Politics

[Cackalacky]

Laffer Curve: Lower taxes usually mean more government revenue until an unknown inflection point.

(sorry don't know how to explain that monosyllabically)

Do you mean this? And why is the inflection point unknown. It should a derivative of some function where it can be found mathematically or at least modeled?

Oh, it's hypothetical and a highly simplified model. Are financial decisions really made based on this?

"Laffer assumes that the government would collect no income tax at a 100% tax rate because there would be no incentive to earn income. Research has shown that it is possible for a Laffer curve to continuously slope upwards all the way to 100%.[13] Additionally, the Laffer curve depends on the assumption that tax revenue is used to provide a public good that is separable in utility and separate from labor supply, which may not be true in practice.[14] The Laffer curve is also too simplistic in that it assumes a single tax rate and a single labor supply. Actual systems of public finance are more complex. There is serious doubt about the relevance of considering a single marginal tax rate.[4] In addition, revenue may well be a multivalued function of tax rate - for instance, an increase in tax rate to a certain percentage may not result in the same revenue as a decrease in tax rate, even if the final tax rate in both situations is the same."

from wiki and I am not a financial guru but I do understand mathematics very well (and I am not trying to be a smart ***, just trying to understand your point and devotion to this Curve. I have seen you mention it twice in separate threads).

 

[JughedJones]

Big ups with that Cackalacky.


Although I'm not sure that facts will dissuade them. We've tried that for a while.

 

[GoIrish41]

I would tend to agree. To me, we need a President who is actually willing to cut spending. We've actually never had that -- each President (at least since the mid-20th Century) has spent more than his predecessor.

My point is that it just doesn't make sense to run up mountains of debt, and then blame your predecessor for it because they didn't leave you more money. If that's the game we'll never get out of any deficit, regardless how big or how small.

And if Romney wins, runs a huge deficit, and then blames Obama 4 years later, I'm not voting for him. Even Bayh 2016.

We also need a president who is willing to raise revenues. It seems obvious that many if not most people believe it is a "this or that" proposition and not a "this AND that" proposition. Fundamentally, I think it is immoral to pull food out of the mouths of poor people to give millionaires more tax breaks. I think that there are major problems with the welfare state, but those problems aren't so terrible that we should abandon millions to enrich a few. That, in my opinion, is the quickest way to create an economic disaster in this country. I'm no millionaire and I am not against having my taxes raised to get out of this economic ditch (I would venture to say there are millions more like me across this country). I believe that Obama offering to keep the Bush tax cuts in place for the middle class but raising them on the rich perpetuates the problem that we face. If a couple is having financial problems, they both have to tighten their belts. This is our country, and we should all be willing to do our part to improve our lot. Pandering to one side or the other (and both sides do plenty of this) is not getting us anywhere. I'm going to vote for Obama (whom I'm not the biggest fan of) because Romney scares the crap out of me. I think what he has done for a living most of his life makes him scum. He has ruined thousands of lives to enrich himself. He's just not a good person. He's all over the place on his views and leaves me with a sense that I have no idea what is coming. His choice of Ryan as his running mate clarrifies what may be coming and that makes me even more frightened.

As to who we blame our situation on ... that is up for interpretation. What is clear is that giving tax breaks to millionairs has not created jobs. If that were the case, unemployment would not be over 8% nationally. So, if that money is not being used to create jobs (the stated goal), what is happening to it? It has to give even the most rigid conservative pause that Romney has bank accounts in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes. If it doesn't, I can't understand why not. It also seems obvious that he is hiding something that his tax returns would reveal. Doesn't that scare you even if you are in the GOP. It doesn't do anyone any good to look back and blame. What does each candidate have in store for the future? What kind of character do they demonstrate? Those are the important issues.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I swear, sometimes these threads are like playing cards with my brother's kids.

And who would be commont to both?

