Politics

[RDU Irish]

I really think we're getting to complicated here:

if you like raising taxes to generate more income to pay off the debt and are willing to risk economic collapse by overtaxation, as well as the danger that we can't raise taxes indefinitely as entitlement spending balloons, vote for the President.

if you like slashing entitlement spending to pay off the debt and are willing to risk economic collapse by removing a huge chunk of cash from the healthcare market, as well as the moral thicket of taking away basic services from the poor, vote for Romney.

alternatively, you can vote for someone who has good ideas and is fairly civil and polite, but has no chance of winning.

Rand Paul - 2016

Go straight Libertarian ticket Rand, don't screw around in the Republican primaries. He can raise enough money to make a viable third party run. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992. Now we are in a much bigger mess, R and D candidates keep getting worse and the Americans are more dissatisfied than ever with government. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative is where (IMO) a vast majority of Americans are. Rand can appeal to a much broader base than his father while still riding the coat tails of his father's rabid supporters. He can place his dad in charge of Fed.

Let the assassination of my character/intelligence begin......

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...the Bush tax cuts single handedly removed trillons of dollars of projected income...

Your wife leaving you with credit card debt isn't really an excuse to continue to spend more than your income.

It's not like the debt numbers magically change if you can blame your lack of income on your predecessor.

 

[JughedJones]

Your wife leaving you with credit card debt isn't really an excuse to continue to spend more than your income.

It's not like the debt numbers magically change if you can blame your lack of income on your predecessor.

But you can't argue that those tax-cuts, plus medicare part D, and the two wars, were conservative.

You can't throw all that on the books, not pay for them, and call yourself a fiscal conservative. That's just crazy.

 

[woolybug25]

Rand Paul - 2016

Go straight Libertarian ticket Rand, don't screw around in the Republican primaries. He can raise enough money to make a viable third party run. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992. Now we are in a much bigger mess, R and D candidates keep getting worse and the Americans are more dissatisfied than ever with government. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative is where (IMO) a vast majority of Americans are. Rand can appeal to a much broader base than his father while still riding the coat tails of his father's rabid supporters. He can place his dad in charge of Fed.

Let the assassination of my character/intelligence begin......

I totally agree with you on this point.

I'm sure someone will still assassinate your character though. lol

 

[Cackalacky]

Your wife leaving you with credit card debt isn't really an excuse to continue to spend more than your income.

It's not like the debt numbers magically change if you can blame your lack of income on your predecessor.

Did I say it was? No. You are missing the point and obviously did not read the rest of my post. Look at that chart and the projected deficit from his tax cut plan. We now have to deal with that well into 2020 unless we change something. Please read my post in its entirety and not take me out of context ( including the article). Hell people are still blaming Jimmy Carter. What happens in the past matters......

 

[gkIrish]

Rand Paul - 2016

Go straight Libertarian ticket Rand, don't screw around in the Republican primaries. He can raise enough money to make a viable third party run. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992. Now we are in a much bigger mess, R and D candidates keep getting worse and the Americans are more dissatisfied than ever with government. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative is where (IMO) a vast majority of Americans are. Rand can appeal to a much broader base than his father while still riding the coat tails of his father's rabid supporters. He can place his dad in charge of Fed.

Let the assassination of my character/intelligence begin......

Reps. Rand is the man. Not as good as his Dad but clearly a giant step in the right direction.

 

[JughedJones]

Reps. Rand is the man. Not as good as his Dad but clearly a giant step in the right direction.

Rand is the man?


Ayn Rand you mean?

Give me a ****ing break. At least these libertarians are coming out with it.

We live in a society, not on an island.

 

[JughedJones]

People now think, they can call themselves fiscally conservative and libertarian.


You can't.

That's why Obama will win. People aren't that dumb.

 

[gkIrish]

Rand is the man?


Ayn Rand you mean?

Give me a ****ing break. At least these libertarians are coming out with it.

We live in a society, not on an island.

Rand Paul? A male?

I'm not a Libertarian but refuse to associate with either the Republican or Democratic parties

 

[woolybug25]

Rand is the man?


Ayn Rand you mean?

Give me a ****ing break. At least these libertarians are coming out with it.

We live in a society, not on an island.

