Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 30, 2014, 05:44:17 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82670 Posts in 2251 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2012 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 129301 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #150 on: April 13, 2011, 01:45:48 PM »

I watched that interview with Trump, including the Part 2 that can be found on the screen after Part 1 finishes.  Gotta say, I was rather impressed on several levels.
Trump can play a role like Perot did, weakening the incumbent.  He is just dying to get off his trademark line; you-re fired.

2012 will be here sooner than you think.  If I was a Republican I would be disappointed in my choices...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/13/morrissey.trump.show/index.html?hpt=C1

If I was someone who voted for Obama, i'd be very embarrassed in my choice.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5968


« Reply #151 on: April 13, 2011, 03:09:28 PM »

"If I was a Republican I would be disappointed in my choices..."
"If I was someone who voted for Obama, i'd be very embarrassed in my choice."
-----
Isn't this where we are every 4 years? Review the Dems first: I say it goes back to 1984 when they picked a seasoned party leader, former VP with plenty of experience and credentials - Walter Mondale.  He lost 49 states.  In 1988 they called them the 7 dwarfs but really all since have been political dwarfs: Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama.  Bush Sr was a senior statesman equal to Mondale (and a mediocre President), but since then on the Rs, Dole was no leader and W. Bush can go in with that group of Dems.  McCain was a maverick, not a leader.  JDN, we aren't choosing superstars on either side, and vice versa, the superstars aren't choosing this rotten profession that we have made it.

I like the timing of this comment, "2012 will be here sooner than you think".  Agree!  You pointed out Huntsman.  Is he the savior of the movement (is he even in the movement?) or who, out of 300 million people, should it be, before our choices are down to one or two?  Before we narrow the list, we need to expand and make sure we didn't miss the best choice.  Note the excitement on the board every time a new face becomes a possibility: Rubio, West, Cain... Trump?

One problem with JDN as the judge our choices  smiley is that I'm not sure you share the goals of the movement.  That is for you to decide.  There are people we want to persuade and there are people we want to defeat.  One suggestion is that if you lean more to the center than others here you have both sides to pick from.  I recently listed a pack of qualified Dems more moderate and experienced than Obama, mostly retiring senators.  Who do YOU think should be President in Jan 2013?  Wouldn't it be great if both sides picked someone where I could say wow, that candidate would make a great President. Highly unlikely.

What are the qualities required, what are the top 3-5 issues and what are the direction on those issues that we need to turn?

For me:
1) Security, that means peace through strength, not necessarily firing a lot of missiles but allies and enemies all have a clear idea about where we stand.  Also means securing our own border.

2) Grow the damn economy, which means the private economy, which means abandon the petty little games being played with the tax code and regulatory schemes and pretending the bloated bureaucracy can micromanage every aspect of the private economy.  Let freedom ring like we've never seen.  Healthcare, entitlements, energy and budget/debt issues fit in here.

3) Appoint Justices who will cherish and protect our founding principles.

Is that too much to ask?

I would like to actually see these potential candidates come out with mutually signed letters of agreement on positions and issues instead of looking for differences.  Groups of economists or environmental scientists do this from time to time.  Let's get clarity and agreement on the agenda and then see who is best fit to lead, articulate it and .

JDN, I came out with support for Tim Pawlenty.  What is your 'disappointment' with him? Not flashy enough? Too small a state? Too right, too left, too center? Two term governorship, considered for VP and preparing for the Presidency best he knows how for at least 4 years, is that not good enough preparation (compared with first term partial term Senator with one failed term as President for the incumbent)?

Just like Dems didn't have anyone with executive experience on a national level at most points in our life, R's by definition don't have anyone not tied to Bush that has served anything significant in the executive branch over the past two decades.  If we are trying to head in a new direction, why would we want the senior leadership that led us in the old direction?  You say lousy choices, I say learn everything we can and pick one.  It isn't going to be the incumbent.

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #152 on: April 13, 2011, 05:56:02 PM »

Doug posted, "JDN, I came out with support for Tim Pawlenty.  What is your 'disappointment' with him? Not flashy enough? Too small a state? Too right, too left, too center? Two term governorship, considered for VP and preparing for the Presidency best he knows how for at least 4 years, is that not good enough preparation (compared with first term partial term Senator with one failed term as President for the incumbent)?"

Actually, I think Tim Pawlenty is just fine; I would vote for him, but most wouldn't.  His experience is fine, so are his politics, but in this age of sound bites, TV, Youtube, etc.  you need some charisma. As a party, I think one has two objectives; find a candidate who shares you goals and ideals AND is electable.  Obviously, goals and ideals are most important, but if the candidate is not electable, what's the point?  I presume you want Obama out?  Well, the only way to do that is run someone who can beat him.  Frankly, I think that means someone who might not meet 100% of the goals of "the movement", i.e. immigration, taxes, social issues, etc, but rather is a bit more central in their viewpoint, yet still fiscally conservative.  And has some charisma. 

As for your points, I don't think everyone's definition of "security", or how to grow the economy, or which Justices will cherish and protect our founding principles is the same.  Yet I think nearly everyone agrees these points are important.

As for me, as you pointed out, I came out in favor of Jon Huntsman, Jr.  But then I do not share all the goals of "the movement".  I'm a centralist.  But the Republicans need votes from people like me, those of us undecided and/or in the middle if they want to win in 2012.  Better Huntsman than Obama, don't your think?  Better half a pie than none at all.

While I know nearly everyone on this site wants Obama out, give him some credit; Obama did inherit a mess and times worldwide have been tough, nevertheless our economy is starting to improve, unemployment is slowly dropping, the Stock Market is absolutely booming, we seem to be withdrawing and/or limiting our exposure to war and Obama seems to be moving to the middle (clever).  Are there problems?  Of course, but IMHO, given the choice of viable candidates to date, I don't see anyone today beating Obama in 2012.  Time will tell.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #153 on: April 13, 2011, 06:42:32 PM »

"Obama did inherit a mess"

Unemployment: Jan 2009 7.6%
Unemployment now: 8.9% (in reality, much worse)

Wars: Then 2
Now 3

Total Public Debt: Jan. 9, 2009: 10,609,758,567,607.17
                                     Now: 14,272,993,603,617.44

Gas price average: Jan. 9, 2009: $1.79
                                       Now: $3.78

Then: Egypt a stable US ally
         Now: No longer

Then: Saudi Arabia a vital US ally
         Now: Looking to replace the US with China and/or Russia


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5968


« Reply #154 on: April 14, 2011, 12:59:02 AM »

In my opinion GM is sugarcoating the Obama results (liberal media ?)  wink.  I contend that this bunch rode into power in Nov. 2006, not Jan. 2009.  That is the inflection point on the curve for all things economic; coincidentally, that is when power in Washington changed hands.  The difference involves trillions and trillions of dollars of additional damage.  The only thing that happened the last 2 years of Bush with the Pelosi-Obama congress that was not the liberals doing was the surge in Iraq, and that was the only thing that went right during that time.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5968


« Reply #155 on: April 14, 2011, 01:58:08 AM »

JDN: "Tim Pawlenty is just fine; I would vote for him, but most wouldn't."

Reaching to the middle far enough to reach you is enough to win.  Any further and we lose direction, purpose and energy.  The middle always says we need the middle to win and we do, but frankly conservatives run better as principled than as Dem-lite type candidates.

The charisma issue gets judged over time and in context.  My opinion is that Obama lowered the bar by losing his.  Mere competence could defeat him along with a clearly articulated change in direction.

I see some positive in Huntsman, but I think we are discussing an empty canvas to paint our own picture on until he lays out where he stands on everything crucial.  Much of what was here on him was the wikipedia record mostly his own press accounts.  This would be a good time for him to announce and to face scrutiny like the others if he is running.  Maybe he stood up to Obama some behind the scenes and he stood up to the Chinese at least slightly while leaving that job.  Still I would ask if and how our relationship with China improved under his watch - I think it didn't.

Defeating Obama if it means (not aimed at you or any moderate candidate in particular) getting a spineless, uncommitted, unpredictable, unprincipled, poll following centrist is not any goal I intend to work hard for or care much about.  If failure is to be the result I would rather have voted against it.  Nothing short of a no apologies, pro-growth, comprehensive agenda is going to turn this ship round at this point in time IMHO.

