2016 Presidential Horse Race

[kmoose]

And most of the other 23% were immigrants or children of immigrants at one time.

So what? No one is suggesting that we toss out every immigrant in the country. Being an immigrant is not a crime. ILLEGALLY immigrating to the country is.

 

[RDU Irish]

Just curious to hear opinions- does our countries tax code drive wealth out of our country?

Tracking Tax Runaways: Bloomberg Inversions Database - Bloomberg

On top of the $2 trillion plus held overseas by US companies - you have the issue of setting up operations in lower tax areas and pursuing "inversions" most recently Pfizer being an example. Ireland and Bermuda are the biggest beneficiaries.

5% repatriation tax and a new 15% flat corporate tax (with zero loopholes) would be an enormous stimulus and pick up in income taxes, FICA and a broader base of corporate income would more than make up for "lost" revenue. With a $2 trillion private market stimulus it would be like Barry Bonds hitting the HGH.

Corporate income taxes are only 10% of total government revenues so the hand wringing over "lost" revenues has a whole lot more to do with loopholes = paid off politicians than preserving government revenue.

 

[RDU Irish]

So what? No one is suggesting that we toss out every immigrant in the country. Being an immigrant is not a crime. ILLEGALLY immigrating to the country is.

Who says they all want to immigrate? Maybe tons of them just want work. Hand out work visas like candy and just document the actual folks here. Gives you some actual consequences if you break the law - no more access to your livelihood. Then tax the payroll to help pick up the tab for the services they eat up.

And I view those jobs as an opportunity, not exploitation. They can better themselves and their family through hard work, novel concept. Americans don't have to work hard because they are pretty much guaranteed a certain standard of living.

 

[beryirish]

Are you conceding Ohio and New Jersey to the Democrats?

Ok - now listen here. I am showing my ignorance here but I don't follow too much on politics - been trying to but still work in progress.

So if you disagree you don't have to worry about arguing with me because I can't put up an argument.

For me - I will be voting Republican because I feel what the government has been doing with Obama and the candidates is taking away the capitalistic views of the country and turning it into a socialistic state.

The candidates:

I originally was going to vote for Trump - because he seemed like he got straight to the point and wasn't corrupt with politics. After watching the debates, I can't stand to hear him because he provides no substance to his rhetoric. I hope he doesn't win.

Then I started to like Carson - whoops. I feel he doesn't bring any knowledge value to run the union.

Cruz - I don't mind him so far. I have to hear more about what he is saying to see if he will sway me.

Rubio - I was starting to like Rubio during the Iowa Caucus then, to me, he just beats around the bush (most politicians do). But when questions were asked, he never really answered. Christie called him out on it during Saturday's debate - loved it.

Jeb Bush - never got into him because I wasn't a fan of George. Immature perhaps but just haven't.

Kasich - Ohio man here. My dad owns a small gym and has said Kasich has helped him out a lot with taxes while he was struggling. Ohio seems, in my viewpoint, to be in a better position with Kasich. I don't see a problem giving him the reigns to the country to see what he can do.

Christie - I love the no bullshit talk. He messed up with the turnpike incident back in the day but that doesn't deter me from possibly voting for him.

So the two lowest guys still in the race are the ones i'm liking the most. I feel they really helped themselves in this last debate and I hope it shows on Tuesday during the vote.

Sorry if this sounded childish and "he's an idiot" but that's just my viewpoint.

 

[phgreek]

[

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Remember the arguments used by conservatives who (wisely) opposed a timeline for withdrawal, saying something along the lines of "they'll just wait for us to leave and come back," that would be applicable here. Hell conservatives right now are making the argument that our withdrawal is what allowed ISIS to form in the first place, and they aren't wrong.

Timeline/withdrawal is bad when there is something you care to be sustained when you leave...there is nothing to sustain...that has already been forfeited from the Obama withdrawal. This would not be about stabilizing, re-establishing, building...none of it...

This "go there, kick some ass, come home" stuff is pie in the sky crap that wouldn't solve anything and would almost certainly look like a tremendous victory for ISIS. That's why they want us to attempt that chief.