HW passed through Regan's millionaire welfare. Clinton was imperfect. But under Clinton, both parties were at their financially and fiscally most responsible. Tax rates were adjusted and we performed surgical strikes instead of wholesale war. This is why the surplus occured. Business profited even though it was not coddled, like so many argue we need to do today, and millionaires paid their own fair share, and their overal holdings acutally improved.

Cackalacky, Jugheadjones, GoIrish41, RhodeIrish, mybro Wooly, and a few others have achieved and maintained a level of excellence and intelligence on this thread than I have hardly ever seen anywhere on the internet. You libertarian guys, well it ain't working. You certainly are not selling me, and I doubt it would work with many I know.

The problem with the Paul’s, even though they may be exemplary, they have flirted with people, that have slept with people, that are not very nice people, and do not represent anything close to what I am interested in. It is kind of like that old commercial where you have slept with everybody, all the people you have slept with, have. You know what I mean?

The following is posted on my wall by the only person who has ever neg repped me.

Yes. You can do or say something "Moronic", but not be a "moron". Seriously?

It was a moronic thing to say. I didn't say "You're a moron".

You ever done something stupid? Doesn't mean you're a stupid person.


Again, I can only be responsible for what I say, not what you understand.

The first time he admitted later he didn't understand what I was saying, so he tried to make up for it by positively repping me right afterward. This time was as a result of me negative repping him for this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95NDAlumNM
What I do not understand is that every time there is an incident like this we get a thread on IE, but when some right wing nut job (otherwise known as the republican base) goes off and kills a bunch of Sikhs in Wisconsin there is virtually no mention of it on his site. Why is that?

Moronic.....

And the guy was a Nazi...not close to a republican. Or a conservative. The Nazi's are a hate group. The other two are political parties.

But nice comment. Please feel free to actually do some research. You know, outside of liberal media websites.
__________________
I can only be responsible for what I say, not what you understand

The highlighted text is an unqualified adjective which refers to moron. Generally refering to one's behavior as being of a moron, is the same as calling them a moron. In other words, without conditional credit to specific behavior, it is name calling. So here is what I said with my negative text:

Texas A&M Shooting 08-14-2012 11:58 AM irishpat183 There you go name calling!

And of course his negative rep:

Texas A&M Shooting 08-14-2012 12:28 PM irishpat183 I didn't say he was a moron, I said the comment was moronic. Your neg rep was moronic.

This is what we are stuck with. I proved that people that disagreed could treat each other well earlier on this thread. I will continue to negative rep for name calling.

 

[RDU Irish]

not asking for short words.

What the hell are you trying to say though?

Thank you for illustrating why we are screwed. You think Bush's tax cuts were a "cost" and cannot understand how it is possible that lowering taxes can provide an increase in government revenue (the basis of the Laffer Curve), or possibly impact GDP growth.

Unless you just think taxes are a proper punishment for success and government revenue is irrelevant?

We will have to agree to disagree on your primary points of "society" absolutely and totally over individual liberty, I can at least take the time to understand your stance and appreciate the need, albeit on some margin far, far away from where we stand today, IMHO.

 

[GoIrish41]

And who would be commont to both?

HW passed through Regan's millionaire welfare. Clinton was imperfect. But under Clinton, both parties were at their financially and fiscally most responsible. Tax rates were adjusted and we performed surgical strikes instead of wholesale war. This is why the surplus occured. Business profited even though it was not coddled, like so many argue we need to do today, and millionaires paid their own fair share, and their overal holdings acutally improved.

Cackalacky, Jugheadjones, GoIrish41, RhodeIrish, mybro Wooly, and a few others have achieved and maintained a level of excellence and intelligence on this thread than I have hardly ever seen anywhere on the internet. You libertarian guys, well it ain't working. You certainly are not selling me, and I doubt it would work with many I know.

The problem with the Paul’s, even though they may be exemplary, they have flirted with people, that have slept with people, that are not very nice people, and do not represent anything close to what I am interested in. It is kind of like that old commercial where you have slept with everybody, all the people you have slept with, have. You know what I mean?



