Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 10, 2016, 04:17:34 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92650 Posts in 2300 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 151
1  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: Today at 02:39:43 PM
Thank You CCP, I had not heard that yet, only the results.  He's right.  Had he won in New Hampshire, or this, his strategy would be the same.  He needs to raise his game and sharpen his message from now until the last day of his second term.  )

If he is so good at memorizing, he should have 10 or 12 ways ready of saying that the left is doing this to us intentionally.  Stop them.
2  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: February 09, 2016, 09:22:21 AM
I enjoyed hearing Mark Levin rip Chris Christie last night.  Second highest taxed state in the nation and he supported Sonia Sotomayor.  '"I support her appointment to the Supreme Court and urge the Senate to keep politics out of the process and confirm her nomination."

He changed positions on a lot of issues.  Levin had no shortage of material to work with . And they put together a montage of his repetitions.  

But senators just give speeches, don't have to make tough choices..
3  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: February 09, 2016, 08:31:38 AM
St. Louis usurps Detroit to become most violent city in the US: Gateway City is worst for rape, robbery aggravated assault and murder according to FBI data.

Detroit last had a Republican mayor in 1957 St Louis last had a Republican mayor in 1943.

It's a bit of an understatement to call today"s urban leftism a doubling down on failure!
4  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, unemployment 4.9, 9.9% or ? on: February 09, 2016, 08:14:42 AM
U6 is a better measure than U3, yet the media always go with the lower number.  But U6 at 9.9 still omits the discouraged unemployed.  The real unemployment rate is roughly 22.5%, as shown in this chart.

The blue line best matches what people are actually experiencing.
5  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2016 Presidential, live free, drive fast, New Hampshire is on on: February 08, 2016, 11:09:31 PM

Since the whole game is to beat expectations let's set up the expectations:
1. Trump  2. Kasich  3. Rubio

Trump is polling at about 30%. If he hits high 30s, NH is a win for him.  30 or less with all this confusion among his competitors and his low ceiling is an insurmountable fact.

In the second position, Kasich, Bush and Christie bet the farm and have one shot to move up and onward.  One of them needs to hit 20%.

As for Rubio, he needs 3rd.  If they all pass him up then real damage was done.

If Cruz breaks into the top 3, its a win for him.  If he doesn't, he's a regional candidate who will have other strong states.

And if Trump, Cruz and Rubio finish 1, 2, 3 - again - the rest are irrelevant, just playing spoilers.

My two cents.
6  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: February 08, 2016, 04:53:36 PM
Suddenly the transcripts of these speeches are a BIG deal.

As Crafty has suggested, Republicans had better get busy pointing out that their reforms will level the playing field currently tilted for special interests.

It's not the rich getting the favors, it's the friends of big government.  For a list, just see the Clinton speaking log.
7  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A leftist just look at unaffordable housing for the middle class on: February 08, 2016, 08:38:24 AM
Some good facts in here along with liberal bias.  Inequality causes high prices?

(The 'conservative' answer too high rent and unaffordable homes is to put a 16% tax on rent and houses.  ??
Perhaps smart economics, but dumb politics.)

Maybe if Trump wins New Hampshire, Pat will come back...   )
8  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: February 07, 2016, 10:03:31 PM
A more clear point about Obama and inexperience is that he is now a seven-year President, as much experience as is possible, and he is governing the same as day one.  Badly.

Is this a snowplowing competence election or is this a vision, change direction, inspire election?
9  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz on: February 07, 2016, 09:55:32 PM
I confess at the moment I simply don't have the energy to enter into it and have simply engaged in "appeal to authority"; the clip is simply proffered as an example of how the plan is being marketed-- which is important too.

Fair enough on the appeal to authority. I will agree that Art Laffer is the perhaps best economically, but I would not put his political instincts above Reagan's.

Dan Mitchell from Heritage and Cato with a PhD from George Mason is someone I trust also.
10  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: February 07, 2016, 09:34:58 PM
Fair enough.

Also fair is to note that later in the debate Rubio spoke well and responsively on foreign affairs (and pro-life) a number of times, but probably this will get a lot less attention.

Definitely a lousy couple of moments for him, a little bit short of a gaffe.  Interesting response from him this morning on ABC Stephie, he says he is glad they are replaying his message that he wanted repeated, 'Let's dispel with the notion that Pres Obama doesn't know what he's doing...'

BTW, taking down the popularity is a key part of winning this election.

The news reports of it are far worse than the moment and more people see those.

Trump repeats himself all the time and he leads.  Christie's has said he was a federal prosecutor for seven years in the debates at least 19 times.

Like Crafty is saying, we are looking for effective ways to word and express these things to get the message to people.  When we find them, do we want them said once or as often as possible?

Kevin Drum from The Nation says this is the end of a political career, probably a contrary indicator.

In contrast, Trump had 5 or 6 bad moments and 'won' the debate.

This incident draws attention to Rubio though it seems negative, made Christie look like a jerk, leaves an opening for Jeb that likely won't materialize.  Kasich moves up a little, and for Rubio it depends on what happens next.

Saying it so precisely makes it sound important.  Rubio has a delivery that makes what he is saying sound important.
11  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Grannis on: February 06, 2016, 03:06:29 PM

We would like to say, famous people caught reading the forum, except that Scott Grannis is the source of the theory and math I like to use measuring the gap of permanently lost income and wealth as a result of the failed policies and anemic growth rate out of the 'great recession':

Is this the link you refer to?

From the link:

"We've know for years that this recovery is the weakest post-war recovery on record, and the chart above makes the case. If this had been a typical recovery, national income (GDP) would be about $2.8 trillion higher than it is today. That's like saying that average wages and salaries would be 17% higher. For a family earning $60,000, that's over $10,000 more income per year that has failed to materialize despite all their hard efforts."

Up to $2.8 trillion per year taken since Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Clinton took over Washington comes to roughly $19 trillion dollars.  Hmmm, this criminal act cost us enough money to pay off the national debt.  And yet people want more of it.

This magnitude of theft with intent, theft by fraud, constitutes roughly 320 million counts of felony grand larceny.
He should serve out his Presidential term from prison.
12  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio, Jindal endorsement, keep your oar in the water on: February 06, 2016, 02:45:12 PM
Bobby Jindal, that establishment juggernaut, has endorsed Marco Rubio.

Jindal would make an obvious choice for Secretary of Energy.  He might be fishing for being VP choice.  He would be on my short list for Sec of State, considered the top of the cabinet from the order of succession chart.