Again, the problems that allow ISIS to exist are political in nature.

ISIS exists as an idea and a force...The magnetism of recruiting and inspiration for one off fucks depends on both...the idea is less compelling when the force is 1500 nomads getting shot at from all angles and having no messages or propaganda or capability to get messages out. I believe we need a frontal assault to keep them busy (Boots on the ground), and then a coalition of special operators from USA,Iraq,Syria, and whomever else would play. Those operators would conduct raids from behind, so to speak. ISIS will fight the American front...they have to, and then we gut them from behind. If you watch them...they are still pretty linear fighters...so its time to oblige that characteristic, and then go non-linear on them. Then you pull out the boots, and leave the special operators to continue striking at specific targets...supported by bombing...never letting them recuperate. Like any infestation, you gotta deal with volume if you ever really plan on the maintenance measures working. Right now, we are deploying the equivalent to maintenance measures...thats not going to get us where we need to be


You're dreaming.

I know...dreaming of a day when what passes for leadership isn't a political creation...to cover for empty words, constant miscalculation, and hand wringing.

 

[wizards8507]

Rubio - I was starting to like Rubio during the Iowa Caucus then, to me, he just beats around the bush (most politicians do). But when questions were asked, he never really answered. Christie called him out on it during Saturday's debate - loved it.

Did you see Rubio and Raddatz going back and forth on foreign policy? Rubio, Jeb, and Cruz are the only three with any clue what's going on over there.

 

[IrishLax]

I watched the Rubio clips, but not the debate itself. Seems obvious that he was just completely unprepared for those kinds of attacks and had no idea how to respond. I think he's been trying relatively hard to stay "above the fray" with Trump, Cruz, etc. because he's an attractive VP candidate... ended up making a fool of himself.

 

[RDU Irish]

Ok - now listen here. I am showing my ignorance here but I don't follow too much on politics - been trying to but still work in progress.

So if you disagree you don't have to worry about arguing with me because I can't put up an argument.

For me - I will be voting Republican because I feel what the government has been doing with Obama and the candidates is taking away the capitalistic views of the country and turning it into a socialistic state.

The candidates:

I originally was going to vote for Trump - because he seemed like he got straight to the point and wasn't corrupt with politics. After watching the debates, I can't stand to hear him because he provides no substance to his rhetoric. I hope he doesn't win.

Then I started to like Carson - whoops. I feel he doesn't bring any knowledge value to run the union.

Cruz - I don't mind him so far. I have to hear more about what he is saying to see if he will sway me.

Rubio - I was starting to like Rubio during the Iowa Caucus then, to me, he just beats around the bush (most politicians do). But when questions were asked, he never really answered. Christie called him out on it during Saturday's debate - loved it.

Jeb Bush - never got into him because I wasn't a fan of George. Immature perhaps but just haven't.

Kasich - Ohio man here. My dad owns a small gym and has said Kasich has helped him out a lot with taxes while he was struggling. Ohio seems, in my viewpoint, to be in a better positions with Kasich. I don't see a problem giving him the reigns to the country to see what he can do.

Christie - I love the no bullshit talk. He messed up with the turnpike incident back in the day but that doesn't deter me from possibly voting for him.

So the two lowest guys still in the race are the ones i'm liking the most. I feel they really helped themselves in this last debate and I hope it shows on Tuesday during the vote.

Sorry if this sounded childish and "he's an idiot" but that's just my viewpoint.

I think you hit on why Rubio might struggle - too much of a politician in a cycle that favors non-traditional candidates. Agree that Trump gets old to anyone paying any level of attention - I did like his defense of eminent domain and thought Jeb looked like an opportunist in that argument. Trump is right, nothing is "taken" they are compensated more than fairly. However, acknowledging that you ARE forcing someone to sell might go a long way to looking like less of a vulture.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Tracking Tax Runaways: Bloomberg Inversions Database - Bloomberg

On top of the $2 trillion plus held overseas by US companies - you have the issue of setting up operations in lower tax areas and pursuing "inversions" most recently Pfizer being an example. Ireland and Bermuda are the biggest beneficiaries.