We have defeating leftism previously only to fall into our own mediocrity and lose it all back.  Doing that again doesn't appeal to me at all.  How about we make the guy at the top of the ticket solid and competent and have the VP nominee be charismatic.  Govern wisely, communicate well and you could put a 16 year positive glide path in motion. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #156 on: April 15, 2011, 09:58:52 AM »

"Defeating Obama if it means (not aimed at you or any moderate candidate in particular) getting a spineless, uncommitted, unpredictable, unprincipled, poll following centrist"

And that is exactly what we will get if the "establishment" repukians keep listening to Karl Rove.

I say let's listen to Dick Morris.

I also have to reiterate to probably ad nauseum that the cans still have not answered questions and concerns that independents will have like I keep pointing out:

What about the middle class seeing their livelihoods slip into oblivion while Wall Street dances into princely kingdoms?

What about making it fair for all and not just the rich?

I do not want to tax the rich more at all.  They already pay the lion share.

But we have to change the tax code.

No more loop holes.

No more deductions (inclucing charitable schemes set up so they can avoid millions in taxes), No more offshore shit.

We should have a national sales tax - even those who are poor will have to contribute to the Fed treasury.  Either a flat tax for all except maybe those in poverty.

Get rid of the ridiculous cottage industry of tax lawyers and accountants who basically are siphoning off billions just because the tax codes are absurdly complicated, corrupt, and too much with the social engineering crap.

In other words the rich should not be taxed more but they and corporations do need to pay up something.  On the other hand a national sales tax will force the 50% of the free loading crowd to start contributing too.

Simple quotes from Reagan, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, growth, free markets yadda yadda yadda just don't cut it anymore. 

The repukians still don't get it.  Get rid of Rove.  He is a genius.  Got a totally inarticulate guy elected twice.  But now we will lose it all if we keep listening to him.

The crats and their jornolisters are out in force doing exactly what I have tried to ask here on this board what will be the answer to the middle class falling behind, the widening disparities of the rich vs. middle class.  Of course they were just waiting and praying for the cans to say anything about the social security medicare debt problems.
That dispicable guy spitzer was for weeks now going after every Republican guest - "where are you going to cut spending? Where Where Where?  What about the big programs meidcare social security etc?"  He was drooling waiting for someone to say it then he could jornolist the white house, Reid and the rest of the liberal media....

In any case the cans still *don't have a clue* about how to deal with this that I have heard.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #157 on: April 15, 2011, 10:19:41 AM »

#Invalid YouTube Link#

This needs to be the core of the debate.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DpeIV9X-smg#t=159s
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #158 on: April 15, 2011, 10:36:39 AM »

GM,

The debt is a big if not thee main issue.

The fault lines are on how to deal with the debt.

FWIW the polls are showing most people want the "rich" to pay.

Majority do want sending down too.

The crats are already out in force that "revenues" need to increase.  That means only one thing tax increases.
Since 50% pay no Fed tax (absurd) what do they give a hoot if taxes go up.

Since a majority of middle of the roaders don't want to pay up anymore they are also delighted to let the "rich" pay more.

So how do Repuks deal with that?  I am still waiting for an answer that is not a penny short.

All I see or hear is this question/issue keeps getting ignored, the run around, talked around, avoided, confused answers, redirected, nonanswers but lots of proclamations, double speak, beautiful ideological solutions that ignore the REAL everyday world most people live in.

The cans will have a real battle if they can't address this.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #159 on: April 15, 2011, 10:45:25 AM »

If we taxed the "rich" at 100%, leaving them naked on the side of the road, it would pay for our federal spending for one year. We get back to M. Thatcher's quote about running out of other people's money. We are getting there soon.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #160 on: April 15, 2011, 10:58:32 AM »

Well the crats keep pointing out the Bamster panel on debt concluded we will not solve our problems with spending cuts alone we need tax increases.

so most people want someone else to  pay for it.  Like the teacchers in Jersey who want the "rich" to pay for all their benes.

It is always the rich should pay.

For Gods sakes can't we have real bold action?

GM I appreciate your responses but this is still a penny short.  Ain't going to work.

I want my side to answer these questions.  I don't want to sit through a year and a half of hearing the same tired old arguments screamed back and forth between the left and right.  We need some real answers.  We need mouth pieces.  People who make sense.  Not political rhetoric.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5968


« Reply #161 on: April 15, 2011, 12:08:08 PM »

CCP ,  With you except in the idea of a national sales tax and the offshore comment.  Offshore or don't invest at all are options that come from making it lousy to invest here.  Look at the money going into gold.  What does that produce? Nothing.  The opposite of building plants, expanding and hiring - but it was the best investment of the Obama era.

"I do not want to tax the rich more at all.  They already pay the lion share."  - true.  They don't need to pay a higher rate, but they will pay more in total as they also grow their incomes.

"But we have to change the tax code."  - Yes! (Easier said than done.)

"No more loop holes."  - Corporate welfare should be combined with the other reforms of welfare and get a wider group to support reform.

"No more deductions" - No phony ones.  You still need to subtract real business expenses in order to calculate income.

"Get rid of the ridiculous cottage industry of tax lawyers and accountants who basically are siphoning off billions just because the tax codes are absurdly complicated, corrupt, and too much with the social engineering crap."  - YES!  Too much of our national brainpower and productive capacity is devoted to these government caused activities that produce nothing.

"We should have a national sales tax - even those who are poor will have to contribute to the Fed treasury.  Either a flat tax for all except maybe those in poverty."

  - Ryan proposed a two rate system, 10% up to a certain amount (I'm sure nothing at the low end) and 25% above that.  I would tweak that by starting with zero rate at zero income, ending at 25% cap and making rates continuously variable up to the cap.  Lower the rate at the cap and you lower everyone's rate.  Raise the rate at the cap and you raise everyone's rate. 

National sales tax is a non-starter for me.  You trust the feds with another huge way to tax us on everything?  I don't:

a) More taxes have not proven to close deficits.
b) Sales tax is regressive.  If we were willing to reduce progressivity (for the most part we aren't), a straight flat tax would set off tremendous growth.
c) replacing income taxes with consumption taxes requires a constitutional amendment repealing the income tax authority and that isn't politically possible.  If we could get 70+% of the people and representatives to agree on any responsible course of action we wouldn't have a problem.
d) A national sales tax would step on a main funding source of our bankrupt states - who will then turn to the Feds for their bailout.

We need a zero deficit at full employment, that necessarily means firsst we need to move toward full employment.  Full employment requires capital and labor.  The idea that we can fully employ labor while walking all over capital is socialist fallacy.  The idea that workers benefited from 5 year campaign against the rich and fighting disparity is exactly upside down.  The Pelosi-Obama agenda took Washington by storm in Nov. 2006, see 1/2007 on Obama BLS unemployment chart:

In the election of 2012, we will have one incumbent (presumably) running on the words of Wednesday's speech, which is to accuse, deny, blow hot air, and pledge to continue stomping out new investment, running against one ordinary, mortal Republican of medium charisma and experience proposing something on the order of the Ryan plan, and they will perhaps be joined by one famous egotistical independent (Trump? Bloomberg?) either confusing the choices or adding one, depending on your point of view.

Investors need a fair, competitive and CONSISTENT set of rules.  There is plenty of idle capacity dying to be set free in our economy (yadda, yadda  smiley ) None of this spending cut talk or revenue enhancement talk will get us anywhere with our engine missing on nearly all cylinders.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #162 on: April 15, 2011, 12:27:54 PM »

Doug, great reply.  Now you are talking.  How can we tie such ideas of tax reform so the average Joe will "buy" in??

We need more radical ideas not just the right shouting tax and spending cuts and those on the left tax increases.  Otherwise I/we am going top go crazy listening the the idiots scream the same old tired non starter ideas back and forth forever.  I can't take it anymore.  I can't stand a bunch of rich white boys speaking ideology anymore than I can stand a bunch of angry blacks, gays female nannie statists, liberals downing everything white male, eurocentric, capitalistic, successful, corportate.

I am sick and tired of being ripped of by wall street Goldman Sachs, and sick and tired of the entitlement classes even more.  We need a truly fair system for all, as well as individual responsibility.  Where is the vision???