The first time he admitted later he didn't understand what I was saying, so he tried to make up for it by positively repping me right afterward. This time was as a result of me negative repping him for this post:



The highlighted text is an unqualified adjective which refers to moron. Generally refering to one's behavior as being of a moron, is the same as calling them a moron. In other words, without conditional credit to specific behavior, it is name calling. So here is what I said with my negative text:



And of course his negative rep:



This is what we are stuck with. I proved that people that disagreed could treat each other well earlier on this thread. I will continue to negative rep for name calling.

appreciate the shout out. And, I agree .... namecallers are a**holes.

 

[RDU Irish]

We also need a president who is willing to raise revenues. It seems obvious that many if not most people believe it is a "this or that" proposition and not a "this AND that" proposition. Fundamentally, I think it is immoral to pull food out of the mouths of poor people to give millionaires more tax breaks. I think that there are major problems with the welfare state, but those problems aren't so terrible that we should abandon millions to enrich a few. That, in my opinion, is the quickest way to create an economic disaster in this country. I'm no millionaire and I am not against having my taxes raised to get out of this economic ditch (I would venture to say there are millions more like me across this country). I believe that Obama offering to keep the Bush tax cuts in place for the middle class but raising them on the rich perpetuates the problem that we face. If a couple is having financial problems, they both have to tighten their belts. This is our country, and we should all be willing to do our part to improve our lot. Pandering to one side or the other (and both sides do plenty of this) is not getting us anywhere. I'm going to vote for Obama (whom I'm not the biggest fan of) because Romney scares the crap out of me. I think what he has done for a living most of his life makes him scum. He has ruined thousands of lives to enrich himself. He's just not a good person. He's all over the place on his views and leaves me with a sense that I have no idea what is coming. His choice of Ryan as his running mate clarrifies what may be coming and that makes me even more frightened.

As to who we blame our situation on ... that is up for interpretation. What is clear is that giving tax breaks to millionairs has not created jobs. If that were the case, unemployment would not be over 8% nationally. So, if that money is not being used to create jobs (the stated goal), what is happening to it? It has to give even the most rigid conservative pause that Romney has bank accounts in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes. If it doesn't, I can't understand why not. It also seems obvious that he is hiding something that his tax returns would reveal. Doesn't that scare you even if you are in the GOP. It doesn't do anyone any good to look back and blame. What does each candidate have in store for the future? What kind of character do they demonstrate? Those are the important issues.

Thank you for ignoring the concept of lower taxes bringing in more revenue. Millionaires do something with the money not taken from them by government. By most logical counts, this money is stimulative to either consumption or investment. Since some is invested, if not most, it grows the economy thereby leading to more income to tax in the future. You also have the effect of people being more productive and earning more money if they are marginally taxed at 35% instead of 50%. Thereby you tax more income at 35% than 50% on top of the compounding effect of more production and discretionary spending rippling through the economy.

Do you have any thoughts on what the optimal tax rate is for 1) growth and 2) immediate revenue generation? Do you acknowledge how those two concepts work against eachother?

And by Obama's own words, the private sector is doing just fine. Doesn't that mean he is OK with private sector job growth (or lack thereof)? Does that mean he sees his policies hurting private sector jobs but they are strong enough to shoulder the load? (I think that is how he sees it.)

Gotta go catch a flight. Good discussion (at least when we stick to substance).

 

[Cackalacky]

Thank you for illustrating why we are screwed. You think Bush's tax cuts were a "cost" and cannot understand how it is possible that lowering taxes can provide an increase in government revenue (the basis of the Laffer Curve), or possibly impact GDP growth.

Unless you just think taxes are a proper punishment for success and government revenue is irrelevant?

We will have to agree to disagree on your primary points of "society" absolutely and totally over individual liberty, I can at least take the time to understand your stance and appreciate the need, albeit on some margin far, far away from where we stand today, IMHO.