Since we don't have the perfect tax plan yet, this in my mind gives Rubio access to the Jindal tax plan.  I say help pull the wagon.  Jindal says keep your oar in the water pulling with everyone else.

[Jindal] tax plan lowers the tax bracket for every American, and it dramatically simplifies the tax code for every American. To grow the American economy we must reduce our tax burden and make taxes simpler. The plan has only three rates – 2 percent, 10 percent, and 25 percent. Most Americans will be in the 10 percent bracket.

Most Republican plans brag about the idea that they will allow about half of all Americans to pay zero federal taxes... aterrible mistake. Again, most Republican plans do not require the lowest wage earners to pay anything, and some basically require half of Americans to pay zero federal taxes.  We have come to the point in this country where far too many Americans believe that money grows on trees in Washington. They do not seem to get the fact that our government has no money other than what it takes from our citizens. President Obama has nearly doubled our national debt.  We simply must require that every American has some skin in this game. If we have generations of Americans who never pay any taxes, it will be very easy for them to turn a blind eye to absurd government spending and to continue to allow our government to bankrupt our nation.

There is great strength in shared sacrifice. My plan only asks 2 percent from the bottom bracket but that may be the most important 2 percent in the whole plan. It reestablishes the idea that in America everyone is expected to help row the boat. Now some people may have a bigger oar and some smaller but you keep your oar in the water along with everyone else.
13  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The appeal of Sen. Bernie Sanders on: February 06, 2016, 12:56:26 PM

Why does Bernie want to turn America into the kind of country his father fled?

14  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz tax plan (Laffer, Stephen Moore) 2.0 on: February 06, 2016, 11:49:00 AM

Good messenging, lively music, still no attempt to answer the objections to it.
15  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: February 05, 2016, 02:57:22 PM
Can i cheat and pick the someone who has the best qualities, and none of the worst qualities of all 3?  ...

We can't do that but they can take and learn from the strengths of their competitors and I hope they do!  For one thing, have Trump build the wall and pay for it.

Both Cruz and Rubio have been acknowledging what Trump tapped into, and both probably see the weaknesses in their own tax plans as they argue out the positives.

Learning and adapting without being branded a flipflopper is difficult but sometimes needs to be done.
16  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: February 05, 2016, 02:45:58 PM
(from Cruz thread)
"I agree with you.  
You tell the 49% you won't get anything if the payers cannot keep and invest most of their money.  Somebody HAS to pay for them.  Also don't you want for yourself or your children to have the opportunity to get wealthy?  Or to be doomed to a life of working for the State?

So how is Marco going to do this?

He seems to understand that you can't lead from the Senate or accomplish anything by winning the GOP but not the general election.  He is the messenger, not the message.  We happen to believe we have facts and reason on our side and I have been saying he is the best at introducing and arguing those ideas with the persuadable.

Look at it this way.  Bernie is the sensation of college kids who have never had the other side of it introduced to them.  Out of those young voters, let's say that half of them are little marching Marxists who aren't going to listen to anything else and half of them are young skulls of mush who went through public and private schools and colleges without hearing anything but leftism.  Over a 4-6 month general election campaign, if Rubio can persuade one in five of just those who really are open minded and mean well, that is a 20 point swing in that group.  If we believe Quinipiac currently at 43-43, he doesn't need quite that many more to win.

Also keep in mind that with Rubio's anti-Castro passion, arguing against statism and socialism is something he has long contemplated and excelled at.

On the other side of it, Bernie has no chance at moving Rubio voters over to socialism.  Our side has already examined that alternative and passed on it.

If Hillary is the nominee, the campaign gets convoluted with all their personal failings as well as with their skill at distraction and changing the subject.   In that case, Rubio has been the most disciplined at staying on message.

The next question is how do you get real change through the Senate which mostly requires 60 votes?  First is to not fire up a backlash against Republicans in the election and second is to start winning the hearts and minds of the people toward the cause and agenda and go past the officeholders to the constituents to bear pressure like Reagan did.  A landslide would be helpful and so are these reports of 0.7% growth with college grads living in parents basements past the age of 30.

This won't be easy.
17  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential - PPP polling, Feb 2-3, 2016 on: February 05, 2016, 12:31:10 PM
Trump down 9 points nationwide, Rubio up 8.  If the field could narrow, Rubio runs away with Republicans, not just leads in general election matchups.

Given the choices of just Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz who would you support for the Republican nomination for President?
Trump 33% Rubio 34% Cruz 25%

Who would you prefer as the Republican candidate if you had to choose between just Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio? Cruz 40% Rubio 46% ....between just Ted Cruz and Donald Trump? Cruz 47% Trump 41%

Between just Marco Rubio and Donald Trump?
Rubio 52% Trump 40%
PPP Feb 2-3, 2016
18  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / HillBillaryClintons: Goldman Sachs, "That what they offered." on: February 05, 2016, 12:24:29 PM
Keep in mind this rip is the MSM taking on their own coronated Queen.

 Four Words about Goldman Sachs that Hillary is going to regret

Hillary Clinton spent an hour talking to CNN's Anderson Cooper and a handful of New Hampshire voters in a town hall on Wednesday night. For 59 minutes of it, she was excellent —empathetic, engaged and decidedly human. But, then there was that other minute — really just four words — that Clinton is likely to be haunted by for some time to come.

"That’s what they offered," Clinton said in response to Cooper's question about her decision to accept $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in the period between serving as secretary of state and her decision to formally enter the 2016 presidential race.

The line is, well, bad.  More on that soon. But, the line when combined with her body language when she said it makes it politically awful for her.

Clinton is both seemingly caught by surprise and annoyed by the question all at once. Neither of those is a good reaction to what Cooper is asking. Both together make for a uniquely bad response.

Here's the thing: I'm not sure there is a great answer, politically speaking, for Clinton on the question of her acceptance of huge speaking fees from all sorts of groups — from colleges and universities to investment banks. She took the money because these groups were willing to pay it. And who wouldn't do the same thing in her shoes?

[Clinton, Sanders talk meaning of 'progressive' in first one-on-one debate]

The problem is that you can't say that if you are the front-running candidate for the Democratic nomination, a front-runner facing a more-serious-than-expected challenge from a populist liberal who has made your ties to Wall Street a centerpiece of his campaign.