BTW,

The only reason I brought up the national sales tax idea was to get the freeloaders to start to contribute.  I don't give a rats ass if you are out on the street.  I want everyone to start paying up!  Something.  Even if only a few bucks a month.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5968


« Reply #163 on: April 15, 2011, 03:01:58 PM »

"The only reason I brought up the national sales tax idea was to get the freeloaders to start to contribute."

Doc, Please be careful about mentioning new taxes out loud.  There is a very old song by Pink Floyd called 'Careful with that Axe Eugene'.  I am looking for the emoticon to symbolize that 8 minute scream for my reaction to giving congress one more way to tax us. 

Remember we don't need to persuade every militant free loader, just pick up a certain number who care about the future of the country and the future of their own children and grandchildren. We need to get the policies right, get them sold and passed and bring in the results.  We need a candidate stronger and more consistent than McCain, while Dems seem stuck with the one who has already failed, flip flopped and floundered, not to mention disengaged from the job.  Obama as an empty canvas won by 7 points in a total Dem year.  Many of those latched on to the excitement, not the agenda.  Those 7 points are gone.  Now only 35% support Obamacare and Gallup today has Obama at 41%, that is before his big fall IMO.  Everyone by now knows that you don't raise taxes in a recession.  But when you keep bringing the tax hikes forward, you just get perpetual recession/stagnation as investors keep seeing that prospect and uncertainty.  The opponents magic is gone.  As you suggest, this will be a right vs. left campaign with both sides fighting to convince the middle of where the answers lie.  One side said big government stimulus and control is the answer and they failed.  I say the answer is (competent) limited government with pro-growth policies aimed at growing the private sector. (With specifics, not yadda yadda!)  I am more worried about getting the agenda right than winning at this point.  Winning will come if we deserve it, but governing after victory is the real question.  The excitement needs to shift from welfare rights, equalization and activism to the expanding job and business opportunities presented with a high growth economy.  Accomplish that and enough frustrated centrists will jump on board.

I still say they cannot make incomes look stagnant in a high growth economy without distorting what they measure and report.  Answering the negative is okay for a moment but off-message in the fight to move forward.  Designing a high growth system that micro-manages outcomes simply is not going to happen and slow to medium growth means the debt elephant dominates us forever or until full collapse and default.

Politics goes in pendulum swings.  ACORN activism and redistribution sold because people took growth and prosperity for granted before we ever fully achieved it.  Now people can see that stagnation sucks, and fighting over the shares of a fixed or declining pie will get us nowhere.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #164 on: April 15, 2011, 03:42:49 PM »

"Please be careful about mentioning new taxes out loud"

In general I am not for tax increases.  Yet I am not for 50% of America not paying any Federal taxes and the rest of us supporting them.  (except for active military personel I think they do pay tax but I would be in favor they don't pay a cent).

It is a problem if we have so many people who don't pay Fed income tax.  Thus they do not have any financial incentives to keep from spending other people's monies.

Every American has to be in this.

I got a laugh when the cable nanny network pointed out those "cheating" the gov. out of taxes are guess who?  Predominantly "the rich".  Are they suggesting that millions are not taking cash on the side and not reporting it?  I digress.

"Remember we don't need to persuade every militant free loader"

True.  But we have to address this sense of entitlement and the free loading to begin with.  I really enjoyed Dennis Miller the other night on O'Reilly when he said time is up for free loaders and losers.  He pointed out he didn't mind helping the really needy but those who are just plain screw ups and lazy ass types who abuse the system - it is time to stop the handouts.  Thank God someone *finally* said it.  Mazoltov!!!  Since he is not Jewish perhaps I should say God bless him.

As far as I know he is the first to publically say what those of us who work hard are thinking.

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #165 on: April 15, 2011, 04:01:37 PM »

While I seem to be the lonely voice of the independents on this site, I absolutely agree with CCP's post (although I too have questions about a national sales tax).

In summary, CCP said, "The crats and their jornolisters are out in force doing exactly what I have tried to ask here on this board what will be the answer to the middle class falling behind, the widening disparities of the rich vs. middle class.  Of course they were just waiting and praying for the cans to say anything about the social security medicare debt problems."

The shrinking middle class; that is the issue.  And why not address social security and medicare?  Everyone is living longer.  Why not extend the age before distribution of Social Security benefits?  Ease it in; let's say beginning in 2020 or something.  And Medicare too needs to be examined; perhaps raise the deductibles, increase premium, or increase co-pays.  Why is this "untouchable"?

Again, CCP said, "Where is the vision???"
"I also have to reiterate to probably ad nauseum that the cans still have not answered questions and concerns that independents will have like I keep pointing out:

What about the middle class seeing their livelihoods slip into oblivion while Wall Street dances into princely kingdoms?

What about making it fair for all and not just the rich?"

Make it fair for all; it's true; the same old ideas aren't going to sell.  But if you take care of the middle class, have a heart for social welfare for the truly needy, it might work.  I am an optimist; I believe most of the poor, even those illegal immigrants aspire to be "middle class".  Give them a way.

As for the rich, nothing wrong with being rich, but get rid of the special "rich" loopholes and deductions.  I suggest taxing all mortgages
above 1million.  And eliminate second home deductions. The middle class doesn't live in million dollar homes or have second homes.  And if you are rich enough to own one, why should you get a deduction, when the middle class guy living in an apartment gets nothing.  And scale back charitable
contribution deductions; I donate my appreciated art collection or stocks to my alma mater and never pay tax; is that right?  The middle class
doesn't have that option.  Etc.

Show that you are "fair", then find someone who can articulate your position, has some family values and the Republicans should win.  I'ld vote for the guy.  And so will a lot of other Americans.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5968


« Reply #166 on: April 15, 2011, 04:27:42 PM »

"As for the rich, nothing wrong with being rich, but get rid of the special "rich" loopholes and deductions.  I suggest taxing all mortgages
above 1million.  And eliminate second home deductions. The middle class doesn't live in million dollar homes or have second homes.  And if you are rich enough to own one, why should you get a deduction, when the middle class guy living in an apartment gets nothing.  And scale back charitable
contribution deductions; I donate my appreciated art collection or stocks to my alma mater and never pay tax; is that right?  The middle class
doesn't have that option."
-----

Another set of new laws targeting this and targeting that so it applies to one group and not to another.  I am fighting for the opposite - one set of rules.  If you want, lower the rates and eliminate the deductions for everyone IMO.  Eliminating the charitable deduction at these rates will eliminate plenty of charities, making government even more in charge of our every need, just what they want.

You are right IMO on this: reforming Social Security IS touchable.  I say adjust FDR's ratios to today's realities (1% tax?).  The alternative for those who want to remove the income cap is to: lower the rate, apply it to ALL earned income evenly, make it transparent - consolidate the employer hidden half so people see what is taken, raise the retirement age way up to the point of unable to work, means test every benefit, and let it become the smaller welfare net that people seem to want instead of the insurance enhancement product that it once was.

SS has been solvent up until now but at 15+% it is eating up the taxable income potential from the rest of our needs.  It is a brutal tax on the middle class and the thriving self-employed.  Let's downsize it. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #167 on: April 15, 2011, 04:39:57 PM »

JDN,
Thank you for your thoughts and reply.  

Since you identify yourself as an independent I appreciate your thoughts even more.  The crats understand the need to reach out to the "shrinking" middle class and try to sell them the concept that what they need is big government to help them.  The Republicans really don't understand this the way the crats do.  
I want the Republicans to fight for this group.  To prove to this group, to win over that the Republican vision is the better choice for them and America.  As of yet I have not heard that other than indirectly - trickle down stuff etc.

JDN, it sounds like you would agree with me that the republicans need to do a  better job reaching out to this group.  Not with handouts the Dems offer but real opportunity.  And real *fairness*.  They need to sell the concept the answer is not to soak and steal more from the rich.  But to stop the rich from getting away with "murder".   For example, with loopholes like you wisely point out the rest of us don't enjoy.  

Like Bon Jovi paying 1/50 of my NJ mortgage tax for a property that must be 100 times the size because he raises bees on his property.  He probably saves at least 100K a year at least for NJ property taxes.  Same for Sprinsteen (according to Stossel).

"Show that you are "fair", then find someone who can articulate your position, has some family values and the Republicans should win.  I'ld vote for the guy.  And so will a lot of other Americans."

