djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 11:22:48 GMT -5
he lost me at "John Kasich collapsing". Kasich has never been in this race. i like BUSH better than Trump. scorchedearthnews loves Trump.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 11:26:26 GMT -5
even the Mooney Times didn't say that.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,454
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 27, 2015 11:41:27 GMT -5
When you only read the article title but not the article itself, then what do you expect?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 12:44:18 GMT -5
Mr. Sanders seems to be the least lyingest of the bunch. If he drops his lies-per-statements ratio by 66% and abandons his pants-on-head crazy spending plans, which constitute pretty much his entire platform, he'll make for a half-decent candidate. at least he has a way of paying for it- which compared to Trumps $17T deficit inducing tax plan is.....preferable? I have no love for Mr. Trump. And no, Mr. Sanders doesn't have a way of paying for it. He just thinks he does.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 12:55:11 GMT -5
at least he has a way of paying for it- which compared to Trumps $17T deficit inducing tax plan is.....preferable? I have no love for Mr. Trump. And no, Mr. Sanders doesn't have a way of paying for it. He just thinks he does. are those charts supposed to show that raising taxes won't raise revenue? because they don't show that. for further reading, see "OTA Paper 81"
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 27, 2015 13:00:21 GMT -5
That's what we like about him. He is so Un-PC which is very refreshing.
Ahhh...so that's why you like him, that he can mock the disabled in such a refreshing fashion.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 13:12:57 GMT -5
let me summarize, here:
Sanders' proposals would cost as much as $18T over (10) years. Sanders' tax increases would fund at least $6.5T over the same period. that leaves a deficit of $11.5T.
Trump's tax cuts amount to $12T over (10) years.
yet the "liberal media" has spent far more time criticizing Sanders than Trump for his imprudence.
why do you think that is?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 13:29:28 GMT -5
I have no love for Mr. Trump. And no, Mr. Sanders doesn't have a way of paying for it. He just thinks he does. are those charts supposed to show that raising taxes won't raise revenue? because they don't show that. for further reading, see "OTA Paper 81" OTA 81 looks at the effect of tax policies on revenues for 2-4 years after implementation. Some of those bumps are observable in the tax charts shown above. Also clearly observable is that the policies' effects are extremely short-lived, and that tax revenues have been locked to 9% +/- 1% of GDP for nearly 70 years now in spite of numerous sweeping changes of taxation policy. If Mr. Sanders' spending initiatives were also to expire after 2-4 years, fine, but most can't or won't. They're permanent, like most government spending. I neither know nor care whether Mr. Trump's spending/taxation plan is more costly by comparison. I was simply debunking your claim that "at least [Mr. Sanders] has a way of paying for it", which you've since amended.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 13:52:35 GMT -5
That's what we like about him. He is so Un-PC which is very refreshing. Ahhh...so that's why you like him, that he can mock the disabled in such a refreshing fashion. I believe the point is that many Americans--many people--simply don't care. On this very board, the unintelligent, the ignorant, the fearful, the imprudent, the overly callous, the overly compassionate, the histrionic, the paranoid, the apathetic, the overly optimistic, the overly pessimistic, the overzealous, the overcritical, the unconventional, the inarticulate, the uneducated, the privileged, and many others besides are mocked daily. You're as guilty as anyone else here. While some might question why mockery is necessary at all, if we deem it acceptable in online discourse, arguments of the type "how dare he mock [insert group here]" aren't persuasive. Many of the "appropriate to mock" groups above entail flaws that are as natural (or at least as involuntary) as physical disabilities. The elevation of physical disabilities to a separate "inappropriate to mock" pedestal is what Shooby is rightly referring to as "political correctness". It's a form of hypocrisy. For the record, I don't approve of mocking the disabled, but I consider it no better or worse than, say, mocking a politician for bungling his words, or mocking an individual irrationally fearful of terrorism.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 13:55:48 GMT -5
let me summarize, here: Sanders' proposals would cost as much as $18T over (10) years. Sanders' tax increases would fund at least $6.5T over the same period. that leaves a deficit of $11.5T. Trump's tax cuts amount to $12T over (10) years. yet the "liberal media" has spent far more time criticizing Sanders than Trump for his imprudence. why do you think that is? 1. Because the MSM has a love affair with Ms. Clinton, and Mr. Sanders is the chief threat to her presidency at the moment. 2. Because the MSM is too busy criticizing Mr. Trump for other offenses, which there's admittedly no dearth of.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 14:29:32 GMT -5