So, yes, Clinton was in something of a box when Cooper put the Goldman question to her. But, let's not let her off so easily. Are you telling me that Clinton and her team had no idea that the speaking fees, which Bernie Sanders put into an ad in the final days before the Iowa caucuses, might come up in the course of an hour-long conversation in New Hampshire?

If so (and I don't believe this to be the case), that's total political malpractice. Rather, I think what happened is something similar to Clinton's reaction during a testy exchange a few months ago with reporters over her email server: She got annoyed and freelanced.

The server and the speaking fees are two story lines that Clinton clearly believes are ridiculous.  Sure, she shouldn't have used only a private email address and server while serving as secretary of state. But that error was a small one, not the sort of huge deal that Republicans and the media are trying to turn it into. And, sure, $675,000 is a lot of money to take for speeches but she is a former first lady, senator and secretary of state. It's not out of the ballpark that someone with that résumé would be compensated at such high levels.

That's what Clinton truly believes. And she's not good — as she made plain with her answer last night — at hiding her disdain/skepticism when questioned about it. But, politics is all about playing up your strengths and taking attention away from your weaknesses. The amount of money Hillary and Bill Clinton made from speech-giving — more than $25 million in 16 months — is a weakness. Period. It undercuts the idea that she is a committed fighter for wage equality or a voice of the 99 percent trying to level the playing field with the one percent
19  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz, Lowering the income tax by adding a VAT tax on: February 05, 2016, 12:10:14 PM
Here are some current income tax rates over at the countries that decided to rely more heavily on the VAT tax:

Sweden       56.90%
Portugal      56.50%
Denmark     55.60%
Belgium       53.70%
Netherlands  52.00%
Spain           52.00%

As G M might say, luckily that could never happen here.
20  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Run plowhorse, run! on: February 05, 2016, 12:02:56 PM

Just like in foreign policy, a world not led by a strong USA is not a well-led world.
21  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: February 05, 2016, 12:00:57 PM
Things that make you go hmmmm , , ,

Clinton 44    Sanders 42

Clinton 46    Trump 41
Clinton 45    Cruz 45
Clinton 41    Rubio 48

Sanders 49  Trump 39
Sanders 46  Cruz 42
Sanders 43  Rubio 43

I'd love to see a discussion of the implications of these numbers, especially the Sanders numbers.  Along with this forum, Sanders is a big critic of the corruption between big business and the government.  IMHO this is resonating strongly and our side should be making similar noises.  Cruz shows courage and good instincts with regard to ethanol, but IMHO this is not enough.  Isn't Sanders right when he calls for the reinstatement of Glass Steagal?   

I like some of these numbers, Rubio 48, Clinton 41, that Rubio is still matching up best.

Regarding this, Sanders 43  Rubio 43, I would just say that I like that matchup.  If Bernie's socialist ideas and proposals can hold up to scrutiny and defeat the optimism of greater liberty and opportunity presented by our best spokesman, we deserve the result.

My two cents on Glass Steagall, it didn't cause the collapse and reinstating it doesn't solve or address any of our top 100 problems.   But yes, government insured institutions unfortunately need to be highly regulated and Republicans can't just leave this mundane work to the occupy Wall Street left.

Crafty, please expand on your thoughts...

Glass Steagall explained:
22  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz on: February 05, 2016, 11:38:18 AM
My sense is the only way to lower rates is to get rid of loopholes.

When i see rich with living on large estates paying less property tax than myself because of BS farm deductions for having a few corn stalks or a bee keeper than we got to get rid of deductions.

That in my view is the only way to get a few of the 49% who pay nothing to grudgingly go along. 

Agree.  And vice versa.  If you want people with choices to maximize their productive power, pay on every dollar and not quit or hide, the rates have to be lower.

And your other point is paramount, how do you get the '49% who pay nothing' to see the necessity of lowering rates on the productive to grow the economy?  It has to be based on a positive belief in the future.  If you are young (or female or black or Hispanic or gay or ?) that an opportunity-oriented society is better than Soviet style of dictated benefits society (that is collapsing) and if you are old, that you feel that same way for the opportunities and future for your children and grandchildren.  These are concepts that can be sold to minimum wage workers and retirees, not just entrepreneurs and investors.  Even a person in legitimate need of government safety net support needs to understand that we need a healthy, vigorous private sector to make that possible.
23  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz on: February 05, 2016, 10:55:51 AM
Well, I'm off shortly for six hours of working with one of America's heroes so not much time, but basically any tax can be changed or increased.  Cruz's proposal was designed by Art Laffer, someone whom I respect, particularly when it comes to tax issues!  I have heard/read Art explain it, and Ted explain it and what I heard made good sense to me.

No doubt Art Laffer is among the best ever on the topic.  [Although not necessarily an expert on playing game theory with Chuck Schumer, the msm and the left.]   The Cruz plan was also written by Stephen Moore who defends it here today:

Neither of them address my concerns and Moore introduces an additional concern:  
"Imports are taxed at the flat rate when they are brought into the U.S. ..."    
A 16% tariff that no one in the world will retaliate against.  Seriously?

I fully agree in principle that income tax rates need to be lower and splitting the public sector burden between production and consumption would be ideal in a perfect world.  Politically, I find the whole thing naive, that we will either drop income tax rates on the rich to 10% next year or that if we did they wouldn't just go right back up in the aftermath to where they started or worse leaving us with one more level of taxation brought to you by conservative Republicans.  40% of Republicans think the rich pay too little tax now (one poll says).  What percentage of the 2016 general electorate think the income tax burden on 'the rich' should be cut by 3/4 in the face of $20 trillion of debt?

Frustrating me further is that Marco Rubio's plan to not tax capital gains at all is also politically unrealistic and his top rate is too high to get excited about it as a major reform.

Worst of all is that these two plans that will never become law would both be wonderful for me personally with my life savings tied up in assets that can't be sold because of punitive taxation.

Next step politically would be to decouple these plans from these politicians.  Whoever wins gets to pick and choose the best elements from all the plans and take into account a) the political implications and the fact that it has to go through the House and Senate, b) the transition, and c) the aftermath.

I am sorry to have to point out Stephen Moore being disingenuous (from the link above):

"Rubio and his allies are charging that the flat tax that imposes a low tax rate on the broadest possible business tax base, which includes wages and salaries and benefits, will quickly rise from the teens to the twenties or even 30%.
What is ironic about these attacks is that the rates Rubio imagines would still be lower than his own plan’s income tax rate of 35%.
It’s hard to imagine that the two most relentless anti-big-government crusaders in Congress, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, have a secret tax plan to supersize the government."