5% repatriation tax and a new 15% flat corporate tax (with zero loopholes) would be an enormous stimulus and pick up in income taxes, FICA and a broader base of corporate income would more than make up for "lost" revenue. With a $2 trillion private market stimulus it would be like Barry Bonds hitting the HGH.

Corporate income taxes are only 10% of total government revenues so the hand wringing over "lost" revenues has a whole lot more to do with loopholes = paid off politicians than preserving government revenue.

Good post, but...

I don't agree with the 5% repatriation tax. That money should be brought back into the country but at the tax rate that every other corporation pays. Am I remembering correctly that not long ago, some companies bargained for the 5% repatriation tax by claiming to hire and expand...only to get that money, have massive lay offs, and do a huge stock buy-back in order to drive up salaries for the top CEOs and board members? I literally just watched a documentary on this kind of stuff. It was sickening.

I'd even argue that 15% is too low. Isn't the global average somewhere in the 20s? Bottom line, the loop holes must go. The paid for politicians must go. Small corps are getting hammered with the 35% tax, but we all know that they aren't the ones the government cares about as they aren't the ones shelling out millions (and sometimes billions) of dollars to buy politicians and rig the system. These fucking guys are getting massive tax breaks and in some cases their taxes paid are a net negative...as in they're getting money back! Multi million/billion dollar companies paying no taxes and getting subsidies is insane.

I swear I might punch the next Republican I hear say "We're broke and need to cut more social services." We're broke because you took bribery money from the Kochs and in turn fixed the system to massively decrease the tax revenue in the country. And the money you do get, you decided to spend on the military - three times more than the next biggest budget (China) and literally the next ten countries on the list combined. But yeah, "We're broke" and need to cut Social Security, etc.

 

[IrishLax]

I'm curious who is leaning which way at this point.

Personally, I'm a bit torn. I think Bernie has the highest upside in terms of possibly enacting positive changes. I think Hillary is probably the best "populist" choice with the strongest ability to keep the wheels turning. And I think any Republican choice is probably the best for my personal pocket book. Seriously, with the Sanders single payer proposal and associated tax increases a vote for Sanders is basically writing a check for thousands of dollars relative to a Republican keep-taxes-low plan... sort of hard to stomach.

 

[wizards8507]

I watched the Rubio clips, but not the debate itself. Seems obvious that he was just completely unprepared for those kinds of attacks and had no idea how to respond. I think he's been trying relatively hard to stay "above the fray" with Trump, Cruz, etc. because he's an attractive VP candidate... ended up making a fool of himself.

I disagree. I think it's an important point he's trying to make that needs to be hammered home. Christie is arguing that Obama is a swell guy with swell ideas, he's just a bad manager and his ineffectiveness at management is what's causing failure. Rubio's point is that Obama can be the most effective manager in the world but that liberal policies are dangerous because they're inherently bad for the country.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Timeline/withdrawal is bad when there is something you care to be sustained when you leave...there is nothing to sustain...that has already been forfeited from the Obama withdrawal. This would not be about stabilizing, re-establishing, building...none of it...

Oh I see, just go into the power vacuum and and leave a power vacuum behind and hope it takes care of itself.

ISIS exists as an idea and a force...The magnetism of recruiting and inspiration for one off fucks depends on both...the idea is less compelling when the force is 1500 nomads getting shot at from all angles and having no messages or propaganda or capability to get messages out. I believe we need a frontal assault to keep them busy (Boots on the ground),

My prediction: Operation Keep 'Em Busy accomplishes nothing that lasts and looks like the US fails, again, at reshaping the Middle East to its liking which gives ISIS better recruiting material than it has ever had. Or the US decimates ISIS to the point where Iran/Iraq and Russia/Syria can finish them off and now you've just alienated all of the Arab allies and maybe even Turkey. Not what I call A+ outcomes.

and then a coalition of special operators from USA,Iraq,Syria, and whomever else would play.

What Syria? Can you point me in the direction of this Syria you're talking about? Last time I checked there wasn't one to speak of.