are those charts supposed to show that raising taxes won't raise revenue? because they don't show that. for further reading, see "OTA Paper 81" OTA 81 looks at the effect of tax policies on revenues for 2-4 years after implementation. Some of those bumps are observable in the tax charts shown above. Also clearly observable is that the policies' effects are extremely short-lived, and that tax revenues have been locked to 9% +/- 1% of GDP for nearly 70 years now in spite of numerous sweeping changes of taxation policy. If Mr. Sanders' spending initiatives were also to expire after 2-4 years, fine, but most can't or won't. They're permanent, like most government spending. I neither know nor care whether Mr. Trump's spending/taxation plan is more costly by comparison. I was simply debunking your claim that "at least [Mr. Sanders] has a way of paying for it", which you've since amended. in what way did i "amend" it? i never stated that it would pay 100%, Virgil. i am sorry if you read that implication into it, but that was not intended. here, allow me to be even MORE clear: it is unclear how much of a deficit Sander's plan would produce, because he has not clearly stated what revenues he would go after, nor is it clear how some of his programs would be funded, and how extensive they will be. the analysis i presented was made by the Tax Policy Institute, which is a right wing thinktank. if errors were made, they were on the liberal side. the actual extent of the Sanders deficit is probably significantly less. as to your other point, you are off, as well, unless you meant 19% +/- 1%, which was also not accurate, but was less inaccurate than what you said. revenues have been between 14 and 20% of GDP since WW2. that is actually 17% +/- 3%. the OTA data shows that every cut in taxes has produced a loss in revenue, and every increase has increased revenue, as would be expected with a mandatory expense.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 14:32:23 GMT -5
let me summarize, here: Sanders' proposals would cost as much as $18T over (10) years. Sanders' tax increases would fund at least $6.5T over the same period. that leaves a deficit of $11.5T. Trump's tax cuts amount to $12T over (10) years. yet the "liberal media" has spent far more time criticizing Sanders than Trump for his imprudence. why do you think that is? 1. Because the MSM has a love affair with Ms. Clinton, and Mr. Sanders is the chief threat to her presidency at the moment. 2. Because the MSM is too busy criticizing Mr. Trump for other offenses, which there's admittedly no dearth of. i am with you on #2, but the press coverage of Ms Clinton has been pretty negative- and not undeservedly, imo.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 14:43:55 GMT -5
That's what we like about him. He is so Un-PC which is very refreshing. Ahhh...so that's why you like him, that he can mock the disabled in such a refreshing fashion. I believe the point is that many Americans--many people--simply don't care. On this very board, the unintelligent, the ignorant, the fearful, the imprudent, the overly callous, the overly compassionate, the histrionic, the paranoid, the apathetic, the overly optimistic, the overly pessimistic, the overzealous, the overcritical, the unconventional, the inarticulate, the uneducated, the privileged, and many others besides are mocked daily. You're as guilty as anyone else here. While some might question why mockery is necessary at all, if we deem it acceptable in online discourse, arguments of the type "how dare he mock [insert group here]" aren't persuasive. Many of the "appropriate to mock" groups above entail flaws that are as natural (or at least as involuntary) as physical disabilities. The elevation of physical disabilities to a separate "inappropriate to mock" pedestal is what Shooby is rightly referring to as "political correctness". It's a form of hypocrisy. For the record, I don't approve of mocking the disabled, but I consider it no better or worse than, say, mocking a politician for bungling his words, or mocking an individual irrationally fearful of terrorism. words to live by. let me know when you are ready to start, and i might join you.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 15:24:35 GMT -5