1)  The Rubio point is that the income tax rate will most certainly rise back up AND they have introduced a new layer of taxation that will stay forever and go up.

2)  It is NOT Cruz who will raise it; it is the liberals who will follow.

3)  Rubio's rate is 0%, not 35% on the majority of investment income, so Moore is falsely comparing two different things that will never happen.

The ball IMO goes back into Paul Ryan's court.  We need a tax plan that the entire party and movement can get behind and win with, not unrealistic ideas over which we can snip at each other.

24  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: February 04, 2016, 12:51:34 PM
 "a fake Hispanic"
What a bit of horse dung!  ...
Bottom line your friend is a Dem and if Rubio is not...

Correct.  (And he is gay, a stronger identifier than being Hispanic.  Still it is good to know that no automatic votes will come from Mexican American Hispanics to a conservative Republican for being Cuban American.  All the votes have to be earned.

He is probably a 6 digit earner.  I told him R's will give him more liberties than Dems.
25  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump, Whiner, Loser? on: February 04, 2016, 08:37:01 AM

Right!  Trump is still out saying Cruz is ineligible and Cruz crossed a line?!  Good grief.

Some of us were hoping that seeing the loser side of Trump would not be pretty to his supporters.

Mpls Startribune political cartoon yesterday:

26  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: February 04, 2016, 08:30:27 AM
Quoting the 21st century version of Shakespeare, Joseph Biden, this IS a big "f" deal:

if it leads to a big shift in Hispanic voters to Republican.

I wonder how Cruz would do ?   Obviously he won't be approved by the militant La Raza but who cares.

Whoever can garner the Hispanic vote will certainly schlong Hillary.

My friend of Mexican descent says Rubio is a fake Hispanic.  Couldn't get him to elaborate but it means something like he looks and acts like a white guy, he is a white guy.  (Same for Cruz.)  He won't suddenly win votes of Mexican and Central American Hispanics just for showing up.  However, he speaks fluent Spanish (Cruz doesn't, neither does Hillary's alleged runningmate Julian Castro) and I believe Rubio has a softer edge than other conservatives (like Levin, or Trump or Cruz) and can start from scratch to give them a message of conservative inspiration they aren't hearing anywhere else.  At best, that will effective at the margin, but if you convert 1 out of 20 people, even 1 in 50, that is a huge electoral shift and at some point, like reaching blacks, people in a community realize they have a choice, rather than feel that if you are a group member, young, female, gay, black, urban, Jewish or Hispanic you are expected to vote a certain way.

Cruz did well with Hispanics in Texas.  It is a more conservative place.  Rubio will do well in Texas too in a general election.

Why isn't Christie's putdown, calling Rubio a boy, racist?

Bush and Christie need to go away, with nothing but negatives to offer, and Kasich needs to stay fresh for his VP assignment.  Cruz accusing Carson of getting out makes it harder for Carson to get out.

Want to defeat Trump?  Stop splitting the anti-Trump vote 17 ways.  Cruz and Rubio are viable alternatives.  Rubio possibly passes up Cruz in NH and SC.  We will see.
27  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio - Endorsements flooding in... on: February 03, 2016, 09:36:27 PM
Rick Santorum out, endorses Rubio.  (Among other things, Santorum is known for being strong on defense.  He is not exactly establishment!)

Sen. Tim Scott, conservative black Republican from South Carolina (tea party) endorses Rubio.
Tim Scott:  .“When I put together a strong position on national defense and foreign policy, coupled with a compassionate attachment for people to alleviate poverty using conservative principles exclusively, Marco Rubio became the only candidate that I honestly believe can do both,”

(Also Rep Trey Gowdy from South Carolina endorsed Rubio; SC is the primary that follows NH.)

Conservative blogger John Hinderaker at Powerline (whose opinion I highly respect) endorsed Rubio:
In my opinion (Hinderaker), Marco Rubio should be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016. This is why:

1) Rubio is a solid conservative. If elected, Rubio would be the most conservative president since Calvin Coolidge. He is squarely in the tradition of Ronald Reagan’s three-legged stool: foreign policy, the economy and social issues. Of the other Republican contenders, only Ted Cruz might plausibly claim to be more conservative. But Cruz has not been a consistent conservative on foreign policy. On the contrary, early on, he supported Rand Paul’s positions on drones and the National Security Agency. Only when a series of terrorist attacks caused public opinion to shift decisively toward security did Cruz trim his sails.

The knock on Rubio, of course, is immigration. But he has recanted his early support for the Gang of Eight comprehensive reform bill, and his views on immigration are conservative enough to satisfy me. I have taken a hard line on the issue, as regular readers know, and I am comfortable with Rubio’s view of immigration as a national security issue and his determination to enforce the laws, rather than subverting them as Barack Obama has done.

2) Rubio is strongest where it counts. The president–Barack Obama and Donald Trump notwithstanding–does not have plenary authority to dictate policy by issuing executive orders. The one area where the president can wield significant power on the first day of his administration is foreign policy. Marco Rubio is, in my opinion, as knowledgeable about foreign policy as anyone in Washington. I have interviewed him on foreign policy topics numerous times, and the breadth and depth of his knowledge is impressive. He understands not just the obvious hot spots, like the Middle East and Russia; he also has encyclopedic command of issues relating to Asia, including but not limited to China, and Latin America.

Not only is Marco extraordinarily knowledgeable, he is an unabashed advocate for American power and influence. That doesn’t mean war, it means strength, consistency, and fidelity to principle. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. Marco Rubio is an heir to that tradition. If you want to restore American influence in the world, Rubio should be your candidate. I can’t think who would even be in second place.

3) Marco will win. I am on record as believing that Hillary Clinton is a horrible candidate who will never be elected president, even if she escapes indictment. But many others disagree with that assessment and consider her a formidable opponent. Let’s not take any chances. Marco Rubio has, I think, the ability, unique in the current crop of Republican candidates, to reach out to the broader electorate and bring new voters into the Republican orbit.

