Jump to content
Jessi_G

Who should/will be the Republican presidential candidate?

Recommended Posts

1. No shes never been president but she does have experience. At the top is of course running her own state. If were talking period of time and things accomplished she had more experience then obama back in '08. Your argument is equivalent to the republicans saying Obama doesnt have the experience. In reality both candidates were new to the running for president but thats what people thought would make them perfect candidates, they would bring something new to the table.

 

2. Republicans and independents would vote for her. Absent the lack of a candidate the republicans are more unified now then they were back in '08. Independents might swing republican or "against obama" in '12 because of issues listed above. Honestly i dont think Palin would have to change too much up. If she were to stick to her principles shes been blastin for the last few years i think Obama is gunna be on the defensive most of the election.

 

3. Her life has been under a telescope for a long time. So far she has pulled through. Most "issues" have blown over. Plus this accusation is only speculative. I see palin as a candidate that people would vote for merely because they didnt want to vote for Obama at the least and at the most shes a conservative obama, promising change from the other side of the spectrum. I think these last couple years shes been catering to her base through irrelavent issues such as the birthers and the tea party movements to stay in the game. Closer to election time look for her to come out swingin.

 

You betcha'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is the commander in chief of the military... it's not like this raid was just pulled out of Petraeus's ass and put on Obama's desk.

Hyberbolic claims aren't warrants.

 

He was in consultation/planning with intelligence and special forces since august.

This lacks a reason that Obama will receive credit for the specific mission.

 

He also kept guantanamo open,

There's no explanation of how this helped us capture Bin Laden. The Obama campaign can't and won't use Guantanamo as a reason they should be supported because Obama's essentially flip flopped, it would damage his credibility among his base.

 

and probably made sure the relevant forces stayed in Afghanistan.

This is a claim without a warrant, and there's no reason that Obama's general oversight of US presence in Afghanistan will equate to heightened political support.

 

AND, he almost certainly made the decision about what to do with the bodies/pictures and determined the rules of engagement.

Decisions about what to do with Bin Laden after he was killed will not allow Obama to claim credit for Bin Laden's death.

 

Edit: Also, Obama had the decision ultimately about whether or not to use a predator/laser-guided bomb or special forces.

You didn't explain why this matters, and the average citizen doesn't know this which means it's irrelevant.

 

Osama's death will have little to no political significance for Obama because it will only have a minimal effect on the war in Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No shes never been president but she does have experience. At the top is of course running her own state. If were talking period of time and things accomplished she had more experience then obama back in '08. Your argument is equivalent to the republicans saying Obama doesnt have the experience. In reality both candidates were new to the running for president but thats what people thought would make them perfect candidates, they would bring something new to the table.

 

Palin is uniquely unqualified. While Barack Obama had a short career in the senate, he was fundamental to moving nuclear issues forward and demonstrated the sort of statesmen understanding required of even the most basic of presidential affairs.

 

Palin, on the other hand, has demonstrated she lacks the ability to pronounce nu - clear properly.

 

Besides marching her children around to get plastic surgery and using her retarded baby as trolloped whore, what recent Palin activity changes the perceptions the overwhelming majority of voters have of her?

2. Republicans and independents would vote for her. Absent the lack of a candidate the republicans are more unified now then they were back in '08. Independents might swing republican or "against obama" in '12 because of issues listed above. Honestly i dont think Palin would have to change too much up. If she were to stick to her principles shes been blastin for the last few years i think Obama is gunna be on the defensive most of the election.

 

Hmm. 58% of independents say they would NEVER vote for her. What stable polling are you using? She shares that number with trump. Bachmann clocks in @ 26%. I'll let you wrestle with the fact that only 15% of independents are 'enthusiastic' about voting for her.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/05/q-poll-is-sarah-palin-unelectable/

 

its quinnipiac, so enjoy.

 

3. Her life has been under a telescope for a long time. So far she has pulled through.

 

If by 'pulled through' you mean she quit her only position in governance, had a failed reality tv show, has tried to use social networking to build her base (but has failed), and has regular put her foot in her mouth.. hows that pussyfootin around taste now?

 

Most "issues" have blown over. Plus this accusation is only speculative.

 

Her ethical and legal violations in office stick with her. Just because she quit the governorship due to total inability to govern without threat of prison time doesn't mean those findings magically vanish when she attempts to run for office again.