OTA 81 looks at the effect of tax policies on revenues for 2-4 years after implementation. Some of those bumps are observable in the tax charts shown above. Also clearly observable is that the policies' effects are extremely short-lived, and that tax revenues have been locked to 9% +/- 1% of GDP for nearly 70 years now in spite of numerous sweeping changes of taxation policy. If Mr. Sanders' spending initiatives were also to expire after 2-4 years, fine, but most can't or won't. They're permanent, like most government spending. I neither know nor care whether Mr. Trump's spending/taxation plan is more costly by comparison. I was simply debunking your claim that "at least [Mr. Sanders] has a way of paying for it", which you've since amended. in what way did i "amend" it? i never stated that it would pay 100%, Virgil. i am sorry if you read that implication into it, but that was not intended. here, allow me to be even MORE clear: it is unclear how much of a deficit Sander's plan would produce, because he has not clearly stated what revenues he would go after, nor is it clear how some of his programs would be funded, and how extensive they will be. the analysis i presented was made by the Tax Policy Institute, which is a right wing thinktank. if errors were made, they were on the liberal side. the actual extent of the Sanders deficit is probably significantly less. as to your other point, you are off, as well, unless you meant 19% +/- 1%, which was also not accurate, but was less inaccurate than what you said. revenues have been between 14 and 20% of GDP since WW2. that is actually 17% +/- 3%. the OTA data shows that every cut in taxes has produced a loss in revenue, and every increase has increased revenue, as would be expected with a mandatory expense. The 9% +/- 1% refers to the income tax chart. I would characterize the total tax revenue chart as 17% +/- 2%. The point is that both charts are locked to an extremely modest range. I see no reason at all to believe that any tax increases by Mr. Sanders will produce sustainable revenue increases. Conversely, I see no reason at all to believe that Mr. Sanders' spending increases won't be permanent. The TPI's prediction of an additional $1.1 trillion heaped onto the US yearly deficit, from now until the day the US defaults, seems as plausible a prediction as any other.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 15:41:57 GMT -5
in what way did i "amend" it? i never stated that it would pay 100%, Virgil. i am sorry if you read that implication into it, but that was not intended. here, allow me to be even MORE clear: it is unclear how much of a deficit Sander's plan would produce, because he has not clearly stated what revenues he would go after, nor is it clear how some of his programs would be funded, and how extensive they will be. the analysis i presented was made by the Tax Policy Institute, which is a right wing thinktank. if errors were made, they were on the liberal side. the actual extent of the Sanders deficit is probably significantly less. as to your other point, you are off, as well, unless you meant 19% +/- 1%, which was also not accurate, but was less inaccurate than what you said. revenues have been between 14 and 20% of GDP since WW2. that is actually 17% +/- 3%. the OTA data shows that every cut in taxes has produced a loss in revenue, and every increase has increased revenue, as would be expected with a mandatory expense. The 9% +/- 1% refers to the income tax chart. I would characterize the total tax revenue chart as 17% +/- 2%. The point is that both charts are locked to an extremely modest range. I see no reason at all to believe that any tax increases by Mr. Sanders will produce sustainable revenue increases. Conversely, I see no reason at all to believe that Mr. Sanders' spending increases won't be permanent. The TPI's prediction of an additional $1.1 trillion heaped onto the US yearly deficit, from now until the day the US defaults, seems as plausible a prediction as any other. i don't see 17% +/-3% as a modest range. but on to your next point. i see every reason to think that Sander's revenue proposals will "work". now, mind you, i don't actually favor these proposals. if you want to know what i actually want to see, we can discuss that, and i gladly WILL discuss it, but i am interested in this revenue question as a separate matter, so that is what we are exploring, now. top tax rates were raised from 25% to 90% under FDR. during that time, revenue went from 6.7% to 20% of GDP. there has been no comparable period since then. however, in 1991, top tax rates went from 28% to 39%, and revenue went from 17% to 20% of GDP. we can argue about why all of that happened, but we can also look at what the OTA Paper says. it chronicles the impact far more faithfully than i am doing here. as to the supply side argument, that has been thoroughly debunked at this point: www.factandmyth.com/taxes/tax-decreases-do-not-increase-revenuedo tax cuts stimulate the economy? no: www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-economic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds/262438/the pillars of supply side have fallen, but the arguments are still out there. that is because the argument has been made without contest for 30 years, but the overwhelming proof that it is rubbish is fairly recent (even though most economists predicted that this is, in fact, what we would see).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 15:45:48 GMT -5
the TPI is basically ignoring the evidence, as it suits their cause to persist in lying in the face of the facts as long as people will continue to believe it.