I am not a fan of her. Objectivism is good in theory, but not in practice. People have also used objectivism more as an excuse to be immoral and give reasoning to the fact they want to only act in their own self interest. In Rand's hypothetical world, people would only care about themselves. There would be no charity, there would be no good will towards others. It is the anti-community thesis that was an excuse for 50's-60's neo-cons to justify their selfish beliefs.

As the basis of a society or economic system it would be profoundly impractical and even cruel.

 

[RDU Irish]

How exactly do you account for tax cuts "costing" anything? Are you saying all income belongs to government and they allow you to keep some? A tax cut is not an expense and there is a point (unknown but theoretically and practically sound) at which lower taxes decrease revenue but also a point at which higher taxes decrease revenue. Did revenues increase or decrease under Bush? Be honest now.

Laffer Curve anyone? Start at the extremes - 99% tax rate and no-one in their right mind works to keep 1%. 1% tax rate and there is full incentive to work but doubling the rate would decrease productivity by 50% since it is still marginally low. Where we stand within this curve is up for debate, but I can tell you I work with plenty of people that choose to work less based on marginal tax rates and lost deductions, unemployment compensation and taxation of social security thresholds. They
also make investment decisions based on taxes more so than returns (guess which one is guaranteed to lose you money).


Now look at the 1.5 trillion dollars held overseas by US companies. UNPATRIOTIC! you say? What would you do? Move $1 billion home and you have $650 million to invest. Keep it in Malaysia or whereever and you can invest the full $1 billion. You need to make 54% on your money before you even break even on what you could invest overseas! Now consider the $900B stimulus versus even a temporary repatriation of profits holiday to say 5%. Government collects $75 billion of tax revenue and business brings home $1.4 trillion, with which they pay dividends, bonus executives, buy back stock, build factories, expand their business.... or whatever the hell they choose to do with it. In summary, Bush was stupid not to pound this home as quick, easy and more stimulative market based solution. 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?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

But you can't argue that those tax-cuts, plus medicare part D, and the two wars, were conservative.

You can't throw all that on the books, not pay for them, and call yourself a fiscal conservative. That's just crazy.

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.

 

[JughedJones]

How exactly do you account for tax cuts "costing" anything? Are you saying all income belongs to government and they allow you to keep some? A tax cut is not an expense and there is a point (unknown but theoretically and practically sound) at which lower taxes decrease revenue but also a point at which higher taxes decrease revenue. Did revenues increase or decrease under Bush? Be honest now.

Laffer Curve anyone? Start at the extremes - 99% tax rate and no-one in their right mind works to keep 1%. 1% tax rate and there is full incentive to work but doubling the rate would decrease productivity by 50% since it is still marginally low. Where we stand within this curve is up for debate, but I can tell you I work with plenty of people that choose to work less based on marginal tax rates and lost deductions, unemployment compensation and taxation of social security thresholds. They
also make investment decisions based on taxes more so than returns (guess which one is guaranteed to lose you money).


Now look at the 1.5 trillion dollars held overseas by US companies. UNPATRIOTIC! you say? What would you do? Move $1 billion home and you have $650 million to invest. Keep it in Malaysia or whereever and you can invest the full $1 billion. You need to make 54% on your money before you even break even on what you could invest overseas! Now consider the $900B stimulus versus even a temporary repatriation of profits holiday to say 5%. Government collects $75 billion of tax revenue and business brings home $1.4 trillion, with which they pay dividends, bonus executives, buy back stock, build factories, expand their business.... or whatever the hell they choose to do with it. In summary, Bush was stupid not to pound this home as quick, easy and more stimulative market based solution. 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?

Alright wall of text.

All I saw was you not understanding how a tax cut lessens revenue.

Two Wars. Medicare Part D. Tax Cuts. De-regulation.


Equal.... Wait for it...... CRASH!

 

[JughedJones]

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.

That's not true.

Clinton left W with a surplus.

What did W choose to do? Cut revenue and increase spending.

 

[woolybug25]

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

YUCK

Alright wall of text.

All I saw was you not understanding how a tax cut lessens revenue.

Two Wars. Medicare Part D. Tax Cuts. De-regulation.