Those operators would conduct raids from behind, so to speak. ISIS will fight the American front...they have to, and then we gut them from behind. If you watch them...they are still pretty linear fighters...so its time to oblige that characteristic, and then go non-linear on them. Then you pull out the boots, and leave the special operators to continue striking at specific targets...supported by bombing...never letting them recuperate. Like any infestation, you gotta deal with volume if you ever really plan on the maintenance measures working. Right now, we are deploying the equivalent to maintenance measures...thats not going to get us where we need to be

Just where do we need to be? I love how you keep ignoring the fact that eliminating ISIS helps the top two adversaries the US has, Russia and Iran.

I know...dreaming of a day when what passes for leadership isn't a political creation...to cover for empty words, constant miscalculation, and hand wringing.

Empty words and miscalculations like "Saddam Hussein has WMDs we need to take him out?"or "We need to disband the Iraqi military because reasons!" or "Mubarak is the guy we should put in charge!" Stuff like that?

 

[RDU Irish]

Getting rid of carried interest is the biggest no brainer on the planet and I haven't exactly seen Democrats go after it while they have had a chance. That is because BOTH sides are carrying water for those hedge fund guys.

Fact of the matter - most countries have a territorial tax system. We are one of the few that taxes global profits (understanding that the are not taxed until they are "brought home").

Instead of fighting the tide, providing incentives to create profits in the US with a below global average corporate tax rate would be a boon for the US economy (and a stick in the eye of the companies that skipped town already).

As for what they do with those profits - no more your business, my business or anyone's business than a waiter telling what I should eat for dinner. Funny thing though, if they have some hugely profitable thing going on they will want to do it in the US where they are taxed at a low rate.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm curious who is leaning which way at this point.

Personally, I'm a bit torn. I think Bernie has the highest upside in terms of possibly enacting positive changes. I think Hillary is probably the best "populist" choice with the strongest ability to keep the wheels turning. And I think any Republican choice is probably the best for my personal pocket book. Seriously, with the Sanders single payer proposal and associated tax increases a vote for Sanders is basically writing a check for thousands of dollars relative to a Republican keep-taxes-low plan... sort of hard to stomach.

I can't really fault your reasoning for voting R (or anyone who makes a good salary for that matter). Personally, 1) I don't like to think with my pocket book. To me, politics is more than about money. It's about country. No one likes to pay higher taxes, but you know what, sometimes it's beneficial and necessary to keep progressing as a country. 2) I'm not sure that anyone really knows how much Bernie is going to increase taxes (and on whom exactly). I've seen many proposals. I've heard many counter attacks. The most recent proposal I've seen (and I don't know if it's legit) shows that most people won't be affected until you start making over $500k a year, again at $2M per year, and again at over $10M a year...and it's all marginal anyways.

I'm voting Bernie. I hit on over 90% agreement w/ him on the issues. How I view the world and the country fall right in line with the direction he wants to take it.

I'm pro-choice.
I'm pro equal rights: Women, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc
I believe healthcare, prisons, education should NOT be for-profit
I believe our government is insanely corrupt
I think the Koch brothers and those like them are anti-American
I'm pro weed, fa shizzle
I'm against yuge amounts of military spending and wars in the middle east
I'm pro increase in infrastructure spending to create jobs
Climate change is real and needs to be addressed


I will never vote for a present day Republican. They don't have the same values as those in the past. Most are bat shit crazy.

Hillary is just Obama 2.0. In fact, she's probably more right that he is. Both are center-left IMO and look out for banks and special interests. I hate that. She'd just be more of the same.

Bernie is my choice. It's clear and obvious to me.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm curious who is leaning which way at this point.

Personally, I'm a bit torn. I think Bernie has the highest upside in terms of possibly enacting positive changes. I think Hillary is probably the best "populist" choice with the strongest ability to keep the wheels turning. And I think any Republican choice is probably the best for my personal pocket book. Seriously, with the Sanders single payer proposal and associated tax increases a vote for Sanders is basically writing a check for thousands of dollars relative to a Republican keep-taxes-low plan... sort of hard to stomach.