 

If there's one thing the media loves to blow up, its petty vindictive use of police to get back at your ex in laws.

I see palin as a candidate that people would vote for merely because they didnt want to vote for Obama

Max 15%, as shown above.

at the least and at the most shes a conservative obama, promising change from the other side of the spectrum. I think these last couple years shes been catering to her base through irrelavent issues such as the birthers and the tea party movements to stay in the game. Closer to election time look for her to come out swingin.

with what? another baby? sorry, the cute retard thing only works once. then it gets big and just drools.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palin is uniquely unqualified. While Barack Obama had a short career in the senate, he was fundamental to moving nuclear issues forward and demonstrated the sort of statesmen understanding required of even the most basic of presidential affairs.

I'm not defending Palin's qualifications, but I'm curious: what issues was Obama fundamental to pushing, and in what ways did he demonstrate statesmanlike understanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palin is uniquely unqualified. While Barack Obama had a short career in the senate, he was fundamental to moving nuclear issues forward and demonstrated the sort of statesmen understanding required of even the most basic of presidential affairs.

 

Palin, on the other hand, has demonstrated she lacks the ability to pronounce nu - clear properly.

Glad to see your priorities are in order. And i could say Obama doesnt know how to speak well without a teleprompter. This gets us nowhere.

 

Besides marching her children around to get plastic surgery and using her retarded baby as trolloped whore, what recent Palin activity changes the perceptions the overwhelming majority of voters have of her?

I fail to see how this effects voters significantly or any more than "obama is a socialist" speak

 

Hmm. 58% of independents say they would NEVER vote for her. What stable polling are you using? She shares that number with trump. Bachmann clocks in @ 26%. I'll let you wrestle with the fact that only 15% of independents are 'enthusiastic' about voting for her.

You have beautifully misrepresented the article. The article states 1) the pole gives us no clue as to how many "TRUE" independents are in that group. 2) The statistics are from May 5 in a time that doesnt assume Palin's candidacy. 3) Highlights Palins strengths for the party in beefing up their base. This means Palin declares officially her running for office, and the game changes along with your statistics

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/05/q-poll-is-sarah-palin-unelectable/

 

its quinnipiac, so enjoy.

 

 

 

If by 'pulled through' you mean she quit her only position in governance, had a failed reality tv show, has tried to use social networking to build her base (but has failed), and has regular put her foot in her mouth.. hows that pussyfootin around taste now?

First off i think your starting to sound less like an analyst and more like an obama fanatic so try to keep some dignity with your posts. Not everyones gunna agree with you. Second, your conflating little things shes done as if these things would win or lose the election. If anything she has less heat on her now then she did and she has focused on her base these last few months specifically the tea party movements. By "pull through" i mean she didnt have to resign her post because of legal issues and your allegations are nothing but allegations. As for the foot in the mouth lets just remember that beautiful speakers dont obviously make the best presidents as our current situation shows us :)

 

 

Her ethical and legal violations in office stick with her. Just because she quit the governorship due to total inability to govern without threat of prison time doesn't mean those findings magically vanish when she attempts to run for office again.

 

 

If there's one thing the media loves to blow up, its petty vindictive use of police to get back at your ex in laws.

 

Max 15%, as shown above.

If you have done any research on these "allegations" you would know only 2 recent ones are pending and the others have been dismissed for everything from shady "witnesses/complaintents" to lack of merit. http://www.adn.com/2009/06/21/838912/ethics-complaints-filed-against.html. Im sorry but these things your mentioning are miniscule and have zero relevance to what is going on now, hence "blown over"

 

with what? another baby? sorry, the cute retard thing only works once. then it gets big and just drools.

Perhaps she already had another retard baby...? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://lugar.senate.gov/nunnlugar/

 

December 11, 2006

WASHINGTON - Legislation authored by U.S. Senators Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) that will help keep weapons like shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles out of terrorists' hands has passed Congress and will soon be signed into law by the President. Lugar and Obama authored the legislation (S. 2566) and included provisions of the bill as part of H.R. 6060, which was approved by the Congress early Saturday morning.

The Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.