Yes, thank you JDN.  This is what I am talking about. grin
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #168 on: April 15, 2011, 05:18:10 PM »

Thank you CCP  grin


Another set of new laws targeting this and targeting that so it applies to one group and not to another.  I am fighting for the opposite - one set of rules.  If you want, lower the rates and eliminate the deductions for everyone IMO.  Eliminating the charitable deduction at these rates will eliminate plenty of charities, making government even more in charge of our every need, just what they want.


In theory I agree Doug, but frankly I don't think it's salable.  You can't eliminate the mortgage deduction for everyone the first year. Or all charitable contributions. It is political suicide.    That gets back to my point earlier about principles and electability.  Step by step...  But you can overcome if you are patient.   smiley
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #169 on: April 16, 2011, 11:18:23 AM »

Doug,

"If you want, lower the rates and eliminate the deductions for everyone IMO."

Yes.  The only deductions should be business expenses.  Nothing else. 

 I disagree.

"Eliminating the charitable deduction at these rates will eliminate plenty of charities, making government even more in charge of our every need, just what they want."

Charitable deductions help the rich by far at the cost to the rest of taxpayers.  IF the rich are so wonderful than just donate to charity. 

We are broke.

Politically I admit the nannies will not let this happen anyway.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #170 on: April 16, 2011, 01:03:57 PM »

So today I see Rove called Trump a joke.  Marc Levin states Trump is not the real deal or a serious candidate.

I tend to agree.  Trump is a bit of a loose cannon and it is likely just a matter of time he says something that will cause his spiral down.

Plus he is a great salesman who sounds like he knows how to straighten out the country but he is short on details or real policy if you ask me.

Yet I think he serves a great purpose by putting the phoney ONE on the defensive.

I don't know if Bamster was born here or not.  I don't know it it says Muslim or not.

The point is the guy is hiding something.  I would really rather see what is in his thesis and his records from school.  I suspect the one was a militant anti American.  He hates capitalism, white eurocentric democracy as has been the custom for 200 years.  I speculate he congregated with the radical hate America Columbia crowd.

He is definitely hiding past issues that we have a right to know.  Again I don't know how he has gotten away with it.  And I applaud Trump for having the courage to take him on these issues.

As for Rove I don't know what to say.  I really don't understand how he has so much credibility with the *establishment* as it appears.  He has done much to hurt the party and his strategies have been proven failures.   Why is anyone listening to him with more than a grain of salt?  Everytime I see him I think Bushes.  Whatever anyone thinks of H or W they are over and past tense.  Time to clean house and move on.  As for Jeb Bush the guy is a sell out. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5968


« Reply #171 on: April 16, 2011, 01:19:15 PM »

These special privileges need to be treated or ended in a package: ethanol in Iowa, charitable giving over at the churches (etc) and the mortgage deduction everywhere.  Each agrees to give up your own to lock in the package - or it can't happen.  The Iowa farmer loses his ethanol subsidy for example but the policy package will bring diesel costs down by a third along with inheritance tax reform.  Deductions phase out but rates come down.  There has to be a bright side - besides saving the republic!

Sometimes the compromise can be right down the middle (not so much for abortion).  With business meals they start allowing half the expense.  Ending the deduction entirely and you kill restaurants and lose those jobs.  Allow 50% of charitable to be deducted would seem like a fairer outcome.  Or end all deductions for the lower rate, both are okay with me. But we don't save money by killing off cancer research and turning all charitable work into functions of government.  In general I prefer that social functions handled more by charities, versus more to government.

From JDN: "You can't eliminate the mortgage deduction for everyone the first year. Or all charitable contributions. It is political suicide.  That gets back to my point earlier about principles and electability.  Step by step."

I agree.  Find the right policy and phase it in.  If the end point is 50% of mortgage interest and 50% of charitable giving is to be deductible, then phase it in with a 10% change per year until you hit the new policy.

Phasing in tax rate cuts however doesn't work because of the incentive to delay the gains for the lowest rate.  The corporate tax rate should be cut instantly to the average of OECD, taking away part of the incentive to capture income offshore.  That will not cost us revenue.  Capital gains tax rates should be either lowered or locked in where they are without expiration.  How can anyone advise for or against a major investment decision with detailed analysis without knowing the tax rate? They can't and most major expansions are either on hold or built elsewhere.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5968


« Reply #172 on: April 17, 2011, 10:31:56 AM »

CCP: "Marc Levin states Trump is not the real deal or a serious candidate."

I was listening to that same show.  It wasn't Levin's opinion but the evidence he presented that was persuasive.  I enjoy what Trump is saying now; it fits with the tea party message.  2 years ago Obama supporters loved what he was saying.

He explains his Dem/leftist contributions as giving to both sides is a cost of doing business.  Yet his contributions were 80% to the left so any reaching across would be the rare occasions he supported conservatives.  Plenty of business people have taken a principled position in politics.  He hasn't.  What he calls a cost of doing business is now baggage for pursuing public office.  He had every right to promote Chuck Schumer's agenda, but he doesn't have the power or charisma to make that go away.

Along with no electoral experience, from a conservative point of view he would seem to also have no principled voting experience either or pattern of showing conviction.

Earlier in my real estate investing career and earlier in Trump's career, I bought his book 'Art of the Deal', sold as a how-to book and quickly learned that it was an egotist writing  'aren't I great' and 'don't I hang around with important and famous people' with nothing of value for the reader.  The message was that if you're him, don't bother.  People who run for President need a healthy ego but I prefer the outlook that this is about we the people not he the leader.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2011, 10:42:13 AM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #173 on: April 17, 2011, 10:41:46 AM »





Compelling.  If you have a double-digit IQ.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #174 on: April 18, 2011, 10:10:48 AM »

Well it is amazing that this celebrity would garner 34% of likely voters.  As noted Obama still is not over 50%.  Trump was on the other day and said he wants to consider a run because he loves this country and is concerned about what is happening to it.  I admit this is one time I didn't find him convincing about his convictions.

***Obama 49%, Trump 34%
Monday, April 18, 2011
 President Obama leads Donald Trump by 15 percentage points in a hypothetical 2012 match-up, but the president is unable to top the 50% level of support even against an opponent some are deriding as a joke.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that the president earns support from 49% of Likely Voters nationwide, while Trump attracts the vote from 34%. Given that choice, 12% would vote for some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.  (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Only 65% of Republican voters would vote for Trump over Obama. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 48% prefer Obama, 25% Trump, and 20% would opt for some other candidate.

Regardless of what Republican is matched against the president, Obama earns between 42% and 49% support.  Trump doesn't run as well against the president as the top tier of GOP candidates, but he does pick up more support than insider favorites Mitch Daniels and Jon Huntsman and entrepreneur Herman Cain.

Unlike several potential Republican candidates, Trump does not suffer from a lack of name recognition. Instead, he suffers from high unfavorable ratings. Most voters (53%) offer an unfavorable opinion of the reality TV star and businessman, including 29% with a Very Unfavorable view of him. Only 39% offer a favorable assessment, with 10% Very Favorable.   

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters nationwide was conducted on April 15-16, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted byPulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Trump's numbers have changed little from a May 2007 survey when 33% viewed him favorably while 54% had an unfavorable opinion. 

Because of his wealth, Trump has indicated that he could finance his own presidential campaign if necessary and not have to be beholden to special interest contributors. Just over half (54%) of voters say a candidate's ability to finance his own campaign is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for president, with 22% who say it is Very Important. Forty-two percent (42%) say an ability to self-finance a presidential campaign is unimportant to them, including 12% who say it's Not At All Important.

Republicans value this ability more than Democrats and unaffiliated voters.

But then 61% of GOP voters have a favorable view of Trump. Seventy-one percent (71%) of Democrats and 58% of unaffiliateds regard him unfavorably.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31310


« Reply #175 on: April 18, 2011, 11:20:41 AM »

Is it true that Trump has given lots more money to Democrats than Republicans and that he has donated lots of money to Chuck Schumer?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #176 on: April 18, 2011, 11:31:55 AM »

Is it true that Trump has given lots more money to Democrats than Republicans and that he has donated lots of money to Chuck Schumer?