edit: to bring this back to the OP, Trump is clearly a believer in their rubbish, which tells me he is not as smart as he claims.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 15:48:47 GMT -5
I believe the point is that many Americans--many people--simply don't care. On this very board, the unintelligent, the ignorant, the fearful, the imprudent, the overly callous, the overly compassionate, the histrionic, the paranoid, the apathetic, the overly optimistic, the overly pessimistic, the overzealous, the overcritical, the unconventional, the inarticulate, the uneducated, the privileged, and many others besides are mocked daily. You're as guilty as anyone else here. While some might question why mockery is necessary at all, if we deem it acceptable in online discourse, arguments of the type "how dare he mock [insert group here]" aren't persuasive. Many of the "appropriate to mock" groups above entail flaws that are as natural (or at least as involuntary) as physical disabilities. The elevation of physical disabilities to a separate "inappropriate to mock" pedestal is what Shooby is rightly referring to as "political correctness". It's a form of hypocrisy. For the record, I don't approve of mocking the disabled, but I consider it no better or worse than, say, mocking a politician for bungling his words, or mocking an individual irrationally fearful of terrorism. words to live by. let me know when you are ready to start, and i might join you. I reserve the right to satirize individuals whose goals, actions, or ideology I find particularly insipid. Having said this, when it comes to mockery in general, I'm not as bad as most major contributors here, including you. Does Mr. Trump's pantomiming a disabled critic's palsy deeply bother me? No. He's egotistical, tactless, brazenly dismissive of conventional graces, and I have no doubt that he attacked the reporter because he genuinely sees the man as a jerking, defective idiot who deserved it. That's who Donald Trump is. Anybody who's jumped aboard the Trump bandwagon up to this point accepts that fact. His critics aren't going to get any more blood out of the "Look at what Trump said about...!" stone from now until the end of his campaign.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 15:54:32 GMT -5
words to live by. let me know when you are ready to start, and i might join you. I reserve the right to satirize individuals whose goals, actions, or ideology I find particularly insipid. Having said this, when it comes to mockery in general, I'm not as bad as most major contributors here, including you. Does Mr. Trump's pantomiming a disabled critic's palsy deeply bother me? No. He's egotistical, tactless, brazenly dismissive of conventional graces, and I have no doubt that he attacked the reporter because he genuinely sees the man as a jerking, defective idiot who deserved it. That's who Donald Trump is. Anybody who's jumped aboard the Trump bandwagon up to this point accepts that fact. His critics aren't going to get any more blood out of the "Look at what Trump said about...!" stone from now until the end of his campaign. i'll be a bit more generous than you just were: i don't think either of us spend much time mocking. however, i would add this caveat: i don't generally mock individuals. i will readily admit that i mock ideas. recently, i compared this hysteria over refugees to ebola. i stand behind that comparison, even though i readily admit that it was a mocking comparison. the extent to which it is mocking "individuals" on this board is the extent to which they were terrorized by this event. i will also admit that mocking someone's fears is not particularly kind or sympathetic. in my defense, i don't know what is. certainly not showing how much i understand it, when i actually understand it paltry little. i am not going to lie. ever. i don't think going after Trump is designed to convince people that love him for being a dick to stop loving him for that. i think it is designed for people who are INTERESTED in him, and see him as a viable candidate, but don't care much for his personality, that these very real defects in his personality have an impact on his ability to govern. do i actually believe that? i am not sure, honestly. i just find him offensive. and for the "anti-PC" community, who seems to think offensive is the new cool, i guess that is enough for them. by that measure, i should be a real hero here. i say offensive things all of the time, after all.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 15:59:15 GMT -5