"The United States should do more to eliminate conventional weapons stockpiles and assist other nations in detecting and interdicting weapons of mass destruction. We believe that these functions are underfunded, fragmented and in need of high-level support," said Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"The Lugar-Obama initiative will help other nations find and eliminate the type of conventional weapons that have been used against our own soldiers in Iraq and sought by terrorists all over the world," said Obama. "The Nunn-Lugar program has effectively disposed of thousands of weapons of mass destruction, but we must do far more to keep deadly conventional weapons like anti-aircraft missiles out of the hands of terrorists."

"We are particularly concerned that our government has the capacity to deal quickly with vulnerable stockpiles of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, otherwise known as Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS). Such weapons could be used by terrorists to attack commercial airliners, military installations and government facilities here at home and abroad. Al Qaeda reportedly has attempted to acquire MANPADS on a number of occasions," said Lugar.

The Lugar-Obama effort would energize the U.S. program against unsecured, lightweight anti-aircraft missiles and other conventional weapons. There may be as many as 750,000 man-portable air defense systems in arsenals worldwide, and the State Department estimates that more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s. In addition, loose stocks of small arms and other weapons help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and provide the means for attacks on peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to stabilize war-torn societies. In Iraq, unsecured stockpiles of artillery shells and ammunition have been reconfigured into improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that have become an effective weapon for insurgents.

"Lugar-Obama would also strengthen the ability of America's allies to detect and interdict illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction, a critical step in securing these weapons before they ever fall into the hands of terrorists that has not been a focus of current anti-terrorism efforts," Obama said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, there was an election in between there where independents got duped into voting for the most extreme congress evar.

 

i don't think people are going to be rushing to the right, again. if anything, the pendulum is already swinging back to the centre.

 

 

What has happened besides paul ryan's budget plan to swing the pendulum back to the center? People are still really upset about Obamacare, gas prices, and the budget deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has happened besides paul ryan's budget plan to swing the pendulum back to the center? People are still really upset about Obamacare, gas prices, and the budget deficit.

 

without saying the words tax cuts, please identify a single republican measure that passed the house that was a jobs bill?

 

The house has introduced 4 anti abortion bills this session.

 

The other big thing was republican governors in michigan, wisconsin, ohio, florida and new jersey awoke the great middle class. they love economic populism. republicans ran on it 2010 and failed to deliver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

without saying the words tax cuts, please identify a single republican measure that passed the house that was a jobs bill?

 

Tax cuts. You cant exclude the republican measure that they argue is supposed to increase jobs lol. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/05/03/senate-gop-unveils-jobs-plan-tax-cuts

This link could be helpful for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax cuts. You cant exclude the republican measure that they argue is supposed to increase jobs lol. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/05/03/senate-gop-unveils-jobs-plan-tax-cuts

This link could be helpful for the future.

and this is why republicans can't win even the most conservative district in ny. ryan fucked em. they come sputtering back with "tax cuts" and everyone shouts them down. tax cuts are going to hurt republicans worse than health care could hurt democrats because they finally made it absolutely clear that the rich come first and the peons second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Obama's election to lose. Already, he's at borderline win numbers in the polls...he just has to do some ground work and GOTV and he has a win. Something would have to change that equation for him to lose, and nothing I've seen here looks to be doing it. Economic numbers are only going to get better, not worse, and they'd have to get significantly worse to hurt him. I don't think the 08 claims are going to stick...no undecided really believes he's a Muslim born in Kenya.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and this is why republicans can't win even the most conservative district in ny. ryan fucked em. they come sputtering back with "tax cuts" and everyone shouts them down. tax cuts are going to hurt republicans worse than health care could hurt democrats because they finally made it absolutely clear that the rich come first and the peons second.

 

1) if it was a truly conservative district then they would be in favor of tax cuts.

2) Im not sure why so many people find it unbearable that people that own companies and HIRE employees get tax breaks... From what im reading you hear the word tax cuts and forget why republicans support tax cuts. you hear "lets give more money to the bill gates and fuck everyone else" when thats not being said at all i think its only getting spun that way. I would contend that much of the savings from the Bush tax cuts is not being re-invested into the economy because most big businesses are unsure if their taxes are going to go up or down in the near future. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/02/remember-when-people-laughed-at-trickle-down-economics/

3) And i fail to see how tax cuts to corporations can compare to increasing costs to the average joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic numbers are only going to get better, not worse, and they'd have to get significantly worse to hurt him.