Here is a list of his political contributions.  Without looking at all 7 pages and doing the addition for which party he has contributed more to, he has contributed to Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=trump%2C+donald&state=&zip=&employ=&cand=&all=Y&sort=N&capcode=rjjbr&submit=Submit

(click on "all cycles", and it will give you from 1992)
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 11:33:47 AM by bigdog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5968


« Reply #177 on: April 18, 2011, 11:52:34 AM »

The Republican nominee MUST win the base AND reach to the middle.  McCain (for example) was the exact opposite.  He appealed during his career to the middle and then reached during the final stretch to the base, which is backwards.  2008 was a known Dem year.  2012 will either lean R or best case for the Dems will be fought on equal footing IMO.

These early head to head polls ask the judges to score before they see the contest. 

The seven point win of Obama is not going to happen again. He has lost independents and is no longer a blank slate.  He has also done several things to undermine the energy from his base.  The Republican candidates look weak now but one will rise and win by showing political and persuasive strength across different parts of the country.

Trump's 35% now could work in a 3 way contest but probably only as spoiler, like Perot.  I doubt in the end that he will run.
----
Political contributions are pretty easy to verify (see BD post).  The second link has a list compiled over a long period, including: Schumer, Rangel, Gillebrand, Anthony Weiner, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Erskine Bowles, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Torricelli, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, Dick Durbin, Rahm, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Charlie Crist, Bill Nelson (FL) etc. JIMMY CARTER 1979, and also Republicans to a lesser degree: Tom Coburn, McCain, George Allen, Giuliani, RNC...
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/20/is-donald-trump-a-conservative/
http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Donald_Trump.php
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #178 on: April 20, 2011, 10:50:20 AM »

And this can be done.  The Repubics don't have the balls or are not girl enough to do it though.

I have it figured out.   I don't see most Republicans saying anything but the same misleading message.  Again they may lose.  Again it is the same screaming match back and forth.

Selling trickle down economics alone will not win over the middle.  Most people don't buy this simplistic solution anymore.  The rich ARE richer and the middle are stagnating.

If Republicans want to win they need to repackage the brand.  The need to take away the class warefare argument from the dems.  There IS ONLY ONE way they can do that and stay true to their principles.  Otherwise we will continue to see the right appealing only to the right and the sell outs like the Bushes and Roves giving in.  But there is a way out. 

Reduce government, reduce regulation, reduce taxes but make the system truly fair for everyone and stop allowing the wealthy to reap the benefits only they can take advantage of.

Otherwise we will have class warfare and the same screaming matches that we have had for 30 years now going back and forth with no end.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #179 on: April 20, 2011, 10:53:33 AM »

No. If serious action isn't taken very soon, our financial house of cards will fall. Socialism always fails and we are running out of other people's money.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #180 on: April 20, 2011, 11:55:02 AM »

"Socialism always fails and we are running out of other people's money"

My point is the rich have unfair advantages.  If you want people to vote Republican because they believe in the party and not just because they hate Bamster more you have to get the middle calls to buy in.

The reason Bamster still has the support of many in the middle, still, is because they know the deck is stacked agianst them.

What do you think people think when they see 400 top earners in the US pay 16% income tax?

You think that is fair?

I pay more than that.  I am outraged at the loopholes.  Why am I paying more?  I am also outrage 47 pay nothing.

Both ends are taking advantage of the middle.  A Republican who addresses this WILL WIN.  And win easily.  Otherwise it is a screaming match.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #181 on: April 20, 2011, 12:27:24 PM »

ccp,

The rich always have advantages. So? The rich can travel more, have better houses, healthcare, food and cars than those that are not wealthy. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. As the rich get richer, they bring the rest of us along with them.

From memory, the top one % in this country have 20% of the wealth, yet pay 40% of the taxes, while roughly 50% of the country pay NO taxes. Is that fair?

Now if we were to copy Hong Kong and have a simple tax code that is about 200 pages long, that's a good change to look at.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #182 on: April 20, 2011, 12:37:16 PM »


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3793

Hong Kong's Excellent Taxes
 
by Alan Reynolds


President Bush gave former Sens. Connie Mack of Florida and John Breaux of Louisiana the unenviable task of trying to say something new and interesting about tax reform.
 
When it comes to designing a simple tax system that does the least damage to the economy, it would be difficult to find a better role model than Hong Kong. As The Economist wrote a few years ago, "The territory's tradition of simple and low taxes ... is widely seen as a main reason for its stunning rise to prosperity." Many advantages of the Hong Kong tax system have been widely emulated in Asia, yet remain poorly understood in this country. One such misunderstanding may have resulted in an unfortunate spat between two old friends, Steve Moore and Bruce Bartlett.
 
Moore proposes that individual taxpayers should be allowed to either pay taxes under the current rules, or instead forego deductions for mortgage interest and charitable deductions and pay 20 percent on that broader measure of income. "Bruce Bartlett attacked this plan as a gimmick," writes Moore. "But he fails to realize this is precisely how the Hong Kong tax system works. Hong Kong has a complicated system and a simple flat tax, and filers choose between the two."
 


Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and a nationally syndicated columnist.

More by Alan Reynolds

 Gimmick or not, Moore's "freedom to choose flat tax" is not remotely similar to the Hong Kong tax system, which is not complicated in any respect. I may have been partly at fault for that misunderstanding.
 
Steve Moore and Bruce Bartlett were advisers to Jack Kemp's tax reform commission in 1995, and I was research director. Asked by one commissioner about Hong Kong's "flat tax," I replied that the tax on salaries is not flat but steeply progressive. There are four marginal tax brackets of 2 percent, 8 percent, 14 percent and 20 percent. I would prefer a single tax rate, for reasons I explained last November in "The Case for One Tax Rate." But any tax with a top rate of 20 percent is hard to fault.
 
Unlike the United States, Hong Kong is not plagued with tax credits that create random spikes in marginal tax rates as the credits are phased out. But Hong Kong does allow charitable deductions up to 25 percent of salary income and a mortgage interest deduction up to about $13,000 (in U.S. dollars). Other deductions are allowed for adult education, care of elderly relatives and retirement savings plans.
 
Personal exemptions are so generous that most employees owe little or no tax on salaries. For those with high salaries, however, it is cheaper to forego personal exemptions (but not deductions) and pay a 16 percent "standard rate." Only the top 2 percent usually pay that standard rate, yet they account for nearly half of all revenue from the salaries tax.
 
Groping for an explanation of the standard rate a decade ago, I suggested it was something like an "alternative maximum tax" -- a phrase Moore has used to describe his own, very different tax proposal. But the standard rate is automatic, not a matter of choice. Taxpayers fill out a one-page online return declaring their salary and deductions, and the government sends them a bill.
 
The standard rate does not make Hong Kong's tax system simpler, but it does make it more efficient. Academic studies of optimal taxation have long concluded that marginal tax rates should be lowest at the highest levels of income. As Joseph Stiglitz wrote in 1987, "the marginal tax rate on the highest income (ability) individual should be zero." Hong Kong does not go quite that far, but the marginal rate is reduced from 20 to 16 at the highest incomes, while keeping their average tax high by eliminating personal exemptions.
 
As clever as this is, it is not the most interesting aspect of the Hong Kong tax system. What makes taxes in Hong Kong so uniquely simple and effective is that businesses pay all the taxes on income originating in business (profits), and employees pay all the taxes on salaries.
 
Hong Kong has no payroll tax for Social Security, no general sales or value-added tax, no tariffs on imports and no personal tax on income from financial assets. What Hong Kong has is called a "Dual Tax" -- progressive tax rates on labor income but a flat tax of 17.5 percent on corporate profits, 16 percent on property owners and unincorporated enterprises.
 
The low tax on profits brings in substantially more revenue than the tax on salaries, in marked contrast to the United States, which collects little from profits taxes that are nominally twice as high. Corporations in Hong Kong pay the profits tax before distributing dividends to shareholders, so there is no extra tax on dividends to be collected from individuals. Reinvested profits result in more business income to tax in the future, so there is no extra tax on capital gains to be collected from individuals.
 
Companies in Hong Kong deduct interest payments, however, so it would be theoretically appropriate to tax individuals on income they receive from local corporate bonds. This exemplifies the key tax principle of symmetry: Whatever is a deductible expense for those making any payment ought to be taxable income for those receiving that payment. But there would still be no need for individuals to report interest income, because a flat tax can easily be collected at the source, before the check goes out.
 