When it comes to economic opportunity, perhaps the key issue in this years election, no one can equal Rubio’s inspiring approach. He makes the virtue of free enterprise real and tangible–something that, one might think, should be easy, but which few politicians achieve. I have seen nothing similar from Chris Christie (whom I also like a lot), Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

We can all try to guess which candidate will best appeal to unaffiliated young voters. It isn’t a matter of age; Ronald Reagan’s best demographic, after all, was young people. But that was because he refused to accept the conventional wisdom of the moment, silly in retrospect, that America was in decline, and young people should just get used to it. Marco is a lot younger than Reagan was in 1980, but he shares a similarly optimistic message. My experience with my own children and their friends suggests that of the current crop of candidates, Marco is by far the most effective at bringing the conservative message to young voters.

4) Rubio is a good guy. As noted above, I don’t pretend to be a personal friend, but I have spent enough time with Rubio to form a strong impression of his character. In politics, there is a continuum: on one end are those for whom it is all about them and their personal psychodramas. On the other end are those who are in politics because they genuinely want what is best for the country. I think Rubio is about as far on the correct end of that scale as a politician can be.

Beyond that, he is a stable, normal guy. Rubio is almost as knowledgeable about sports as about foreign policy. Fellow Senators tell me that he is well liked and respected in that body, something that can’t be said for all of the Republican contenders. He has a sense of humor and can be self-deprecating. In person, he is unfailingly gracious.

Do these things matter? I think they do. A number of strange, obsessive people have sought the presidency, sometimes successfully. Marco, like Ted Cruz, is very smart. But that is almost incidental. What we most need in a president are judgment and character. My own experience with Rubio, as well as his public record, tells me that he has those qualities.

A final observation: recent years have been very bad for America. It is easy to be pessimistic, even to adopt an apocalyptic view. But who follows a pessimistic leader? No one. Rubio’s vision of America’s future is always positive, always optimistic, always inclusive, never spiteful or divisive. In this, too, he stands in Ronald Reagan’s big shoes. I, for one, would rather cast my lot with Marco Rubio than with any of the other contenders for the presidency. He is our best choice for 2016.
28  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: February 03, 2016, 09:00:43 PM
Something I forgot about in the Rubio tax plan.  He eliminates all (federal) capital gains taxes (also all estate taxes).

The reason I forgot is because, like the 10% Cruz flat tax, I don't believe the repeal of capital gains taxes is politically possible.  But if Rubio wins and is unable to eliminate the capital gains tax, that makes room for additional lowering of the other rates.

What I would do with capital gains taxes is simply discount the 'gains' to account for inflation using the government's already established and published 'colas', cost of living adjustments used on other programs.

Incidentally, if the Rubio plan were enacted, it would be a get out of jail free card for me; I would be able to sell everything and be set for life.  Waaaay too good to be true.

Estate taxes are assessed on after tax income after death and that is morally wrong.  (It reminds me of government lawyer Cheryl Mills pilfering Vince Foster's office before the family was even notified of his death.)  Estate taxes will be hard to eliminate but should be made much lower with much higher exclusions.  If you discourage people from creating an estate, you hold back the economy from creating wealth.

Here are the liberal attacks on the Rubio proposal from The Week, NY Magazine and the Dishonest Citizens for Tax Justice:

"[Rubio's] proposed tax cut amounts to more than three times the size of the Bush tax cuts, with nearly half of it going to the top 5 percent of income-earners. These cuts would produce a revenue shortfall of $6 trillion after 10 years."

("Trump's plan would 'cost' 11 trillion over 10 years.")
("Cruz plan would 'cost' 16 trillion over 10 years.")

Amazing how wrong you can be with static scoring.  Why would you cut taxes on capital if it did not energize employment and economic growth!

How the Rubio Plan Would Cut Personal Income Taxes:

Reduces the top personal income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and reduces the number of tax brackets from 7 to 3 (35, 25 and 15 percent).
Eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends, including the 3.8 percent high-income surtax on investment income that was enacted as part of President Barack Obama’s health care reforms.
Reduces the top tax rate on individual business income to 25 percent.
Replaces standard deduction with a $2,000 per taxpayer (i.e., $4,000 for married couples) refundable tax credit, which phase out between $150,000 and $200,000 for individuals and between $300,000 and $400,000 for couples.
Creates a new, partially refundable child tax credit of up to $2,500 per child on top of the existing $1,000 per-child credit. The new credit is refundable based on rules similar to the current child credit. It phase out at much higher income levels than the current child credit (starting at $150,000 for individuals and $300,000 for couples)
Eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was designed to ensure that the wealthiest Americans pay at least a minimal amount of tax.
Eliminates the estate tax.
Cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.
Allows for full expensing on new investments, including buildings and land.
29  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: February 03, 2016, 02:30:24 PM
Minimum wage is the opposite of letting supply and demand work.  Too many low wage immigrants is another problem.  I believe all R candidates are now committed to ending new illegal immigration so the next step is to WIN THIS ELECTION!   )
30  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz on: February 03, 2016, 02:11:24 PM
Doug,  I am not sure I follow you with regards to Cruz tax plan that a VAT is ok with constitutional caps and what is to stop a Dem pres and congress from simply reversing this?  A dem pres and congress can reverse any thing.

My point about const'l caps won't happen, just a hypothetical solution.  Think 38 states when new amendments are discussed.  Neither side has that kind of control.  If we did, we wouldn't have this problem or need the limits.

I am too wordy but a VAT is a big government, socialist tool.  Crazy for a conservative R to hand this seeliberal Dems, I very strongly believe.

If we were starting from scratch and if it would never be raised and the other taxes would never come back, the Cruz plan is a great one.  We aren't, it will, they will and it isn't.

Yes they will of course work to undo whatever Rubio can accomplish, but don't give them more weapons to turn against us.

Lower the rates to 25% instead of 35 if you want but you still have to get through the Tim Russerts of today.  If you can't demonstrate that it doesn't blow up the deficit, cut Granny off the meds and starve the poor while giving tax cuts to the rich, then you let them paint Hillary or Bernie as the responsible one.

So maybe Rubio's thinking is this has to be done incrementally this time.   Simplify, deregulate lower some rates and see some growth come back, then go for larger reform.

Cruz thinking as I see it is to pull a Herman Cain.  Go big and bold for the conservative primaries with something that will never pass and won't work if it did.

In addition to killing the housing market, (16% federal tax on rent?), we are going to add a 16% tax on healthcare, medical devices, drugs?  I don't think so.  A large part of those are paid by Govt so put a tax on a tax?  A 16% tax on defense spending?  Start making subtractions and the rate goes up.  A 24% VAT, 30%?