I dont think your assuming the new budget cuts that are on the table or the tax issue that could severely hurt or help obama depending on which way it goes. I think their are a few things that could effect those numbers quite significantly and if the numbers are only slowly rising then i still think he could be in trouble considering the american public seems to be on a "i want change now" trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) if it was a truly conservative district then they would be in favor of tax cuts.

2) Im not sure why so many people find it unbearable that people that own companies and HIRE employees get tax breaks... From what im reading you hear the word tax cuts and forget why republicans support tax cuts. you hear "lets give more money to the bill gates and fuck everyone else" when thats not being said at all i think its only getting spun that way. I would contend that much of the savings from the Bush tax cuts is not being re-invested into the economy because most big businesses are unsure if their taxes are going to go up or down in the near future. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/02/remember-when-people-laughed-at-trickle-down-economics/

3) And i fail to see how tax cuts to corporations can compare to increasing costs to the average joe.

1. They've voted republican since pre-wwii. the fact that the dem challenger even has a shot should be a wakeup call.

2. in case you haven't heard, republican constituent meet and greets have been going horribly. old people are pissed about medicare. people are screaming to tax the rich. whether or you and your reaganite friends think the laffer curve still applies isn't the issue. We live in a post-Scott Walker world, you just can't introduce a budget like Ryan's and expect people not to get severely pissed. The populist economic viewpoint is screaming for someone to stand up and say tax the rich!

3. the narrative is pretty clear. the republicans are to busy dreaming up social engineering wishlists to actually do something about the jobs situation. hr-3, anyone? People are beginning to realize only a child needs to request to have an adult conversation.s

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. They've voted republican since pre-wwii. the fact that the dem challenger even has a shot should be a wakeup call.

Doesnt mean their conservatives it means their moving center right.

2. in case you haven't heard, republican constituent meet and greets have been going horribly. old people are pissed about medicare. people are screaming to tax the rich. whether or you and your reaganite friends think the laffer curve still applies isn't the issue. We live in a post-Scott Walker world, you just can't introduce a budget like Ryan's and expect people not to get severely pissed. The populist economic viewpoint is screaming for someone to stand up and say tax the rich!

Chill, sounds like you need a lil less Obamanaut coolaid. Also it doesnt sound to me like your making an argument, just bitching. You act like Ryans budget is the be all end all when maybe you should look at Obamas budget before you start hammering ryans lol. Even dem's are pissed over Obamas budget proposal and old people are more pissed to know he does nothing with medicare or medicaid. The laffer curve will always apply, it might be a theory but its also a fact. How you can pretend that higher taxes give incentives for economic growth is beyond me. Sounds like your a disgruntled mcdonalds employee thats never owned your own business. Your immediacy claims are fundamentally bankrupt, tax the rich and you stall economic growth and possibly hurt it. Economics 101: cut costs, increase revenue.

3. the narrative is pretty clear. the republicans are to busy dreaming up social engineering wishlists to actually do something about the jobs situation. hr-3, anyone? People are beginning to realize only a child needs to request to have an adult conversation.s

Only children form sentences like you just did. The narrative for republicans, minus the tax issue, is more in tune with the american public so maybe theres a problem with the obama narrative? Ill concede that many if not a large majority of people want higher taxes for the rich, that doesnt mean theyre right. This reasoning from the american public is what has gotten us in this mess to begin with. We always want someone else to pay for our mess. The rich pay 30% of their annual income in taxes already to pay for more government programs that give out metaphorical bandaids rather than long term job finding/sustaining solutions. The lower middle classes are actually getting richer with more spending power then they did almost 30 years ago. from '03 to '05 the number of people claiming over $1 mil in annual income doubled and the taxes paid rose by 80%. Thats not me sayin, thats the IRS. The problem isnt with taxes its with spending.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only children form sentences like you just did. The narrative for republicans, minus the tax issue, is more in tune with the american public so maybe theres a problem with the obama narrative? Ill concede that many if not a large majority of people want higher taxes for the rich, that doesnt mean theyre right. This reasoning from the american public is what has gotten us in this mess to begin with. We always want someone else to pay for our mess. The rich pay 30% of their annual income in taxes already to pay for more government programs that give out metaphorical bandaids rather than long term job finding/sustaining solutions. The lower middle classes are actually getting richer with more spending power then they did almost 30 years ago. from '03 to '05 the number of people claiming over $1 mil in annual income doubled and the taxes paid rose by 80%. Thats not me sayin, thats the IRS. The problem isnt with taxes its with spending.