the TPI is basically ignoring the evidence, as it suits their cause to persist in lying in the face of the facts as long as people will continue to believe it. edit: to bring this back to the OP, Trump is clearly a believer in their rubbish, which tells me he is not as smart as he claims. I don't believe that cutting taxes increases tax revenues either. But the argument that raising taxes on the upper brackets boosts tax revenues for anything more than a few years simply isn't borne out by the long-term evidence. Moreover, you've already entered the era where major US corporations are jumping ship to more tax-friendly international locales. Push corporate taxes any higher and you're going to witness an acceleration of that trend. The US has a spending problem, my friend. You spend far. too. much. money. Soaking the rich isn't going to solve your current problems. Piling on $11 trillion in new spending and then soaking the rich definitely isn't going to solve your problems. All I can say is that you'd better hope your "public-debt-to-GDP is all that matters" cop out has a shred of truth to it, because the world is blazing towards another major recession, the Fed and ECB are all out of ammunition, interest rates can't go any lower, and your theory is going to be tested in very short order.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 16:03:26 GMT -5
the TPI is basically ignoring the evidence, as it suits their cause to persist in lying in the face of the facts as long as people will continue to believe it. edit: to bring this back to the OP, Trump is clearly a believer in their rubbish, which tells me he is not as smart as he claims. I don't believe that cutting taxes increases tax revenues either. But the argument that raising taxes on the upper brackets boosts tax revenues for anything more than a few years simply isn't born out by the long-term evidence. Moreover, you've already entered the era where major US corporations are jumping ship to more tax-friendly international locales. Push corporate taxes any higher and you're going to witness an acceleration of that trend. The US has a spending problem, my friend. You spend far. too. much. money. Soaking the rich isn't going to solve your current problems. Piling on $11 trillion in new spending and then soaking the rich definitely isn't going to solve your problems. All I can say is that you'd better hope your "public-debt-to-GDP is all that matters" cop out has a shred of truth to it, because the world is blazing towards another major recession, the Fed and ECB are all out of ammunition, interest rates can't go any lower, and your theory is going to be tested in very short order. but it is, Virgil. top incremental rates were raised over 80% in 1941, and they stayed there for 20+ years. during that time, revenue never dipped below 17% of GDP, which was a full 10% higher than ANY previous period. again, i am not talking about what i want. do you want to discuss that? because the way this discussion is going, it sounds like i am advocating Bernie's tax and spend plan, which i am NOT. so stop giving me that crap about my "cop out" when we have not even discussed what i sincerely hope for, OK? and stop pretending you know what that is, because i actually have not stated it here, and if i have stated it on the board, it was not more than once, and it was a LONG LONG TIME AGO. edit: i remember when i stated it. it was on the "what policies would you put up if you were running for president" thread. it got "likes" from BOTH conservatives AND liberals on the board and was one of my post popular posts.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 16:11:29 GMT -5
I reserve the right to satirize individuals whose goals, actions, or ideology I find particularly insipid. Having said this, when it comes to mockery in general, I'm not as bad as most major contributors here, including you. Does Mr. Trump's pantomiming a disabled critic's palsy deeply bother me? No. He's egotistical, tactless, brazenly dismissive of conventional graces, and I have no doubt that he attacked the reporter because he genuinely sees the man as a jerking, defective idiot who deserved it. That's who Donald Trump is. Anybody who's jumped aboard the Trump bandwagon up to this point accepts that fact. His critics aren't going to get any more blood out of the "Look at what Trump said about...!" stone from now until the end of his campaign. i'll be a bit more generous than you just were: i don't think either