Have you looked at my previous post with the Laffer Curve? I dont think it is as great a deal as you seem to think it is. It is a "hypothetical model" with many serious problems. As one who has to design and build things that work based on models, IMO, I dont trust this model from what I have seen nor any of its predictive powers.



First off lets look at that chart I posted, and ignore it is Corporate taxes and the year 2004. The blue line that's inflection point passes through Norway is a maximum value for that model. The author of this published curve passed a "best-fit" line through the maximum value. This is as deviantly wrong in statistics as it gets. As a result of this line, I am guessing its R-squared value (accuracy of the model) is around 0.3-0.4. A truly accurate model has an R-squared value somewhere between 0.9 and 1. For example, the mathematical equation (model) that describes time dilation and motion in our universe for any object with a speed up to the speed of light (Einstein's equations) has an R-squared value of about 0.98 (almost perfect agreement with our observed expectations).

If we were to pass a true best-fit line through this published data, the line would leave the UAE and head to about where the U.K is and the inflection point would be somewhere between USA and France. With Norway being an extreme outlyer and disqualified from the model. I am guessing as scattered as the rest of the data is for this graph, the R-squared value would be between 0.8-0.9, not too shabby, though it is not a huge parabola as the published chart says.

Now lets bring in the fact it is corporate taxes.That being the case The USA is not far off from the inflection point as compared to the other countries of a true model. If we moved just a little to the left we would be at that inflection point and start to see a decline in revenues the more we moved left , so in this example I fail to see that it makes a big difference. If you can point me to another Laffer Curve that supports your point, I will gladly listen.

***For point of honesty, while typing this post, I realized that this chart was published by the American Enterprise Institute. So whoever made this chart is being statistically disengenuous at best or deviantly deceptive at worst, and I was unaware while demolishing it.

RDU... please come back I would like some answers.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Thank you for ignoring the concept of lower taxes bringing in more revenue. Millionaires do something with the money not taken from them by government. By most logical counts, this money is stimulative to either consumption or investment. Since some is invested, if not most, it grows the economy thereby leading to more income to tax in the future. You also have the effect of people being more productive and earning more money if they are marginally taxed at 35% instead of 50%. Thereby you tax more income at 35% than 50% on top of the compounding effect of more production and discretionary spending rippling through the economy.

Do you have any thoughts on what the optimal tax rate is for 1) growth and 2) immediate revenue generation? Do you acknowledge how those two concepts work against eachother?

And by Obama's own words, the private sector is doing just fine. Doesn't that mean he is OK with private sector job growth (or lack thereof)? Does that mean he sees his policies hurting private sector jobs but they are strong enough to shoulder the load? (I think that is how he sees it.)

Gotta go catch a flight. Good discussion (at least when we stick to substance).

This is the same flawed logic proported by the Reagan admin; based upon flawed data, once trickle down is almost universally precieved as pi$$ed on.

Can you tell me the last time the top tax bracket in this country was at 50%. I don't mean in someone's fantacy world; I mean in reality.

The problem with Great Brittian first, and then the United States post WWII is that investment that interest millionaires are those that are safest with the highest return, ie., not those that in any way create jobs or live in that "risky" world.

 

[GoIrish41]

Thank you for ignoring the concept of lower taxes bringing in more revenue. Millionaires do something with the money not taken from them by government. By most logical counts, this money is stimulative to either consumption or investment. Since some is invested, if not most, it grows the economy thereby leading to more income to tax in the future.

No, thank you ... for ignoring the concept of math. Lower taxes means LESS revenue. I learned that in my 2nd grade math class.

For 30 years, I've been listening people tell me about trickle down economics and how giving rich people tax breaks was going to make them create more jobs. These days you can't go a news cycle without hearing the term "job creators." Guess what? They aren't creating any jobs. All of the policies that the GOP has put in place are still there ... no jobs!

I think it is beyond irony that the calculation that is used to support this theory is called "Laffer." Because hearing people defend it after decades of evidence that disproves it really is a laugher.