 

I'd like to point out that the reduced spending power of the middle class 30 years ago was largely due to Reagan's application of supply-side economics, a.k.a. tax cuts for the rich, combined with a cutting of social programs. Although a lot of people won't consider this because Reagan is way too glorified by conservatives, probably because he served big business and the upper classes. And this idea of the rich being able to give back is largely flawed these days. As corporations globalize, they outsource their jobs to places where people will work for less. Tax breaks for the rich doesn't cause any "trickling down" of wealth or even lead to more jobs, it just makes the life of the rich man easier while companies have work done in other countries.

 

I will say that I'm not defending current social programs, I definitely think there should be more checks in the processes of the assorted programs and have them geared more toward having people work to contribute to society.

 

Also, your statistic about more people claiming over $1 million in annual income doesn't support your cause at all, it just represents the dissolving of the middle class as the upper middle class becomes plain ol' upper class. Good job at giving an example against your arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to point out that the reduced spending power of the middle class 30 years ago was largely due to Reagan's application of supply-side economics, a.k.a. tax cuts for the rich, combined with a cutting of social programs. Although a lot of people won't consider this because Reagan is way too glorified by conservatives, probably because he served big business and the upper classes. And this idea of the rich being able to give back is largely flawed these days. As corporations globalize, they outsource their jobs to places where people will work for less. Tax breaks for the rich doesn't cause any "trickling down" of wealth or even lead to more jobs, it just makes the life of the rich man easier while companies have work done in other countries.

if were arguing globalization now the #2 reason why corporations outsource next to lower wages is lower taxes... if anything higher taxes means more outsourcing along with unrepatriated earnings.

 

I will say that I'm not defending current social programs, I definitely think there should be more checks in the processes of the assorted programs and have them geared more toward having people work to contribute to society.

 

Also, your statistic about more people claiming over $1 million in annual income doesn't support your cause at all, it just represents the dissolving of the middle class as the upper middle class becomes plain ol' upper class. Good job at giving an example against your arguement.

That sounds ridiculous and you obviously didnt read what i posted. What it represents is more people making money, a larger number of people entering into the 1-5% that pay the majority of the taxes. The increase in income rose for the majority of the lower and middle classes as well. It wasnt the middle becoming plain ol'upper class it was a redefinition of what constitutes middle class as well as lower and upper class because the average income for each class increased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if were arguing globalization now the #2 reason why corporations outsource next to lower wages is lower taxes... if anything higher taxes means more outsourcing along with unrepatriated earnings.

 

Income tax for rich ≠ corporate tax... while we may be talking globalization, that doesn't really have import on the discussion at hand. "Higher taxes" for the rich wouldn't affect outsourcing, unless you're arguing that rich people would actually move away. They may be OK with call centers in Mumbai or sweat shops in Thailand, I highly doubt they're aiming to live in either.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What people, especially Republicans, always forget about Reagan is how many tax increases passed under his administration. Funny. See, there was this joke. A massive tax cut to give us our America back. Funny how sharply income inequality grew as a result. Also funny was the massive increase in government spending that occurred under the Reagan administration. Similarly hilarious was the tax increases that came along with those expenditures and put average tax revenue about .1% higher under Reagan than under the prior 40 year average. What's funny is that under the "unsustainably" high tax rates of the Clinton era the economy prospered like never before. I'm amused by the thought that we once had a rational tax policy that allowed us to have a robust, solvent economy and a balanced budget. The best joke of all, though, is the massive tax cuts, some of the biggest in history, that came out of the Bush years. It had a great punch line. Something like massive economic contraction, more government spending than ever before, and the creation of income inequality almost as bad as that in Argentina.

 

But you're right. It's a spending problem.

 

It's not a spending problem, and it's not a taxing problem. It's a fiscal problem. It seems anyone who isn't a partisan hack would understand the need for both tax increases on the wealthiest portions of the population, and a decrease in long-term expenditures. One side is pushing that. The other is cutting taxes and social programs indiscriminately (while maintaining absurd defense budgets, mind you). You still feel like attaching ridiculous superlatives to the Ryan budget? Serious? Courageous? Wonky?