My two cents.  Crafty likes the Cruz proposal but I don't see how he answers these objections.
31  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics at the State level - Minnesota 35th in disposable income growth on: February 03, 2016, 10:34:46 AM
(from electoral fraud thread)
OMG.  Landlords have to provide voting registrations?   angry

How did Minnesota become such a Democ(rat) stronghold?

I don't know exactly, but you might compare it to Sweden.  Back when everyone had a strong work ethic, there was no measurable harm or dependency caused by social programs.  But when you have the biggest and best safety net over a sustained period, new people come in for the wrong reasons and the work ethic of people already here starts to deteriorate.  Like everywhere else, our population is changing.  People come not just for better benefits, but incoming welfare recipients talk of the shorter lines and better service to get the free money, goods and services.

A lot of the murders in north Minneapolis are committed among people with Illinois license plates, in other words, Chicago murders that happened elsewhere.

Powerline makes fun of StarTribune headlines about "Minneapolis man" did this or that such as join al Qaida when in fact these people are Somalians residing in Minneapolis.  Recall that Zacarias Moussaoui exploited Minnesota Nice to get his flight school training.  He showed a surprising lack of interest in safe landings.

Minnesota always has a low unemployment rate under the accepted rules that we don't count the underclass who isn't part of the labor force.  Twin Cities unemployment is typically around 3% in a good economy.  We have a diversified economy and have become the model for how "blue state", leftist policies can succeed.  That is all good and well unless someone peels back a layer and looks more closely.

Center for the American Experiment, a rare conservative Minneapolis based think tank reports that
Minnesota ranks 35th over the last 10 years in disposable income growth.
In other words MN is close to last even when everything seems to be going well.

They also report that within state to state migration, close to a billion dollars a year of net assets is leaving.  Apparently not enough to reform the nearly worst in the nation death taxes.  

People say they leave Minnesota because of the cold weather (even in the face of global warming).  But cold weather has been here for a long time.  People leave because of high taxation, similar to California.  Wealthy people from MN (and everywhere) already have a home somewhere else (or 2 or 3) because they can.  It does not take rocket science or the moving of heaven and earth for a wealthy person to spend 6 months and a day somewhere else and tell the MN Dept of Revenue, income and death tax divisions to take a flying leap.

Minnesota has a great and diverse economy, as does America.  Copy our policies nationwide and maybe we can see our 0.7% national growth rate cut in half one more time.
32  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Money, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver on: February 03, 2016, 10:00:05 AM
One of the academic controversies in monetary policy is whether the Fed sets interest rates or follows them.
Remember when the Federal Reserve raised interest rates on Dec. 16? It did that for the first time in years by increasing something called the discount rate, which is one of the few borrowing costs it controls.

On that date, the yield on the 10-year US government bond was 2.314 percent.  Today, that yield is 1.933 percent.

So rates have actually gone down substantially since the Fed tried to raise them.

Did I mention this is a pathetically anemic economy?
33  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen.Ted Cruz, natural born citizen on: February 03, 2016, 09:55:12 AM
'Frontrunner' Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.  Who knew?
"The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth," the board said, explaining Cruz met the criteria because he "did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth."

This should go in the Trump thread, not one of his better moments.
34  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Middle East: War, Bolton on Syria on: February 03, 2016, 09:51:10 AM

We will likely need to recognize the demise of Syria and Iraq, and create a new, secular Sunni state from their territory once ISIS is vanquished. America’s failure to act effectively against ISIS to date is readily reversible, and regional allies are all but begging for renewed attention to our own Middle East security interests.

Most importantly, the road to Damascus runs through Tehran. Our attention should be on regime change in Iran first. Only when the ayatollahs are swept aside is there even a glimmer of a chance for Middle East peace and security.
35  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: February 03, 2016, 09:41:34 AM
Record Feb 2 snowstorm in Minneapolis.  1st snowfall ever in Okinawa.  Or as alarmist funded scientists would say, whatever.

(We are in South Florida this week where the ocean levels still look manageable.)

NOAA central global warming claim debunked:

When a theory contradicts the facts” you need to change the theory, Christy said. “The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.”

36  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Political Economics, Tax rates, regs, welfare and employment are all intertwined on: February 03, 2016, 09:15:31 AM
Obama's policies are now fully in place and anemic economic growth has slowed to 0.7%.  Even Wesbury is bummed.  It has been TEN YEARS since the United States of America has seen 3% growth for a year.  Coincidentally, it has been 10 years since Nov 2006 when leftists took over Washington.   Most odd in all this is that in the pursuit of equality over growth, income inequality have gotten much 'worse'.

Economic growth in 1984 during the Reagan recovery was 6.8%.  
"Breakeven growth" is considered to be between about 3.1 and 3.2%.  

George Will correctly points out that the difference between 2% growth and 3% growth is not 1%; it is a 50% improvement.  This ship is getting harder and harder to turn around because the changes for the worse have been structural, not incidental.  Leaving the workforce is not like driving to the store or being between jobs; it is a mostly permanent change / end of productive activity, and 100 million adults are no longer in the workforce, out of 242 million adults.  The needing of government assistance is no longer defined as the poverty line; you need healthcare assistance up to incomes 4 times the poverty line.

From our discussion about tax rates, one tweak to Rubio's tax plan I would propose is to make the child tax benefit a deduction, not a credit.  In the eyes of some he is engaging in his own social engineering by rewarding one activity, having children, rather than put all the money toward marginal rate reductions.  In another sense, median income of 50k is simply less income for a family of 4 than it is for a single or a couple.

I would favor a constitutional amendment capping federal tax rates at about 25%.  No one should pay more than a quarter of their income to the Feds.  If we had a balanced budget requirement and didn't have the rich to keep raising on, a voter would have to pay more themselves in order to demand more services or goodies from the government.  Imagine imposing common sense on public sector choices!  The middle class shouldn't pay more than a quarter in Fed, state, local combined, but part of that is out of the Fed's hands and it would only works if/when we define the role of government downward.  In the meantime we have greatly defined the role of government upward and that will take some hard work and smart planning to even begin to reverse.

The highest marginal tax rates in fact are faced by people on the edge of losing their program benefits.  I made roughly one more dollar of income one year and lost thousands in FAFSA (federal college money).  Working welfare folks face that on everything, especially free and subsidized health care that no one on a lower income can afford anymore.