 

[DSully1995]

No, thank you ... for ignoring the concept of math. Lower taxes means LESS revenue. I learned that in my 2nd grade math class.

For 30 years, I've been listening people tell me about trickle down economics and how giving rich people tax breaks was going to make them create more jobs. These days you can't go a news cycle without hearing the term "job creators." Guess what? They aren't creating any jobs. All of the policies that the GOP has put in place are still there ... no jobs!

I think it is beyond irony that the calculation that is used to support this theory is called "Laffer." Because hearing people defend it after decades of evidence that disproves it really is a laugher.

Agree.
Job creators arent the millionaires, job creators and spending middle class people. The millionaires add jobs as a reaction to the demand on their business, the market creates the need first then the jobs come, not the other way around.

 

[irishog77]

How did Bush achieve record revenue from tax "cuts?" And I ask this question(s) in all honesty and sincerity, actually looking for an answer(s): At what point does a tax rate cease becoming a cut? The Bush tax cuts we hear so much about have been in effect for about 10 years. So, do we need to simply return to tax rates under Clinton? If any tax is called a "cut" because it's lower than it used to be, then by definition, isn't any tax rate below the historical apex a tax "cut?" How are we better off (financially) requiring people to give more money to the government, but less to investment and purchasing of goods and services?

The object of a company is to maximize revenue (yeah, yeah I know we can argue about the merits of that, but we'll save that for another time. And for people who disagree and/or want the government to have more money and want it to spend more, then at a certain point, even you have to realize that the government is trying to do that very thing- maximize revenue. But I digress...) Here's a basic and simple model: If IE started selling widgets, they'd have to come up with a price to sell them for. If the widget costs $10 to make, then, they have to sell them for at least $11 to make any profit. Say IE starts off selling them for $11, and they sell 100 widgets, but then they realize that the revenue they generate at that price means they can't pay their workers' salaries and benefits, the lease on their warehouse, utilities, insurance, and taxes. Or, say IE starts off selling their widgets for $110. There isn't much demand for a widget at that price, so they only sell 1. Well, then they find themselves in the very same predicament as charging only $11. At some point, they have to find a price that maximizes revenue. It's clearly not $11 and it's clearly not $110-- both create equal revenue. So perhaps selling them at $40 enables them to sell 50 units. That's $200 of revenue-- double the revenue from either extreme. The tax rate, in simple, macroeconomic terms, is no different-- what is the cost (tax rate) that maximizes revenue.

 

[Cackalacky]

Thought this funny

Thought this funny

from wiki:
OriginThe term "Laffer curve" was reportedly coined by Jude Wanniski (a writer for The Wall Street Journal) after a 1974 afternoon meeting between Laffer, Wanniski, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy press secretary Grace-Marie Arnett.[1] In this meeting, Laffer, arguing against President Gerald Ford's tax increase, reportedly sketched the curve on a napkin to illustrate the concept.[6] Cheney did not buy the idea immediately, but it caught the imaginations of those present.[7] Laffer professes no recollection of this napkin, but writes: "I used the so-called Laffer Curve all the time in my classes and with anyone else who would listen to me."[1]

Laffer himself does not claim to have invented the concept, attributing it to 14th century Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun[8] and, more recently, to John Maynard Keynes.[1]

Holy ****, the center piece of the republican tax strategy since 1974 was developed by a 14th century muslim... I kid I kid. Seriously, the Laffer Curve wiki page is crazy informative.

 

[GoIrish41]

sounds like a muslim conspiracy to tank the American economy. I'm going to have to see some birth certificates.

 

[DSully1995]

sounds like a muslim conspiracy to tank the American economy. I'm going to have to see some birth certificates.

reps

 

[Bluto]

Not sure were to post this but just wanted to say thanks to the people who have sent reps to me on this and other posts. Anyhow, I like these discussions for the most part. Can't wait for the Navy game! Go Irish!