Equal.... Wait for it...... CRASH!

reps on all points

 

[Irish Houstonian]

That's not true.

Clinton left W with a surplus.

What did W choose to do? Cut revenue and increase spending.

Clinton spent more than GHW Bush.

 

[Cackalacky]

Alright wall of text.

All I saw was you not understanding how a tax cut lessens revenue.

Two Wars. Medicare Part D. Tax Cuts. De-regulation.


Equal.... Wait for it...... CRASH!

Exactly. Did anyone even look at the chart I posted.....?

 

[JughedJones]

Clinton spent more than GHW Bush.

Of course he did.

He had two terms and you need to adjust for inflation.

Please stop being silly.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Of course he did.

He had two terms and you need to adjust for inflation.

Please stop being silly.

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

 

[RDU Irish]

People now think, they can call themselves fiscally conservative and libertarian.


You can't.

That's why Obama will win. People aren't that dumb.

Liberatarianism in its extreme is dangerous, but is the same not true of Republicans and Democrats? However it would be nice to at least move in that direction for a few years to undo the damage to personal liberty that has taken place over the last century. Fewer laws better enforced and quickly prosecuted would go a long way. As it stands, you need to be rich to defend yourself from anything, thus whatever the government says, goes for 80% of the population. The current duopoly of power has one hand washing the other, Republicans don't undo anything Democrats put in place and Democrats don't have to undo anything republicans put in place because it is never made permanent. They both just add on, never subtracting.

So you are saying Ayn Rand's work has zero value? I don't understand how someone cannot take away anything of value from Atlas Shrugged. There is a lot of truth hiding in there. Government picking winners and losers, is a big time loser. Punishing success and rewarding failure will only bring you failure. Capitalism has done more to fight poverty and advance humanity than any amount of charity ever could. Worthless?

 

[JughedJones]

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

Well then bring your facts hotshot.

Don't just sit there and 'demagogue' as the conservatives like to say.

 

[RDU Irish]

Alright wall of text.

All I saw was you not understanding how a tax cut lessens revenue.

Two Wars. Medicare Part D. Tax Cuts. De-regulation.


Equal.... Wait for it...... CRASH!

I get it, you don't read more than twenty word posts. So I'll break up what I have already said.

 

[RDU Irish]

You are right, Bush spent too much, but he isn't running for office.

 

[JughedJones]

Liberatarianism in its extreme is dangerous, but is the same not true of Republicans and Democrats? However it would be nice to at least move in that direction for a few years to undo the damage to personal liberty that has taken place over the last century. Fewer laws better enforced and quickly prosecuted would go a long way. As it stands, you need to be rich to defend yourself from anything, thus whatever the government says, goes for 80% of the population. The current duopoly of power has one hand washing the other, Republicans don't undo anything Democrats put in place and Democrats don't have to undo anything republicans put in place because it is never made permanent. They both just add on, never subtracting.

So you are saying Ayn Rand's work has zero value? I don't understand how someone cannot take away anything of value from Atlas Shrugged. There is a lot of truth hiding in there. Government picking winners and losers, is a big time loser. Punishing success and rewarding failure will only bring you failure. Capitalism has done more to fight poverty and advance humanity than any amount of charity ever could. Worthless?

Three or four lines will do.

Yes, I am saying Ayn Rand has zero value, except for what we shouldn't do.

We live in a society. The idea of individualism is indeed dangerous, and I will fight it till the end.

 

[woolybug25]

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

I'm not sure if its not the other way around. Even if you disagree, it's pretty apparent that you have only skimmed the other posts at most. I am always in the boat that if you want your opinion respected, the first step is to respect others.


Not trying to be a jerk, just pointing it out. You know I got nothing but love for ya.

 

[RDU Irish]

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

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

 

[JughedJones]

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

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

not asking for short words.

What the hell are you trying to say though?

 

[RDU Irish]

Taxes = revenue not spending - Accounting 101

 

[JughedJones]

Taxes = revenue not spending - Accounting 101

Well, we seem to be agreeing on this so far.

 

[JughedJones]

There's a terrible idea out there that we have to be diametrically opposed to each other to make a point.

I don't buy it.

I think liberals and conservatives can come together on very fundamental ideas. Sucks that's not the way things work anymore.