 

"There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I don’t think there’s anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill."--Paul Krugman

 

You trollin'.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Income tax for rich ≠ corporate tax... while we may be talking globalization, that doesn't really have import on the discussion at hand. "Higher taxes" for the rich wouldn't affect outsourcing, unless you're arguing that rich people would actually move away. They may be OK with call centers in Mumbai or sweat shops in Thailand, I highly doubt they're aiming to live in either.

 

Um... Obama's pushing for less tax breaks ie. increasing corporate tax. Regardless, the fog that looms over the nations tax codes whether income or corporate stalls investment because the rich are afraid to invest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um... Obama's pushing for less tax breaks ie. increasing corporate tax. Regardless, the fog that looms over the nations tax codes whether income or corporate stalls investment because the rich are afraid to invest.

wtf are you talking about

 

tax codes have little to do with invest. the cap gains isn't going anywhere. and why would the rich not invest? so they can earn 1.07% in a savings account or 20-30% in a goddamn index fund?

 

you are making no sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What people, especially Republicans, always forget about Reagan is how many tax increases passed under his administration. Funny. See, there was this joke. A massive tax cut to give us our America back. Funny how sharply income inequality grew as a result. Also funny was the massive increase in government spending that occurred under the Reagan administration. Similarly hilarious was the tax increases that came along with those expenditures and put average tax revenue about .1% higher under Reagan than under the prior 40 year average. What's funny is that under the "unsustainably" high tax rates of the Clinton era the economy prospered like never before. I'm amused by the thought that we once had a rational tax policy that allowed us to have a robust, solvent economy and a balanced budget. The best joke of all, though, is the massive tax cuts, some of the biggest in history, that came out of the Bush years. It had a great punch line. Something like massive economic contraction, more government spending than ever before, and the creation of income inequality almost as bad as that in Argentina.

 

I think you have your facts wrong. The Reagan tax breaks increased taxable income through investment opportunities and production which is why more taxes were paid out. Also that tax burden fell mainly on the top 1% of the US which the IRS states grew 51%. The JEC report indicates that lower taxes made tax avoidance less necessary which meant that people could actually afford to pay what they needed to, again, increasing revenue for the government. In fact, that same JEC report quotes IRS stats during the Clinton era as having increased the tax burden and actually failed to collect over 40% of its projected revenue. In fact, both the OMB and the CBO claim that the clinton tax hikes did little to nothing for the budget either. The only good thing about the Clinton era was fiscal restrain. Huh, we have fiscal restrain good and tax cuts good.... In fact, most of your arguments are ridiculous. You equate lower taxes leading to more government spending which doesnt assume the current political climate of fiscal restraint. You equate lower taxes leading to economic contraction and yet i think we all know that it was the housing market coupled with increase in gov't spending. And lets be honest now dude, economic inequality is inevitable as long as there is employees and employers. Inequality statistics are born from tax collection reports and so an increase in taxes paid means "of course" the rich got richer!!! Or maybe its because our tax code has jumped around for almost 20 years. look, I could really care less if my boss is makin a billion a year as long as my raises keep comin and im still employed. Not a single republican is pushing for higher taxes on the middle and lower class (unless theres some crazy one im not familiar with). Largely, though not completely, i believe the concept of inequality is a liberalist invention. Capitalism was never built to contain equality but only the possibility for advancement.

 

But you're right. It's a spending problem.

 

It's not a spending problem, and it's not a taxing problem. It's a fiscal problem. It seems anyone who isn't a partisan hack would understand the need for both tax increases on the wealthiest portions of the population, and a decrease in long-term expenditures. One side is pushing that. The other is cutting taxes and social programs indiscriminately (while maintaining absurd defense budgets, mind you). You still feel like attaching ridiculous superlatives to the Ryan budget? Serious? Courageous? Wonky?

Answered above. Government agencies happen to disagree with you on this one. Tax decreases with decreasing long-term expenditures has empirically aided in economic recovery and your right there is only one side pushing that.

 

"There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I don’t think there’s anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill."--Paul Krugman

Does Krugman really think millionaires and billionaires just sit on their money? maybe now they do because they have no incentive to invest with prospected tax hikes in the near future. Just my two cents.