 

[jason_h537]

Obama fundamentally sees that $1.5 trillion as his. His rhetoric of "they didn't build that" and "spread the wealth" are windows to his soul. Plenty of people here agree with him, I vehemently disagree and find it counterintuitive to everythign this country was founded upon.

That is your interpretation of it. Obama never said "you didn't build that" in that context, he said you didn't build that entirely on your own and he is 100% correct. No matter how hard you work, or how smart you are, someone helped. That is the point. You focus on a soundbite taken out of context and say that is a "window to his soul". The "spread the wealth" quote is another one used completely out of context. Why shouldn't those that can afford to give more do so? This is a society. People depend on each other, live together, and ideally work together. A society is only as strong as it's weakest citizens and the policies that have been put into place have made the weak that much weaker and the rich richer. For 12 of the last 14 years republicans have run congress and said lower taxes for high income earners and cut social programs. The results have been an an increase in deficit and unemployment every year. Why not try the opposite? This country was built on everyone being equal not your value is determined by your wallet. That is counterintuitive to everything this country was founded upon.

We can take sound bites all day and vilify someone. Or we can look at what the candidates have done and proposed and determine who we agree with. That is what upsets me about "the worst president ever" or "window to his soul" nonsense. It is not based on who the man is or has done, it is based on what you want him to be and what you think he will do.

 

[woolybug25]

Obama fundamentally sees that $1.5 trillion as his. His rhetoric of "they didn't build that" and "spread the wealth" are windows to his soul. Plenty of people here agree with him, I vehemently disagree and find it counterintuitive to everythign this country was founded upon.

My undergrad business degree was in Finance at ND, the #1 undergrad biz school in the country (granted that is largely based on job placement thanks to our alum network). I topped that off with an MBA concetration in analytical finance at the University of Chicago. I fear for our country if only people with my education can fathom this point.

So again, a seemingly common sense, and less expensive, solution is ignored by both sides?

1) Way to get fooled by a commercial dude. Are you really using that played out political ad as an example? Go actually watch the speech that quote comes from. It was completely taken out of context. Obama was talking about spurring small business and why we need to foster it, not that we need to spread the wealth. Let me guess, you want to follow that up with "Obama opposes Work for Welfare". If you want to make an educated argument against the President than don't start your point with sleezy political ad rhetoric.

2) I would be careful about using your education as some kind of basis for you being more knowledgeable than the other posters on here. There are plenty of us with as much or more education than you. Furthermore, you obviously think Obama is an idiot, and he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.

 

[Cackalacky]

The object of a company is to maximize revenue (yeah, yeah I know we can argue about the merits of that, but we'll save that for another time. And for people who disagree and/or want the government to have more money and want it to spend more, then at a certain point, even you have to realize that the government is trying to do that very thing- maximize revenue. But I digress...) Here's a basic and simple model: If IE started selling widgets, they'd have to come up with a price to sell them for. If the widget costs $10 to make, then, they have to sell them for at least $11 to make any profit. Say IE starts off selling them for $11, and they sell 100 widgets, but then they realize that the revenue they generate at that price means they can't pay their workers' salaries and benefits, the lease on their warehouse, utilities, insurance, and taxes. Or, say IE starts off selling their widgets for $110. There isn't much demand for a widget at that price, so they only sell 1. Well, then they find themselves in the very same predicament as charging only $11. At some point, they have to find a price that maximizes revenue. It's clearly not $11 and it's clearly not $110-- both create equal revenue. So perhaps selling them at $40 enables them to sell 50 units. That's $200 of revenue-- double the revenue from either extreme. The tax rate, in simple, macroeconomic terms, is no different-- what is the cost (tax rate) that maximizes revenue.

As regards your example for making a product, you are right, there is a maximum revenue to be made, the trick is to find where that maximum is (inflection point of model). But regarding goverment tax revenues versus the rate, please see Pose #601. This Laffer curve makes the same assumptions you do about your widgets 1) at 0% tax rate you will recieve 0% revenue and 2) at 100% tax rate, you will receive no revenue, therefore based on perfectly well known mathematical principals there must be a maximum and minimum within the boundaries you have assumed.

