seen that tax cuts that taking statically cost about 4 trillion over 10 years but when done under a dynamic model would only cost 3 trillion due to economic growth (which from what I understand of it, makes sense). Wizard on the other hand is saying that by going from 25% to 15%, the pie would double and it would more or less pay for itself. I find that to be a complete lie.

If we want to get serious about deficits, we need to find a way to increase revenue, and cut spending (by increased revenue, I mean close loop holes and maybe lower some rates). I just find it funny how Republicans have been going on and on about deficits, but then want to cut taxes even though it would increase the deficit (even using the dynamic scoring model). I find it particularly funny because deficits didn't matter under Bush, but then people screamed bloody murder about it under Obama, and now many of the GOP presidential candidates are throwing out plans that would increase the deficit.

Conservatives hate RINO spenders. I think it's obvious given the so called division in the party right now.

Which tax loopholes do you close?

 

[pkt77242]

Conservatives hate RINO spenders. I think it's obvious given the so called division in the party right now.

Which tax loopholes do you close?

You and RDU have both said that, but I would point out, where were the protests when Bush was in office? Where was the vitriol? While Conservatives might have disliked it, they also weren't complaining super loudly about it.

Off the top of my head (trying to remember from a few years ago)

Corporate Tax deduction for stock options
Vacation Home/2nd home mortgage interest deduction
It has been a long time since I took accounting, but can't companies write off the cost of moving operations abroad?
Carried Interest being treated as capital gains.

I could probably think of a few more as well but this is a good starting point.

 

[ACamp1900]

The sound of conservatives crying about spending has been drowned out but all those leftist voices screaming over gitmo and drone attacks under lil barry.

 

[phgreek]

I get pkt's point but I have long hated the idea of 'paying for tax cuts'... to me that implies that our money is really the govs to begin with and I think that's the wrong way to look at it from the word 'go'.

Yea...funny, but they never feel inclined to apply that 'paying' logic to a new "program"...

Not to mention their odd brand of "truth" and "math" to support what they want...