of us spend much time mocking. however, i would add this caveat: i don't generally mock individuals. i will readily admit that i mock ideas. recently, i compared this hysteria over refugees to ebola. i stand behind that comparison, even though i readily admit that it was a mocking comparison. the extent to which it is mocking "individuals" on this board is the extent to which they were terrorized by this event. i will also admit that mocking someone's fears is not particularly kind or sympathetic. in my defense, i don't know what is. certainly not showing how much i understand it, when i actually understand it paltry little. i am not going to lie. ever. i don't think going after Trump is designed to convince people that love him for being a dick to stop loving him for that. i think it is designed for people who are INTERESTED in him, and see him as a viable candidate, but don't care much for his personality, that these very real defects in his personality have an impact on his ability to govern. do i actually believe that? i am not sure, honestly. i just find him offensive. and for the "anti-PC" community, who seems to think offensive is the new cool, i guess that is enough for them. by that measure, i should be a real hero here. i say offensive things all of the time, after all. As I say, I don't think they necessarily find it "cool", they just don't care about it. They consider it a side effect of Mr. Trump's lack of due respect for privileged groups ("privileged" in the sense of being off-limits to criticism), which they consider a boon, not a fault. Many people, myself included, consider certain types of political correctness to be lying by omission. For example, Pres. Obama's legendary contortions to avoid ever saying "Islam", "Muslim", or "Islamic" when speaking about Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorists, or the Islamic State. I realize what his goal is and why he wants to delegitimatize ISIS, but he is, in effect, lying to the American public under the presumption they can't handle the truth responsibly. Not surprisingly, all he's managed to do is convince Americans that he's willing to lie to them under the presumption they can't handle the truth responsibly.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 16:18:32 GMT -5
I don't believe that cutting taxes increases tax revenues either. But the argument that raising taxes on the upper brackets boosts tax revenues for anything more than a few years simply isn't born out by the long-term evidence. Moreover, you've already entered the era where major US corporations are jumping ship to more tax-friendly international locales. Push corporate taxes any higher and you're going to witness an acceleration of that trend. The US has a spending problem, my friend. You spend far. too. much. money. Soaking the rich isn't going to solve your current problems. Piling on $11 trillion in new spending and then soaking the rich definitely isn't going to solve your problems. All I can say is that you'd better hope your "public-debt-to-GDP is all that matters" cop out has a shred of truth to it, because the world is blazing towards another major recession, the Fed and ECB are all out of ammunition, interest rates can't go any lower, and your theory is going to be tested in very short order. but it is, Virgil. top incremental rates were raised over 80% in 1941, and they stayed there for 20+ years. during that time, revenue never dipped below 17% of GDP, which was a full 10% higher than ANY previous period. again, i am not talking about what i want. do you want to discuss that? because the way this discussion is going, it sounds like i am advocating Bernie's tax and spend plan, which i am NOT. so stop giving me that crap about my "cop out" when we have not even discussed what i sincerely hope for, OK? and stop pretending you know what that is, because i actually have not stated it here, and if i have stated it on the board, it was not more than once, and it was a LONG LONG TIME AGO. edit: i remember when i stated it. it was on the "what policies would you put up if you were running for president" thread. it got "likes" from BOTH conservatives AND liberals on the board and was one of my post popular posts. I think raising taxes on the upper classes is a great idea. You need more revenue, and that will provide at least a bit for at least a while. Is that going to solve your deficit problem? Absolutely not. That's in the same dreamland as "the ACA will lower premiums and be revenue-neutral". Pure, unadulterated puppies and rainbows, or "hopium" as ZH calls it. The US hopium high from the ACA is now completely worn off and Mr. Sanders would appear to have the best stuff for Uncle Sam's next fix. If you want to shoot that into your veins, be my guest. At least you'll be deliriously happy as the ship goes down. (Wasn't that Huxley's thesis? Drug the common man happy so that he didn't mind his slavery?) If you don't, then just say so plainly.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 27, 2015 16:36:41 GMT -5