Bernie cannot get any of that through Congress though. So if you like your federal government to pass no new laws (looking at you wizards) that might be a juicy angle to view the election. On the bright side, he probably blocks any new extension of corporate control over DC, so there's a plus.

But the single biggest issue this election is going to be the Supreme Court. The next President will have these Justices:

(Lib) Ginsburg: 83 years old
(Con) Scalia: 80
(Mod) Kennedy: 80
(Lib) Breyer: 78
(Con) Thomas: 68
(Con) Alito: 66
(Con) Roberts: 62
(Lib) Sotomayor: 62
(Lib) Kagan: 56

So the next President will likely be replacing four members of the Supreme Court. I for one simply cannot trust the current Republican Party with that responsibility.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Getting rid of carried interest is the biggest no brainer on the planet and I haven't exactly seen Democrats go after it while they have had a chance. That is because BOTH sides are carrying water for those hedge fund guys.

Fact of the matter - most countries have a territorial tax system. We are one of the few that taxes global profits (understanding that the are not taxed until they are "brought home").

Instead of fighting the tide, providing incentives to create profits in the US with a below global average corporate tax rate would be a boon for the US economy (and a stick in the eye of the companies that skipped town already).

As for what they do with those profits - no more your business, my business or anyone's business than a waiter telling what I should eat for dinner. Funny thing though, if they have some hugely profitable thing going on they will want to do it in the US where they are taxed at a low rate.

Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, etc owns Hillary Clinton. They do not own Bernie. He will get rid of it.

What they do with those profits isn't my business...until it is. When those profits are stored off shore, they pay 0% in taxes. Then they hold the treasury hostage saying, let us bring it back at 5% and we'll make it worth your while. Oops. Just kidding. Instead we're going to fire people and buy back stock so we can pay ourselves a higher salary. I'm sorry, but I will never respect that sort of mindset. That is crony capitalistic, corporate welfare at it's finest.

 

[RDU Irish]

Bernie cannot get any of that through Congress though. So if you like your federal government to pass no new laws (looking at you wizards) that might be a juicy angle to view the election. On the bright side, he probably blocks any new extension of corporate control over DC, so there's a plus.

But the single biggest issue this election is going to be the Supreme Court. The next President will have these Justices:

(Lib) Ginsburg: 83 years old
(Con) Scalia: 80
(Mod) Kennedy: 80
(Lib) Breyer: 78
(Con) Alito: 66
(Con) Roberts: 62
(Lib) Sotomayor: 62
(Lib) Kagan: 56

So the next President will likely be replacing half of the Supreme Court. I for one simply cannot trust the current Republican Party with that responsibility.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly the reason I fear for our Democratic Republic if a Democrat wins the election. My fear of Republicans is that they will focus on an abortion litmus test for SCOTUS appointments over someone that has any actual respect for the Constitution and state's rights.

 

[woolybug25]

Bernie cannot get any of that through Congress though. So if you like your federal government to pass no new laws (looking at you wizards) that might be a juicy angle to view the election. On the bright side, he probably blocks any new extension of corporate control over DC, so there's a plus.

But the single biggest issue this election is going to be the Supreme Court. The next President will have these Justices:

(Lib) Ginsburg: 83 years old
(Con) Scalia: 80
(Mod) Kennedy: 80
(Lib) Breyer: 78
(Con) Alito: 66
(Con) Roberts: 62
(Lib) Sotomayor: 62
(Lib) Kagan: 56

So the next President will likely be replacing half of the Supreme Court. I for one simply cannot trust the current Republican Party with that responsibility.

This post single handily changed my opinion of Bernie. I haven't been able to feel comfortable with him because of his fiscal policies. But you raised some very good systematical points that mitigate many of my concerns.

 

[RDU Irish]

Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, etc owns Hillary Clinton. They do not own Bernie. He will get rid of it.