The United States could easily adopt something similar to the Hong Kong tax. It would require no wrenching changes, such as giving up interest deductibility for corporations or homeowners. Some tax rates would presumably have to be higher (the 2 percent rate is ridiculously low anyway), but not as much higher as you might think.
 
Hong Kong's taxes on salaries and profits amounted to about 7 percent of GDP last year, while combined U.S. corporate and individual taxes brought in only 8.6 percent of GDP. Since a larger percentage of American employees have higher salaries, a salary tax such as Hong Kong's would raise more money even without higher tax rates.
 
The Hong Kong tax system has one major advantage over even the most elegant theoretical alternatives. It has been tested for more than 50 years. It works.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5968


« Reply #183 on: April 20, 2011, 12:57:08 PM »

Economics, President Barack Obama: "If we keep spending more than we take in, we are going to do some damage to our economy."

  - He acts like the excess spending was an accident, an act of God - like a tsunami - that hit the nation and his budget.  (Same goes for gas prices, an global phenomenon that really he had nothing to do with.)

Everyone including the President, please re-read every Krugman column since before his election and review every Obama speech he has made and every policy they have put out including his most recent budget proposal.  THE DEFICIT SPENDING WAS INTENTIONAL (sorry for the shouting); it is the heart of the failed Keynesian philosophy they were ramming down our throat with our own dollars and some new ones that look like ours, with Krugman, the economic spiritual leader still calling on him to double the ante.  Excess public spending IS the stimulus, in their mind, and we are lucky to have 1% nominal growth and U6 at 16%?  Deficits are what supposedly saved millions of jobs, ('created or saved').  And when they said temporary, they meant permanent.  Like those great magic shows - what they tell us changes right in front of our eyes and know one can see it happen.  They are so used to playing with words and labeling things the opposite of what they are, they didn't even notice themselves telling a patent falsehood.  We know how to start a spending program, but we don't know how to end one.  Everybody knew that.  Nothing was put in to make things temporary.  The exact opposite is true - they made it so it is a cut to end things that were 'temporary'. 

How are you supposed to know when you are wrong if you are Obama, Jarrett, Krugman, Biden, Reich et al, and when are you supposed to know? How are you supposed to gracefully turn 180 degrees, save face, and start undoing what you did and start doing things that really work, and bring along all the people with you that you recently and repeatedly told the opposite - as recently as last Wednesday.  In sports (or in war with generals), you don't change the coach's mind; they get fired for results like these.   You hire someone else to run the organization in a better direction. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4094


« Reply #184 on: April 20, 2011, 01:14:52 PM »

"As the rich get richer, they bring the rest of us along with them"

Well recent stats if true show the rich are 399% richer since around 1980 and the rest of us around 15%.

The above statement is exactly what is wrong with the Republicans and why they have trouble fighting off class warfare accusations from liberals.  I am not a liberal.  I am not for social welfare.  I am not for taking more from the rich.  I don't know why you seem to not see my points.  What I am proposing is an excellent answer to the problems repubs have getting "market share" WITHOUT" compromising their general principles. 

It seems only JDN understands what I am saying.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #185 on: April 20, 2011, 01:26:22 PM »

Do you understand the Laffer curve and the difference between tax rates and tax revenues? Having higher tax rates can actually (and usually does) reduce the amount of money taken in by the gov't.

Just as higher taxes on cigarettes discourages smoking, income taxes discourages income creation, which penalizes the non-rich the most.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5968


« Reply #186 on: April 20, 2011, 02:52:16 PM »

CCP: " I don't see most Republicans saying anything but the same misleading message... Selling trickle down economics alone will not win over the middle."

 - Trickle down is a label put on the policies by the people who oppose them.  I don't know what part of across the board they never understand. The main effect of supply side or 'pro-growth' policies is on the people who potentially want to go forth and achieve rather than to those who already have.  Simpler, more evenly applied policies with slightly lower disincentives for all productive activities regardless of who does them, that's all it is.  Not what Bush did for example.  That involved lower rates, but moving everything else in the wrong direction in terms of the burden imposed by a growing public sector.

You are correct that we need better messaging, but constantly denying a negative is not how to stay on message.  Repeatedly answering the charge, 'when did you quit beating your wife,' doesn't make for the best press conference.  For the whole disparity thing, ask yourself which disparity study you've ever read that adjusted for things like what you did to get where you are, a 4 year degree, medical school, residency, sleepless weeks in training, giving up a good part of a decade in training, taking/passing boards, risk taking, possibility of being sued or losing license or small judgments made every day, carrying the pager, carrying the malpractice policy, paying the student loans back, accepting delayed benefits, etc etc.  Other people didn't do all that and many did none of it.  Which study adjusts for that? Nothing I've ever seen.  Shouldn't we have that freedom and that choice - to jump all in, or part way in with more leisure, less responsibility - especially at different points in our lives?? Outcomes are going to differ; that is a fact, not an issue.  Maybe the super rich of the moment are doing something right economically in terms of providing something that a large global market needs and maybe the middle class is sitting on its laurels, doing things the same year after year.  As you say with messaging, the bully pulpit needs to join with the policies and inspire more people to go out and achieve. 

Where we are now is the opposite, we oppose producing energy, propose higher disincentives and tell everyone to leave the car in the garage and be a blockworker agent for redistributive justice.  How is that working out, is what I would ask.
---
"...the rich are 399% richer since around 1980 and the rest of us around 15%."

Each year they measure a different group.  The top 400 for example changes every year. It isn't the same people in what they call the rich.  These measures are highly misleading.  Still, what should the disparity outcome be between one person who is all in, in terms of pursuing wealth through productive enterprise, and someone else who is not?  How much of the reward for all that wealth creation can we take away and still get the same amount of it to tax at all? GM already answered it but the answer is no, disincentives matter.  There isn't some clever way to target this and tweak that and have it all work out without screwing up our badly needed economic growth.
---
"...when they see 400 top earners in the US pay 16% income tax?"

They take the SS as a tax but defend it as an insurance policy.  Then they take the taxation of long term gains earned with after-tax dollars,including the inflation component (not a gain at all) and compare it with taxes on earned income.  I have 2 solutions for that. One is re-define SS as general welfare since that is what that comparison infers.  The other is to remove the inflation component of gains before you tax them as ordinary income. States BTW already tax capital gains as ordinary income, even inflationary gains - a small point always left out of all the disparity hysteria, all state and local plus the corporate tax was already taxed before the distribution gets to the owner.  They include the SS, which is capped on BOTH paying in and paying out, and exclude things like state taxes, property taxes and corporate taxes, then point to how unfair the difference is.  I know you don't put up with that level of analysis in a medical study, but I agree it is hard to keep going back to answer every charge.

We need to remove loopholes, these were the genius, social engineering ideas of the previous congresses and administrations.  Just like spending programs, each has a constituency, but the theme is that everything is negotiable.  As Clinton used to say, "we can do more...' or the other CLinton said, 'you can't afford all of my ideas'. How many of the working poor went out and took thousands in the cash for clunkers 'tax credit', to get a $45000 car and 'save money' on gas.  That's one loophole, also wind and solar. How many homeless got the insulation credit?  Electric vehicle credits went to golf cart purchases, how many of the recently foreclosed got the tax credit for one of those.  The same jerks who did all of that who now point to the loopholes.  End them, fine, an lower the rates.  But a loophole is not to take actual costs that oil companies incurred to produce oil and disallow the expense in the year it was incurred.  I wasn't a conservative policy of taxing all income equally that caused GE (with the CEO on the Obama board) to hit the zero mark.

This really shouldn't be that hard to build a persuasive case against Obama's policies and to put forth a better alternative.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #187 on: April 20, 2011, 03:08:01 PM »

Do you understand the Laffer curve and the difference between tax rates and tax revenues? Having higher tax rates can actually (and usually does) reduce the amount of money taken in by the gov't.

Just as higher taxes on cigarettes discourages smoking, income taxes discourages income creation, which penalizes the non-rich the most.

That's voodoo economics that no one really believes anymore.....