 

You trollin'. jellin' not trollin'.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wtf are you talking about

 

tax codes have little to do with invest. the cap gains isn't going anywhere. and why would the rich not invest? so they can earn 1.07% in a savings account or 20-30% in a goddamn index fund?

 

you are making no sense

 

did you read anything i wrote? How does the tax code not affect investment? lol. As for the cap gains tax.... exactly, we will still have the 2nd largest cap gains tax in the world. As for your percentages, your assuming a static economy when its pretty safe to say were about to change pretty significantly in a few years. Why would people invest in an uncertain economy and why would they invest more with the possibility of tax hikes?! its not rocket science dude. Savings account is guaranteed where investment is risky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have your facts wrong. The Reagan tax breaks increased taxable income through investment opportunities and production which is why more taxes were paid out. Also that tax burden fell mainly on the top 1% of the US which the IRS states grew 51%.

 

Wait, what? You're just wrong. Reagan raised taxes 11 times as president. They went up in 7 of the 8 years he was in office. To suggest that that didn't happen and we only increased revenue because there was incentive is, uh, stupid. If you're going to really suggest that I'm factually wrong in suggesting that Reagan increased taxes, then lol. And if taxable income goes up because people invested more, then that's hardly a "burden". It's the cost of doing business. The fact that the top 1% grew by 51% is 1)un-persuasive because it just suggests that the population of super-rich jumped from 3 million to 4.5 million and 2) dumb. I don't think that's how numbers work. 1% does not become 1.5%. It does nothing to demonstrate that there's not still income inequality, nor does it do much for the argument that income inequality is good, since, by every empirical measure, it's not. Even if it's inevitable, it should be minimized.

 

The JEC report indicates that lower taxes made tax avoidance less necessary which meant that people could actually afford to pay what they needed to, again, increasing revenue for the government. In fact, that same JEC report quotes IRS stats during the Clinton era as having increased the tax burden and actually failed to collect over 40% of its projected revenue. In fact, both the OMB and the CBO claim that the clinton tax hikes did little to nothing for the budget either.

 

Links?

 

You keep saying "tax cuts good" though I don't think that's been demonstrated. All of your arguments about why tax cuts actually increase revenue because people start paying their taxes (which just doesn't make a whole lot of sense), fall apart in the context of the Bush cuts. Revenues certainly didn't increase. Taxes are at their lowest level ever? Where's the prosperity? Even if tax cuts are good sometimes, it's a question of uniqueness. If you're right and Reagan cuts stimulated the economy, then it's likely because the Carter economy was pretty bad. The Clinton economy was decidedly un-bad. That seems to suggest that there was no propensity for stimulus.

 

You equate lower taxes leading to more government spending which doesnt assume the current political climate of fiscal restraint. You equate lower taxes leading to economic contraction and yet i think we all know that it was the housing market coupled with increase in gov't spending. And lets be honest now dude, economic inequality is inevitable as long as there is employees and employers.

 

While you're probably right that there's not a significant correlation between tax cuts and increased government expenditure, it is an important part of the political narrative. I wouldn't suggest that tax cuts and spending increases are intrinsically connected, but I would suggest that Republicans like to cut taxes because it's politically convenient, but that they also like to spend ridiculous amounts of money on things/populations that they like because 1) it's politically convenient 2) they are stupid and 3) they are dicks.

 

Also, the argument isn't so much that lower taxes cause economic contraction so much as they don't do a damn thing to prevent or remedy economic contraction, but whatever. If tax cuts were really that stimulating, "Where's the jobs?"

 

Not a single republican is pushing for higher taxes on the middle and lower class (unless theres some crazy one im not familiar with). Largely, though not completely, i believe the concept of inequality is a liberalist invention. Capitalism was never built to contain equality but only the possibility for advancement.

 

This one's about politics. If the right gets to call cap-and-trade a tax on consumers, then clearly cuts to social programs and medicare are a tax on the people that need them. Not that I'm making this argument, just that Republicans should be more careful about rhetoric. The real argument, though, is that when we don't have stable revenue streams and a robust social safety net, it's not the rich that are hurt by recession or hardship. It's the lower and middle class. But fuck them, right?

 

Does Krugman really think millionaires and billionaires just sit on their money?

 

Apparently. They sure as hell haven't been using it to create jobs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...