This works for product and production mostly as there are fewer variables. You have cost of production to include overhead, wages etc. and then you have what you must sell the item for to make a profit. 2 variables. That is all well and good and jives with reality for the most part.

The difference in the Laffer curve, as I understand it, applied to government tax revenue is that there are numerous sources of tax revenue all at different rates, and are not necessarily all derived from sources or equal value (investments, versus worker production, versus savings, etc). Therefore if you read Post #601, you will see the problems associtated with this model and why it is not a good model to base government level financial policies off of (particularly supply side economics). The article attached to Post #601 makes some excellent points though it is slanted against the conservative view. Nonetheless, the points made are well supported from what I can see. The republicans in this country have used this flawed model since as early as Regan's term to support his trickle down policy.

Based on Laffer's assumptions, there may not be only 1 max or min in the curve and it has been shown to not approach 0%revenue at 100% tax rate either in some cases as well. The model is significantly flawed on this level and should by no means be used to form government level financial decisions IMO, but I am not a financial guy and am looking at this purely from a modeling/mathematical aspect. TIFWIW.

 

[Cackalacky]

Just some friday morning humor. You can show this to your gals.

 

[Cackalacky]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tQohUKieSEE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm sorry, but this is comedic gold. I beg you all to watch. Flame out.......

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Wonder if it is too late to get Palin.

 

[phgreek]

Just some friday morning humor. You can show this to your gals.

holly sh!t you DO have a sense of humor...

I'll show that to my wife on Monday...ya know what I mean?

 

[Cackalacky]

holly sh!t you DO have a sense of humor...

I'll show that to my wife on Monday...ya know what I mean?

No, I'm not all business. There are reprecussions though .... #recklessnerd

 

[Cackalacky]

Wonder if it is too late to get Palin.

My budget plan, I mean Romney's budget plan can see the benefits in 2030, I mean I'm on the Romney plan.. Britt, can tell me my plan again....

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Yeah, I remember being married. Monday night was ususally sleep night.


EDIT: This was about ph's comment. NOT my Palin comment.

 

[gkIrish]

5 Ways the Internet Convinced Me Not to Vote | Cracked.com

I didn't read every word of the article but this pretty much sums up how I feel about discussing politics now

 

[DSully1995]

You should still vote no matter what, even just vote for an unknown 3rd party candidate, that way your voice is heard and when politicians make policy , they look at how the voters will react, more than how all citizens will react

 

[DSully1995]

Wonder if it is too late to get Palin.

You are joking right?

 

[phgreek]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tQohUKieSEE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm sorry, but this is comedic gold. I beg you all to watch. Flame out.......

...I revoke your "funny" badge. That wasn't funny it was however kinda awkward and uncomfortable...I would have thought these guys would avoid a Palin moment. Yes Mrs. Palin is smarter than the media made her out to be, by a long shot, but so was Dan Quayle.

Look its not fair, its not in the best interest of anyone to do what the media does to these folks, and to say what happened to Palin and Quayle was good journalism is insulting...HOWEVER, YOU KNOW ITS COMING...its like going into combat w/o body armor...are you kidding me?

How in the F%$^ can anyone be this unprepared...especially since this wasn't Chris Mathews asking you some left field touchy-feely, chill down the leg BS...this was substantive, should be in your wheelhouse, and the answer sucked ....total failure right out of the gate.

Won't matter though...economy still sucks, and even if the restooglicans can't figure out the right answer...perception is, it's different. This is Karma for Bill Clinton '92...change for change's sake. Tough pill.

No matter what the press does or doesn't do...no matter how staggering either party makes the debt and defecit spending...people don't conceive it...its too abstract. However, they care about the current economy, and their purse. No matter how the employment and economy numbers are parsed, twisted, obfuscated, manipulated....they suck. They Suck beyond Romney and Ryan's apparent inability to articulate their message. The rest is noise...Just MHO.