If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #188 on: April 20, 2011, 03:29:14 PM »

The Time editorial disguised as an article ignores the hard numbers that directly refute it's claims.



http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/~/media/Images/Reports/2007/bg2001/chart2_lg.ashx

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

As previously stated, whether a tax cut pays for itself depends on how much people alter their behavior in response to the policy. Investors have been shown to be the most sensitive to tax policy, because capital gains tax cuts encourage enough new investment to more than offset the lower tax rate.

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.[10] (See Chart 2.) Past capital gains tax cuts have shown similar results.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #189 on: April 20, 2011, 03:37:56 PM »

It works in reverse as well:


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-laffer-curve-strikes-again/

The Laffer Curve Strikes Again

 Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

In the private sector, no business owner would be dumb enough to assume that higher prices automatically translate into proportionately higher revenues. If McDonald’s boosted hamburger prices by 30 percent, for instance, the experts at the company would fully expect that sales would decline. Depending on the magnitude of the drop, total revenue might still climb, but by far less than 30 percent. And it’s quite possible that the company would lose revenue. In the public sector, however, there is very little understanding of how the real world works. Here’s a Reuters story I saw on Tim Worstall’s blog, which reveals that Bulgaria and Romania both are losing revenue after increasing tobacco taxes.
 

Cash-strapped Bulgaria and Romania hoped taxing cigarettes would be an easy way to raise money but the hikes are driving smokers to a growing black market instead. Criminal gangs and impoverished Roma communities near borders with countries where prices are lower — Serbia, Macedonia, Moldova and Ukraine — have taken to smuggling which has wiped out gains from higher excise duties. Bulgaria increased taxes by nearly half this year and stepped up customs controls and police checks at shops and markets. Customs office data, however, shows tax revenues from cigarette sales so far in 2010 have fallen by nearly a third. …Overall losses from smuggling will probably outweigh tax gains as Bulgaria struggle to fight the growing black market, which has risen to over 30 percent of all cigarette sales and could cost 500 million levs in lost revenues this year, said Bezlov at the Center for the Study of Democracy. While the government expected higher income from taxes in 2010 it has already revised that to the same level as last year. “However, this (too) looks unlikely at present,” Bezlov added. Romania, desperately trying to keep a 20 billion-euro International Monetary Fund-led bailout deal on track, has a similar problem after nearly doubling cigarette prices in 2009 then hiking value added tax. Romania’s top three cigarette makers — units of British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International and Philip Morris — contributed roughly 2 billion euros to the budget in taxes in 2009, or just under 2 percent of GDP. They estimate about a third of cigarettes in Romania are smuggled and say this could cost the state over 1 billion euros.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #190 on: April 20, 2011, 04:14:33 PM »

More Laffer Curve goodness. California raised taxes, got less revenue and caused a boom in black market tobacco sales.


http://www.mackinac.org/10060

The 1990's: California's Tax Evasion Escalates Dramatically With Internet Sales and Proposition 10

By Michael D. LaFaive, Patrick Fleenor, and Todd Nesbit, Ph.D. | Dec. 3, 2008



For a little more than a decade, the ruling in the Chemehuevi case had seemingly solved the Indian tax-exemption problem. This began to change in the mid-1990s, however, when the tribes both in and outside California began selling cigarettes over the Internet, as did vendors in foreign countries. Suddenly, travel was no longer necessary as the Internet revolution put brand-name cigarettes within reach of every customer with Web access for as little as $1.25 per pack.
 
As with sales on military bases and Indian reservations, this convenient new way to shop for tax-exempt cigarettes put a major dent in the state's taxed cigarette sales. California had enough trouble doing legal battle with Indian tribes; they struggled even more in their attempts to enforce tax laws against vendors in foreign countries.
 
The California Board of Equalization responded with a public relations campaign to remind smokers that if they purchased cigarettes online where taxes weren't collected, they were still required by law to send the tax payment to Sacramento.[197] Beginning in 1999, BOE went further, deciding it would not let out-of-state vendors operate with impunity. The agency threatened online vendors with legal action under the federal Jenkins Act if they didn't turn over their California customer lists. Only a fraction of Internet retailers did so, and when the BOE sent their customers overdue tax bills, some for thousands of dollars, only a few actually paid.[198]
 
The BOE also created a computer model of the cigarette market. This was a custom software program that could use survey data about smokers and historical sales data from the tobacco manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers to produce estimates of supply, demand and tax evasion. In 1999, the BOE's first computer estimates showed that 11 years earlier, the 1988 tax hike had boosted smuggling substantially. The estimates were approximate, but even under conservative estimates, the numbers were staggering. During the 1990 fiscal year (July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990), between 183 million and 377 million packs of cigarettes had illegally entered California. That is about four tractor-trailers full each day, and in revenue terms, the state lost between $64 million and $132 million in one year.  

Soon other states raised their cigarette taxes, making them more attractive to smugglers than California was. By fiscal 1993, the BOE estimated that tax evasion had dropped 13.2 percent in three years. California's 2-cent per-pack tax increase on Jan. 1, 1994, temporarily reversed this trend slightly, but by 1998, BOE estimates showed that cigarette tax evasion had fallen 26.2 percent since 1990. Even with smuggling on the decline, the estimated volumes were still considerable: Between 135 million and 278 million packs of cigarettes were estimated to have illegally entered California in fiscal year 1998, representing between $50 million and $103 million in potential excise tax revenue.[199]
 
The moderate decline in illicit smuggling that lasted 10 years between 1988 and 1998 ended when California voters raised the cigarette tax by 50 cents per pack, from 37 cents to 87 cents, by approving Proposition 10 in November 1998. That same month, California signed the national Master Settlement Agreement, which raised cigarette prices by about 45 cents per pack. That created yet another slice of potential profit that smugglers could realize when bringing cigarettes in from abroad. Not only could they avoid 87 cents per pack in state taxes, but they could also avoid the 45-cent MSA payment and the 24-cent federal tax.[200]
 
That meant smugglers could possibly earn hundreds of thousands in evaded taxes on every shipping container of cigarettes smuggled into the state. And indeed, the BOE model showed evasion surging 12 percent after 1998. Police and BOE inspectors came across more and more cigarettes smuggled from abroad, and the U.S. General Accounting Office found that seizures of counterfeit cigarettes at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach increased dramatically in the years following the tax hike.[201]
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[197] "California Excise Tax and Use Tax Due on Cigarettes Purchased from Outside California," California Board of Equalization, News Release #4-G, January 18, 2000.
 
[198] Troy Wolverton and Greg Sandoval, "Taxes Threaten Booming Sales of Cigarettes Online," CNET News.com, February 18, 2000.
 
[199] "Preliminary Estimates of Cigarette Tax Evasion," California Board of Equalization, June 1999, 4.
 
[200] Ibid.
 
[201] Cigarette Smuggling, (Washington, D.C.: United States General Accounting Office, 2004). Also see Lisa Friedman, "Smoking Gun at Ports?" The Daily News (Los Angeles), July 3, 2004.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5968


« Reply #191 on: April 20, 2011, 04:36:50 PM »

"That's voodoo economics that no one really believes anymore....."

What are your examples of significant rate cuts that didn't grow revenues? 

The voodoo line BTW was abandoned by its author, revenues to the Treasury doubled in the 1980s.  US Budget History, see page 26: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

GM gave the 2003 example.  Look also at the Clinton capital gains cuts of 1995 or the Kennedy cuts, 'rising tide lifts all boats'.

Let's take a look at the opposing examples...
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #192 on: April 20, 2011, 04:56:18 PM »

If only the left in the US were less marxist than the ChiComs.....  rolleyes

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-04/20/content_12364183.htm


China's new tax cut good news for consumers

(Xinhua)
 Updated: 2011-04-20 16:24
 
BEIJING - The threshold of China's personal income tax (PIT) will be raised to 3,000 yuan ($455) if China's top legislature passes the first reading of the proposal.
 
The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress began to assess the draft on Wednesday. The second examination will start in June. Once agreed upon, the new tax rate will become effective in the second half of this year.

Xie Xuren, minister of China's Ministry of Finance estimated that a higher threshold will eliminate 99 billion yuan in tax revenue. Vice-minister Wang Jun said earlier that it would reduce the number of taxpayers by 48 million, or 12 percent of the tax base.
 