In the 90's when we "ended welfare as we know it" (so much Clintonspeak in that), we saw the double benefit of people moving from programs to work.  People not only start to pay in (pull the wagon) and are phased out of receiving some benefits (riding on the wagon).  Social security seems to be the most vivid example for people to understand, but all programs work this way, how may workers can support how many beneficiaries?  If you have made near the median income, you aren't in need of monetary help, maybe just budget counseling.  What part of how expensive our lives have become is the fault of excess government, healthcare being the most recent and prominent example?

Oddly, HRC the felon is running to continue the Obama economy, not to return us to the Clinton-Gingrich years.

Missing in this rambling so far is the number one cause or symptom of our current economic problems, real business startups are happening at the lowest rate ever.  That problem is tied more to excess regulations than to excess taxation, as taxation is tied to profits which is the least of your problems if you are contemplating a startup in Obama's America today.

All of these problems are solvable, not easily, not quickly and are barely being discussed in the current debate.  Sanders for example wants to come down harder on Wall Street banks, but Wall Street banks are rich because of the government squeezing the business out of all banks that can't afford to have teams of Wall Street lawyers on staff.  On the other side of it, Rubio correctly points out how a business started in a spare bedroom can't comply with all these over-regulations while the biggest of businesses can.  If you really wanted to squeeze big businesses, make it legal for new businesses and small businesses to compete with them.  Instead the main result of these policies has been for the top 30 companies (Dow), the top 500 companies (S&P) and the top 3100 companies (NASDAQ) to prosper while the rest of us suffer.

One more central leftist tenet is for government to raise the private sector wage.  While we debate a federal minimum wage increase, many cities and states have been raising theirs.  Government wants Walmart in particular to pay its people more.  In the meantime, Walmart closed 154 stores and laid off 10,000 employees.  Question:  Who is helped by that?  Certainly not Walmart employees or shoppers considered the heart of the lower middle class that we care the most about.
37  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / War on the rule of law: In the Obama administration, Who should prosecute Whom? on: February 03, 2016, 07:57:56 AM
Current Sec of State John Kerry sent classified information to then Sec of State Hillary Clinton's private email on HIS private email...
38  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races on: February 02, 2016, 09:39:24 PM
First, the previous post in this thread is outstanding, Mia Love proposing that bills need to cover one subject at a time.   It's good to see her make an impact.
ccp wrote (on Rubio thread):  Do you think Ryan would be the kind of Senator like Reid - somehow when he is in either the majority or minority seems to get his way?

Ryan got a bad start as Speaker of the House with the current budget.  Don't be fooled by that, IMHO.  That happened for a number of reasons that are now behind us.  I expect Speaker Ryan to release soon an agenda more detailed and positive than Newt's Contract with America.  I assume it will include the framework for tax reform.

[I wonder if you meant Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.  I don't believe McConnell is a bad guy or a Rino, but it is time for new leadership there too.]
Paul Ryan:  "On tax reform, perhaps the issue closest to Ryan’s own heart, he pledged to pursue changes that would relentlessly eliminate loopholes and lower rates — and not to be intimidated by the big businesses and special interests who originally wrote them into law.

“The only way to fix our tax code is to simplify, simplify, simplify,” he said. “Look, I know people like many of these loopholes, and they have their reasons. But there are so many of them that now the tax code is like a to-do list — Washington’s to-do list. … I also know many of these loopholes will be fiercely defended. All I can say is we will not be cowed. We are not here to smooth things over. We are here to shake things up."

39  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senator Marco Rubio on: February 02, 2016, 05:15:20 PM
"Rubio I believe will be the most likely to hold the Republican House AND Senate making reform actually possible and then the new tax plan can originate (and be written) where it should be, by supply sider Paul Ryan in the Republican House."

Doug, besides intuition do you have any evidence this would happen?  

No, only intuition.  The House is expected to stay Republican either way.  The Senate starts with at least a 50-50 shot at switching the majority back to the Dems, making almost all the other issues in this race moot.  (We aren't passing a 10% flat tax or repealing a dozen other taxes in a Chuck Schumer Senate.)

People seem to lean toward divided government in their voting patterns and Trump and Cruz are the most divisive candidates on the R side.  It's easy to see why people might think Trump, with what Gallup calls the highest negatives in history, needs checks and balances and show it in their voting if people in the middle vote for him.  In the case of Cruz, he is the one arguing that he is the the 100th most conservative member of the Senate, a great argument in an Iowa GOP caucus, but scary to the middle.  Cruz, at this point, isn't even talking to the people in the middle.  People in the middle, if they vote for him (which is not that likely) will tend to vote for balance, meaning split their ticket.  Rubio is maybe the 5th or 10th most conservative Senator but he is being painted as a moderate, a centrist with a much softer image.  (If he gets nominated, that will shift but that impression is already set.  His campaign is aimed at bringing more people from the middle over to conservatism more so than fighting over those already here.  If Rubio succeeds, he is most likely to swing a Senate race or two with him, which is absolutely necessary to get anything done.  Supporting that idea is that he polls better in general election matchups, which means he is reaching those people best and they are finding him less threatening.

"I respectfully do not agree that a tax reform with lower rates on the middle class would not sell.  Yes of course the 50% who now pay nothing could care less but the other 49% sure would appreciate some help."

We also have that $20 trillion debt problem.  It will be hard to sell large rate cuts when we are totally addicted to the revenues.  We have to right-size government.  Rubio is out front on entitlement reform.  Rand Paul is the only one who talked about real spending cuts, but instead of pushing that he emphasized his differences on foreign policy and defense cuts.  Cutting government doesn't sell very well but needs to be done.  Marginal rates have to go down, but we also have to fund government.  I tried to write a tax plan and found out it's harder than it looks if you still have to raise $4 trillion a year.  I like the flat tax but from where we are today, that is a tax increase on the middle class and will never pass.  Anyway, this comes down to doing something bold and drastic that won't win or moving in a more incremental way.  The House is coming out with its own agenda; it will be interesting to see what they propose.  Maybe Rubio can endorse their plan.
40  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ted Cruz, tax-inclusive subtraction-method value-added, Business Transfer Tax on: February 02, 2016, 02:52:24 PM

I tried to make my argument against this previously over here:

1)   Question: What is happening or has happened recently in American politics that makes Cruz (and Crafty and ccp) think that America is suddenly poised to go from the current, all-out attack on income and wealth to eliminating the income tax altogether or in Cruz' case lowering the rate to a flat tax of 10% next year.  With Trump leading the Republicans and 90% tax rate advocate Bernie leading Trump by double digits, we about to cut by 3/4 (75%) the tax burden of the rich.  Sorry, I don't believe that.