What they do with those profits isn't my business...until it is. When those profits are stored off shore, they pay 0% in taxes. Then they hold the treasury hostage saying, let us bring it back at 5% and we'll make it worth your while. Oops. Just kidding. Instead we're going to fire people and buy back stock so we can pay ourselves a higher salary. I'm sorry, but I will never respect that sort of mindset. That is crony capitalistic, corporate welfare at it's finest.

I don't see how Bernie will pass squat when he doesn't write the legislation. But I can see how a Bernie supporter thinks companies should have to make a "deal" to access their own capital. Then consider companies get a foreign tax credit - if they pay 15% in Ireland they pay 35% - 15% = 20% to the US when they repatriate the profit. Why not incentivize earning profit in the US by being on par or lower than the rest of the world? Then US AND foreign companies want to earn profit and pay tax in the US vs. hoarding overseas. 15% of something is so much better than 35% of nothing and you don't have to mandate a damn thing - just get your invisible hand to stop pushing and start pulling.

Plus - in the sense of actually getting something done - you have to give in order to get. Giving a lower rate in order to get RID of "corporate welfare" seems like a pretty good tradeoff. God forbid we level the playing field for everyone. Isn't that a significant move in a better direction for those who want 99% corporate taxes with a $30/hour minimum wage?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I don't see how Bernie will pass squat when he doesn't write the legislation. But I can see how a Bernie supporter thinks companies should have to make a "deal" to access their own capital. Then consider companies get a foreign tax credit - if they pay 15% in Ireland they pay 35% - 15% = 20% to the US when they repatriate the profit. Why not incentivize earning profit in the US by being on par or lower than the rest of the world? Then US AND foreign companies want to earn profit and pay tax in the US vs. hoarding overseas. 15% of something is so much better than 35% of nothing and you don't have to mandate a damn thing - just get your invisible hand to stop pushing and start pulling.

Plus - in the sense of actually getting something done - you have to give in order to get. Giving a lower rate in order to get RID of "corporate welfare" seems like a pretty good tradeoff. God forbid we level the playing field for everyone. Isn't that a significant move in a better direction for those who want 99% corporate taxes with a $30/hour minimum wage?

Isn't the issue that they're earning profit here and then shipping it out to Ireland to hide from taxes?

I mean isn't it basically that Corporation X will have company A in the US and company B in Ireland, company B will trademark a logo and company A will make the profit and then have to pay company B all of that money to use said logo, thus looking like company B made billions and they just about broke even in the US?

As an American that just pisses me off and I wish there were a way to punish them.

By your own point, corporate income taxes are only 10% of the federal revenue, so couldn't one argue it's not hurting us that much to keep saying "nope fuck you pay the taxes if you want that money," right? That'd be my angle. Right now Apple has a toooooooon of American profits in Ireland and they're just waiting for profit amnesty to cash in, no? I say let those greedy bastards wait, and I want no part of a race-to-the-bottom tax rate.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Isn't the issue that they're earning profit here and then shipping it out to Ireland to hide from taxes?

I mean isn't it basically that Corporation X will have company A in the US and company B in Ireland, company B will trademark a logo and company A will make the profit and then have to pay company B all of that money to use said logo, thus looking like company B made billions and they just about broke even in the US?

As an American that just pisses me off and I wish there were a way to punish them.

By your own point, corporate income taxes are only 10% of the federal revenue, so couldn't one argue it's not hurting us that much to keep saying "nope fuck you pay the taxes if you want that money," right? That'd be my angle. Right now Apple has a toooooooon of American profits in Ireland and they're just waiting for profit amnesty to cash in, no? I say let those greedy bastards wait, and I want no part of a race-to-the-bottom tax rate.

+1

 

[kmoose]

I watched an interview with Sanders the other night. It's really the first time that I have seen him interviewed. I like the guy, personally, and I agree with his idea that we need to get the corruption out of government. I'd like to have a few beers with him and shoot the shit for a couple of hours. But I can't vote for him. I don't think you are going to lower the amount of corruption in government by multiplying the size of the said government the order of magnitude that will be required to administer the programs that he wants like single payer healthcare, government provided college education, etc.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I watched an interview with Sanders the other night. It's really the first time that I have seen him interviewed. I like the guy, personally, and I agree with his idea that we need to get the corruption out of government. I'd like to have a few beers with him and shoot the shit for a couple of hours. But I can't vote for him. I don't think you are going to lower the amount of corruption in government by multiplying the size of the said government the order of magnitude that will be required to administer the programs that he wants like single payer healthcare, government provided college education, etc.