This is good news for consumers, as inflation recently hit a 32-month high in March and is continuing to increase. It is also a necessary measure to realize the country's goal of closing its widening income gap, and make consumer spending a major driver for the world's second largest economy.
 
In 2010, China collected over 480 billion yuan in PIT, which accounts for only 6.3 percent of the government's total tax revenue. However, as far as boosting consumer spending is concerned, this amount will be significant.
 
Liu Huan, the deputy dean of the School of Taxation of the Central University of Finance and Economics, said that the PIT threshold hike is good news for most people, since the current 2,000-yuan PIT threshold is already lower than average living costs in big cities such as Shanghai and Beijing.
 
"Raising the PIT threshold will boost the purchasing power of low-income groups and help subsidize low and middle-income workers amid soaring prices." he said.
 
China's retail sales of consumer goods rose 16.3 percent year-on-year to reach 4.29 trillion yuan ($657.29 billion) in the first quarter of this year, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) announced last Friday.
 
Consumption was slowed down by higher commodity prices and interest rates. The growth of retail sales in the first quarter slowed down by 2.5 percent from the fourth quarter in 2010, a decrease of 1.6 percent from a year ago.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #193 on: April 20, 2011, 05:12:24 PM »

If only the left in the US were less marxist than the ChiComs.....  rolleyes

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-04/20/content_12364183.htm


China's new tax cut good news for consumers

(Xinhua)
 Updated: 2011-04-20 16:24
 
BEIJING - The threshold of China's personal income tax (PIT) will be raised to 3,000 yuan ($455) if China's top legislature passes the first reading of the proposal.
 
The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress began to assess the draft on Wednesday. The second examination will start in June. Once agreed upon, the new tax rate will become effective in the second half of this year.

Xie Xuren, minister of China's Ministry of Finance estimated that a higher threshold will eliminate 99 billion yuan in tax revenue. Vice-minister Wang Jun said earlier that it would reduce the number of taxpayers by 48 million, or 12 percent of the tax base.
 
This is good news for consumers, as inflation recently hit a 32-month high in March and is continuing to increase. It is also a necessary measure to realize the country's goal of closing its widening income gap, and make consumer spending a major driver for the world's second largest economy.
 
In 2010, China collected over 480 billion yuan in PIT, which accounts for only 6.3 percent of the government's total tax revenue. However, as far as boosting consumer spending is concerned, this amount will be significant.
 
Liu Huan, the deputy dean of the School of Taxation of the Central University of Finance and Economics, said that the PIT threshold hike is good news for most people, since the current 2,000-yuan PIT threshold is already lower than average living costs in big cities such as Shanghai and Beijing.
 
"Raising the PIT threshold will boost the purchasing power of low-income groups and help subsidize low and middle-income workers amid soaring prices." he said.
 
China's retail sales of consumer goods rose 16.3 percent year-on-year to reach 4.29 trillion yuan ($657.29 billion) in the first quarter of this year, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) announced last Friday.
 
Consumption was slowed down by higher commodity prices and interest rates. The growth of retail sales in the first quarter slowed down by 2.5 percent from the fourth quarter in 2010, a decrease of 1.6 percent from a year ago.


http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6789

January 30, 1998


hoover digest » 1998 no. 1 » china

The Great Tax Cut of China

by Alvin Rabushka


Care for definitive proof that supply-side policies spur economic growth? Take a look at communist China. By Hoover fellow Alvin Rabushka.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In recent years, supply-side economics has taken a back seat around the world to the politics of balanced budgets, and--where deemed necessary--tax increases to achieve balance. This is especially true among developing and transition economies. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) routinely insists on increased tax collections as a precondition to financial aid. Indeed, the IMF recently forced the Thai government to accept a 7 to 10 percent hike in the value-added tax and a host of other "austerity" measures so that Thailand could get a multibillion-dollar bailout to help it out of its currency turmoil.
 
It is ironic that communist China, notably absent from the IMF list of clients, provides the best evidence of the benefits of a supply-side approach. Supply-side economics emphasizes the incentive-driven, productive capacity of private sector activities, in contrast to the Keynesian demand-side strategies that use government-centered fiscal and monetary stimuli, along with measures to attain macroeconomic balances.
 
A World Record
 
China has averaged 10 percent real growth annually for nineteen years, a world record. This growth, admittedly, took off from an initially low starting point. But per capita income has reached about $2,750 in purchasing-power parity terms, which makes China "middle income," according to the World Bank, and it continues to grow at about 10 percent. The key ingredient fueling this expansion is massive, sustained tax reduction, which has provided financial resources for the burgeoning private sector and spawned a high savings rate. The ratio of investment to consumption has steadily risen, with funds disproportionately flowing into the nonstate sector.
 


China has averaged 10 percent real growth annually for nineteen years, a world record. The key ingredient? Massive, sustained tax reduction.
 

Let's look at the numbers. In 1978, the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping launched economic reforms that set China on a path of rapid growth. Between 1978 and 1995 (the latest year for which Chinese State Statistical Bureau data are available), the gross domestic product (GDP) expanded from 362 billion yuan to 5.77 trillion yuan at current prices, or almost fivefold in real terms. Gross national product per capita rose from 379 yuan to 4,757 yuan (current prices), or fourfold in real terms. During this eighteen-year stretch, annual real growth averaged 10 percent, while real growth in per capita income averaged 8.5 percent. (The IMF's estimate of China's growth in 1996 is 9.7 percent.) If China can sustain this rate, national output will double again in seven years and quadruple in fourteen years. This growth has analysts projecting China's economy as the world's largest by 2020 in absolute terms and its people achieving parity with U.S. living standards by the middle of the twenty-first century.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #194 on: April 20, 2011, 05:50:41 PM »

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html

But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. And I shall say more on this in a moment.

The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

I'm not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incenitives [sic] for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31310


« Reply #195 on: April 20, 2011, 06:28:02 PM »

Lots of great stuff today on this thread, but it is a mystery to me why an extended discussion on tax rates would not be on the Tax thread  huh cheesy
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #196 on: April 20, 2011, 06:32:02 PM »

Because our debt crisis is THE focus of 2012, or at least should be. Although the MSM will be pushing something else as the dominant narrative like "Mr. President, are your opponents evil, stupid or racist, or some combination of all three"?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31310


« Reply #197 on: April 20, 2011, 06:40:17 PM »

I get that, but this thread is for the dynamics of the Presidential race, not for the particulars of the various issues that will arise; otherwise this thread becomes a giant incoherent clusterfornication.  OTOH if we keep a discussion on tax rates on the Tax Policy thread then someone who wants to find that post on Hong Kong's tax rate policy for example will have a better chance of finding it.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #198 on: April 20, 2011, 06:47:30 PM »

10-4
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12053


« Reply #199 on: April 20, 2011, 06:57:42 PM »

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/20/trump-on-kelo-i-happen-to-agree-with-it-100-percent/

Trump on Kelo: I happen to agree with it 100 percent

Credit Mark Levin with bursting the Trump bubble. Just last week he was the first voice on the right to thoroughly dissect Trump’s history of political activity (donations to Hillary, Weiner, Rahm, Schumer and others).
 
He was also the first to ask a number of important questions about Trump’s world view, including, “What does he think about Kelo?” The Club for Growth is out today with the answer … directly from Trump himself from 2005 on Fox News.
 

“I happen to agree with it 100 percent, not that I would want to use it. [note below, he would actually want to use it]
 
But the fact is, if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether it’s local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make area that’s not good into a good area, and move the person that’s living there into a better place — now, I know it might not be their choice — but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.”
 
But the reality is, Trump did try to use the power of eminent domain to seize private property. He did this in Altlantic City, and it wasn’t to build an elementy school or even a “tremendous economic development.” He wanted to knock down an old lady’s home so he could build a parking lot for limousines near his casino.
 
Full disclosure: I used to work for the Institute for Justice, which successfully defended Vera Coking against Trump’s land grab in Atlantic City. More details about that case can be found here.

The Right’s love fest with Donald Trump is coming to an end. But will the media’s love affair with him ever end? The MSM isn’t known for vetting their own, so they’re likely to only give Trump the harry eyeball if he wins the nomination. Don’t forget, John McCain was the MSM’s second favorite candidate out of the entire 2008 field. And we know how well that ended.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!