2)  The Cruz, Subtraction Method, Tax Inclusive, Business Transfer Tax is a VAT (Value Added Tax).  His denial of that label is to avoid, not take on the debate.  A consumption tax or VAT would be GREAT if it was instead of an income / production tax.  A 16% VAT would be acceptable if it was capped at 16%.  A 10% income tax along with a small VAT would be great if it were constitutionally capped at 10%.  Capping it isn't possible and isn't even proposed.   What no one will explain to me is how they think that conservatives starting a new layer of taxation in America will turn out to be a good thing in the long run after liberals raise it all up.  They will and it isn't.

3)  The inclusive Business Transfer Tax is on ALL transactions, ALL revenues, not just on profits like an income tax.  The 16% rate doesn't work if you exclude ANYTHING.  Write in exceptions and raise the rate accordingly.  So in addition to labor, we are going to put a 16% new tax on the price of new homes, used homes, new cars - right after we bailed out the car companies, etc.  Are you people kidding?  If you were starting from scratch, fine, but what you have here is massive disruption without any plan for a transition.  "Wouldn't it be great if..." isn't a plan.  Yes, the collapse of auto companies takes down entire related industries, entire cities, towns, regions, even states.  Yes, the housing industry can collapse the economy, it already did.  You can't shut down construction and the trades without hurting employment in the short AND MEDIUM run, and if the system collapses and we change course midstream, there is no success in the long run either.  If the government bears the cost of displaced workers, you aren't going to cut spending either.

4)  Even with dynamic scoring, the Cruz plan comes up short on revenues.

5)  Someone please explain to me how and why they believe a future Dem President and a future Dem Congress won't keep the Cruz VAT, raise it up to European levels AND restore business and personal income tax rates back to at least where they were before.  If you believe they never again control and will not do that, I have a block of North Minneapolis I would like to sell you - poised for a major comeback.

Respectfully,  Doug
41  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: His tax plan is worse for me on: February 02, 2016, 02:04:40 PM
Great.  angry  I think I wind up paying more not less under Rubio's plan.  How does this help families or individuals?

I don't like his tax plan either.  I actually like Trump's the best, or Bush's, but I will settle for Paul Ryan's.  The tax rate cuts in the campaign need to be understated to pass through the media and prevail in the election.  Rubio I believe will be the most likely to hold the Republican House AND Senate making reform actually possible and then the new tax plan can originate (and be written) where it should be, by supply sider Paul Ryan in the Republican House.

My own take from the beginning of the modern tea party was that conservatives need to agree to cut spending first.  The tax burden can't be corrected until the spending avalanche has subsided.  Remember that a trillion a year in 'temporary, emergency' spending has been made 'permanent'.  Deficit hawks including the pretend ones in msm journalism will eat alive any aggressive tax rate cuts, especially for the wealthy - like dr. ccp.  )   Entitlement reform and spending cuts must accompany or precede any real breaks given especially at the high end except to repeal all the new damage imposed by Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

If Rubio does not start with drastically lowering the top marginal rate, he will have to generate economic growth in other ways first, such as through simplification and regulatory reform.

The political problem with tax rate cutting is that so few now pay the burden that every possible reform looks like a tax cut for the wealthy.  If the candidate cannot refute that charge, he or she loses.
42  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential, GOP delegate count is 8-7-7 on: February 02, 2016, 08:50:13 AM
I am quite happy to see this result.

Yes, it seems good all the way around.  Cruz gets a win but not any kind of runaway.  Trump is now just a politician.  Rubio made as good of a comeback and third place finish as was possible, essentially tying Trump and soundly defeating 4th through 17th place.  Carson in the highest single digits is in a very respectable place for an exit.  He, Fiorina and others should 'suspend' now with their head held high.

We are probably lucky to have Clinton ease out Sanders as well, keeping the excitement of the Dem race near zero.

My biased readings tell me Rubio gave a great 'victory speech'.  Trump was uncharacteristically gracious, and Cruz went on and on until coverage cut out to Hillary. 

"Every vote counts" they say but oddly, the Iowa Dem party won't release the raw vote tallies. (?) 
"Clinton so far awarded 699.57 state delegate equivalents and Sanders awarded 695.49 state delegate equivalents"   Huh?
43  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential, 76% of Iowa GOP vote against Trump on: February 01, 2016, 09:46:03 PM
Cruz, Trump Rubio, 28, 24, 23

It turns out the Trump 'ceiling' in Iowa wasn't 40, 50 or 100.
Doug calls on Trump to drop out and stop splitting the Cruz-Rubio vote.

Clinton 50, Sanders 49.

Updates welcome...
44  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential, O'Malley out on: February 01, 2016, 09:33:39 PM
Average age of Dem candidates goes to 71.

45  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs, spending, deficit, Debt hits $19 Trillion on: February 01, 2016, 08:36:02 PM
While Iowans were voting...  National Debt hit $19 TRILLION

The national debt hit $19 trillion for the first time ever on Friday, and came in at $19.012 trillion.

It took a little more than 13 months for the debt to climb by $1 trillion. The national debt hit $18 trillion on Dec. 15, 2014.

Obama is expected to leave office with a total national debt of nearly $20 trillion by the time he leaves office.
46  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Rubio Gamble on: February 01, 2016, 01:00:01 PM
Makes sense to me.  A perfect start for Rubio is to go third, second, first in the first three.  If he finishes distant third three times in a row or worse, I don't see how he gets it turned around.
47  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Malkin takes on Rubio over immigration on: January 31, 2016, 05:52:09 AM

Michelle Malkin has been quite unforgiving Rubio's past immigration reform work even though now mirrors hers.
48  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Rules of the Road/Fire Hydrant on: January 31, 2016, 05:25:19 AM
Looking for the post of an article on why technically speaking Hillary is not "being investigated"  (roughly FBI needs DOJ on board for it to be called such)

I don't know about that article, but the way of Clinton surrogate put it, she is not the target of the investigation.  Good luck with that.
49  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: January 30, 2016, 07:30:28 AM
It really is sad that we have such deceitful low lives as leaders.   This from a cabinet secretary/  The only thing he is accomplishing with this is to make a fool out of himself.

Right.  They could have released the information 3 years ago, or never withheld it.
50  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc. Minneapolis on: January 29, 2016, 10:29:09 PM
Good point.  The Obama blockworkers get good money for the same work.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 151
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!