Ah, you've been cracked!! We're wearing on you little by little. Haha.

I think one of the single biggest issues in this country is corruption and money in politics. It's why so many people went Trump and so many went Bernie. Those are the two main dudes trying to change that particular aspect.

Citizens United opened the flood gates for allowing unlimited funds into our government. Politicians are bought and paid for. Said politicians don't represent us. They represent the CEOs and corporations who are funding their campaigns. A recent study showed that of 1700 bills, Congress voted in "the People's" best interest less than 1% of the time. It was basically 0%. All the others, they voted in the better interests of their donors. That's not a democracy. That's a plutocracy/oligarchy. And that should be reason enough to vote for a political revolution. Vote for someone who's going to change that. All of these other issues can be debated later. At this point, the people who will repeal Obamacare or not allow single-payer, aren't doing so because they think it's best for us Americans. They'd do it because it's what's best for their donors. Pfizer doesn't want Bernie in office. Golman Sachs doesn't want Bernie in office. Bernie represents the people, he doesn't represent Pfizer. That's what we're dealing with here.

 

[dales5050]

This election just gets better and better as it goes...at least for the people who like to see some chaos.

Madeleine Albright, who was appointed to the UN and then Secretary of State by Bill Clinton came out and said...

“We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “It’s not done. There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”


#getspopcorn

 

[RDU Irish]

Isn't the issue that they're earning profit here and then shipping it out to Ireland to hide from taxes?

I mean isn't it basically that Corporation X will have company A in the US and company B in Ireland, company B will trademark a logo and company A will make the profit and then have to pay company B all of that money to use said logo, thus looking like company B made billions and they just about broke even in the US?

As an American that just pisses me off and I wish there were a way to punish them.

By your own point, corporate income taxes are only 10% of the federal revenue, so couldn't one argue it's not hurting us that much to keep saying "nope fuck you pay the taxes if you want that money," right? That'd be my angle. Right now Apple has a toooooooon of American profits in Ireland and they're just waiting for profit amnesty to cash in, no? I say let those greedy bastards wait, and I want no part of a race-to-the-bottom tax rate.

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So your position is government should punish business any time they "piss you off" and companies only make money in the US. The 50%+ of S&P 500 earnings earned overseas are all smoke and mirrors?? Can't help you there.

Try this exercise - you can build a house in Ohio or Costa Rica. To move money to Costa Rica in order to build the house they will charge you a 20% tax. If you can build the house for $100,000 in Ohio, you would need to build the same house for $80,000 in Costa Rica in order to make any sense to choose that location. Given cheaper labor and looser building codes maybe that makes sense.

Now flip that to a US company - you want to build a $1 million factory. You have $1 million in Ireland. Ireland will let you ship the money anywhere as you have already paid tax on it and they respect your property rights. The only place you need to be penalized is the US where you foolishly set up your home office operations generations ago. To build in the US you must repatriate that money and pay around $200,000 in tax. As such, you need to borrow $200,000 to build the factory in the US while being able to pay outright elsewhere. And profits from that factory will be taxed at 18% in Ireland or 35% (plus state) in the US.

You do not see how this hurts US job growth and the American middle class? How income taxes and FICA collected might way more than make up for a nominal drop in corporate collections?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I watched an interview with Sanders the other night. It's really the first time that I have seen him interviewed. I like the guy, personally, and I agree with his idea that we need to get the corruption out of government. I'd like to have a few beers with him and shoot the shit for a couple of hours. But I can't vote for him. I don't think you are going to lower the amount of corruption in government by multiplying the size of the said government the order of magnitude that will be required to administer the programs that he wants like single payer healthcare, government provided college education, etc.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Ah, you've been cracked!! We're wearing on you little by little. Haha.