I've often wondered about Rush Limbaugh's net worth. Who knows what he does with his money? However, he's been on the air well over 30 years- nationally syndicated for just over 27 years. I know he's got the compound down in Palm Beach (proper- on the island), and now he's a children's author and purveyor of soft-drinks (I think both the aforementioned ventures are under the "Two If By Tea" company)-- both highly successful. Trump, OTOH, is very public about his net worth, and most sources in the financial world agree his self-assessment of his net worth is off by quite a bit with the best estimate, I believe, putting him at just over $5 billion. Point being- I'm not so sure Rush doesn't have a bigger bankroll. At any rate, I'm not holding my breath for anything Trump says to derail his campaign. The "rules" say you can't mock a reporter with a disability, but Trump doesn't give a shit about the "rules" and his supporters seem to be looking past it to the larger issue: said reporter was incorrect according to his own paper about Trump's statement on muslims in NJ celebrating on 9/11 during the attacks being "false". Turns out Trump was right. www.mediaite.com/online/washington-post-clumsily-gives-trump-easy-out-on-911-celebrations-after-fact-checker-gets-fact-checked/This, along with the myriad "fact checked" statements on everything from Benghazi to ObamaCare by conservatives who have now been completely vindicated, is why nobody really gives a shit whether "fact checkers" who are Democrat sycophants 10 out of 10 times, have to say. Fact checking is dead, because in spite of the fact the Trump campaign has jumped the shark about 100 times now, the media has jumped 10,000 sharks. The left wing media has about as much standing with even mildly intelligent voters as a drooling, babbling homeless man. Interesting personal anecdote-- went to a very diverse gathering of friends for TG, EVERYONE is voting for Trump except two of us, and half the crowd are Democrats who have gone through the process of switching parties to support Trump in the closed FL GOP primary. To put it in the words of the two legal immigrants there that voted for Obama twice: "we were DONE with Democrats. Enough illegals. Enough islamic extremism. Enough debt. Enough!!!"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 16:42:26 GMT -5
I've often wondered about Rush Limbaugh's net worth. Who knows what he does with his money? However, he's been on the air well over 30 years- nationally syndicated for just over 27 years. I know he's got the compound down in Palm Beach (proper- on the island), and now he's a children's author and purveyor of soft-drinks (I think both the aforementioned ventures are under the "Two If By Tea" company)-- both highly successful. Trump, OTOH, is very public about his net worth, and most sources in the financial world agree his self-assessment of his net worth is off by quite a bit with the best estimate, I believe, putting him at just over $5 billion. Point being- I'm not so sure Rush doesn't have a bigger bankroll. At any rate, I'm not holding my breath for anything Trump says to derail his campaign. The "rules" say you can't mock a reporter with a disability, but Trump doesn't give a shit about the "rules" and his supporters seem to be looking past it to the larger issue: said reporter was incorrect according to his own paper about Trump's statement on muslims in NJ celebrating on 9/11 during the attacks being "false". Turns out Trump was right. www.mediaite.com/online/washington-post-clumsily-gives-trump-easy-out-on-911-celebrations-after-fact-checker-gets-fact-checked/This, along with the myriad "fact checked" statements on everything from Benghazi to ObamaCare by conservatives who have now been completely vindicated, is why nobody really gives a shit whether "fact checkers" who are Democrat sycophants 10 out of 10 times, have to say. Fact checking is dead, because in spite of the fact the Trump campaign has jumped the shark about 100 times now, the media has jumped 10,000 sharks. The left wing media has about as much standing with even mildly intelligent voters as a drooling, babbling homeless man. Interesting personal anecdote-- went to a very diverse gathering of friends for TG, EVERYONE is voting for Trump except two of us, and half the crowd are Democrats who have gone through the process of switching parties to support Trump in the closed FL GOP primary. To put it in the words of the two legal immigrants there that voted for Obama twice: "we were DONE with Democrats. Enough illegals. Enough islamic extremism. Enough debt. Enough!!!" who is TG?