I think one of the single biggest issues in this country is corruption and money in politics. It's why so many people went Trump and so many went Bernie. Those are the two main dudes trying to change that particular aspect.

Citizens United opened the flood gates for allowing unlimited funds into our government. Politicians are bought and paid for. Said politicians don't represent us. They represent the CEOs and corporations who are funding their campaigns. A recent study showed that of 1700 bills, Congress voted in "the People's" best interest less than 1% of the time. It was basically 0%. All the others, they voted in the better interests of their donors. That's not a democracy. That's a plutocracy/oligarchy. And that should be reason enough to vote for a political revolution. Vote for someone who's going to change that. All of these other issues can be debated later. At this point, the people who will repeal Obamacare or not allow single-payer, aren't doing so because they think it's best for us Americans. They'd do it because it's what's best for their donors. Pfizer doesn't want Bernie in office. Golman Sachs doesn't want Bernie in office. Bernie represents the people, he doesn't represent Pfizer. That's what we're dealing with here.

Ah, yes. Because prior to that Supreme Court decision in 2010, our government was transparent and really worked for the people.

 

[phgreek]

Oh I see, just go into the power vacuum and and leave a power vacuum behind and hope it takes care of itself.

No...go into the power vacuum so that waht you are doing with air strikes and special operators actually has a prayer of achieving the stated goal...to destroy ISIS.

My prediction: Operation Keep 'Em Busy accomplishes nothing that lasts and looks like the US fails, again, at reshaping the Middle East to its liking which gives ISIS better recruiting material than it has ever had. Or the US decimates ISIS to the point where Iran/Iraq and Russia/Syria can finish them off and now you've just alienated all of the Arab allies and maybe even Turkey. Not what I call A+ outcomes.

It allows for what we are already doing to have the desired impact, if you believe the president isn't a complete asshole, and is just dropping bombs to look like he is doing something...Put it this way, are you telling me Mr. Obama wouldn't be thrilled if by luck we dropped a bomb on a donkey basketball tournament and took out ISIS except for a few...would he be all over the press pounding his chest...and would that outcome be different as relates to your concerns about Arab Allies??? I'm just saying quit fucking about, and do it judiciously...and try and work with everyone who already thinks ISIS is a scourge. You do know that part of leading negotiations is convincing/coercing people to do things that don't appear to be in their individual best interest ...or has the Obama administration killed that concept...sheesh...

What Syria? Can you point me in the direction of this Syria you're talking about? Last time I checked there wasn't one to speak of.

Don't we already partner with the free Syrian army with the special operators we do have on the ground???


Just where do we need to be? I love how you keep ignoring the fact that eliminating ISIS helps the top two adversaries the US has, Russia and Iran.

We need to be dispatching ISIS...and as for Russia and Iran...both are FOR SURE political solutions...funny to hear the 1980s foreign policy relevance here...hehehe. Where is Candy Crowley when you need her?

Empty words and miscalculations like "Saddam Hussein has WMDs we need to take him out?"or "We need to disband the Iraqi military because reasons!" or "Mubarak is the guy we should put in charge!" Stuff like that?

Saddam Hussein did...he did not have the production capabilities the intel indicated...bad intel, for sure many miscalculations...gross miscalculations. However, I will again point to the Iraq/middle east given to the Obama admin., and his policy detailed after a wish...that we weren't in the middle east...and what that has wrought.

 

[RDU Irish]

I would vote for Bernie over Hillary - very little thought needs to be put into that trade off.

 

[phgreek]

This election just gets better and better as it goes...at least for the people who like to see some chaos.

Madeleine Albright, who was appointed to the UN and then Secretary of State by Bill Clinton came out and said...

“We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “It’s not done. There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”


#getspopcorn

kinda hard for me to take that seriously...not because of the movement...but because it was said in support of Hillary Clinton. I mean, I don't think she did a great job looking out for women given her treatment of the women on her staff, and ...well, I think she pretty much attacked the ones her husband played grab ass with over the decades...

 

[phgreek]

I would vote for Bernie over Hillary - very little thought needs to be put into that trade off.

Amen to that...