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 27, 2015 16:44:18 GMT -5
I've often wondered about Rush Limbaugh's net worth. Who knows what he does with his money? However, he's been on the air well over 30 years- nationally syndicated for just over 27 years. I know he's got the compound down in Palm Beach (proper- on the island), and now he's a children's author and purveyor of soft-drinks (I think both the aforementioned ventures are under the "Two If By Tea" company)-- both highly successful. Trump, OTOH, is very public about his net worth, and most sources in the financial world agree his self-assessment of his net worth is off by quite a bit with the best estimate, I believe, putting him at just over $5 billion. Point being- I'm not so sure Rush doesn't have a bigger bankroll. At any rate, I'm not holding my breath for anything Trump says to derail his campaign. The "rules" say you can't mock a reporter with a disability, but Trump doesn't give a shit about the "rules" and his supporters seem to be looking past it to the larger issue: said reporter was incorrect according to his own paper about Trump's statement on muslims in NJ celebrating on 9/11 during the attacks being "false". Turns out Trump was right. www.mediaite.com/online/washington-post-clumsily-gives-trump-easy-out-on-911-celebrations-after-fact-checker-gets-fact-checked/This, along with the myriad "fact checked" statements on everything from Benghazi to ObamaCare by conservatives who have now been completely vindicated, is why nobody really gives a shit whether "fact checkers" who are Democrat sycophants 10 out of 10 times, have to say. Fact checking is dead, because in spite of the fact the Trump campaign has jumped the shark about 100 times now, the media has jumped 10,000 sharks. The left wing media has about as much standing with even mildly intelligent voters as a drooling, babbling homeless man. Interesting personal anecdote-- went to a very diverse gathering of friends for TG, EVERYONE is voting for Trump except two of us, and half the crowd are Democrats who have gone through the process of switching parties to support Trump in the closed FL GOP primary. To put it in the words of the two legal immigrants there that voted for Obama twice: "we were DONE with Democrats. Enough illegals. Enough islamic extremism. Enough debt. Enough!!!" who is TG? Not a who, a what: Thanksgiving.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 16:45:55 GMT -5
but it is, Virgil. top incremental rates were raised over 80% in 1941, and they stayed there for 20+ years. during that time, revenue never dipped below 17% of GDP, which was a full 10% higher than ANY previous period. again, i am not talking about what i want. do you want to discuss that? because the way this discussion is going, it sounds like i am advocating Bernie's tax and spend plan, which i am NOT. so stop giving me that crap about my "cop out" when we have not even discussed what i sincerely hope for, OK? and stop pretending you know what that is, because i actually have not stated it here, and if i have stated it on the board, it was not more than once, and it was a LONG LONG TIME AGO. edit: i remember when i stated it. it was on the "what policies would you put up if you were running for president" thread. it got "likes" from BOTH conservatives AND liberals on the board and was one of my post popular posts. I think raising taxes on the upper classes is a great idea. You need more revenue, and that will provide at least a bit for at least a while. Is that going to solve your deficit problem? Absolutely not. That's in the same dreamland as "the ACA will lower premiums and be revenue-neutral". Pure, unadulterated puppies and rainbows, or "hopium" as ZH calls it. The US hopium high from the ACA is now completely worn off and Mr. Sanders would appear to have the best stuff for Uncle Sam's next fix. If you want to shoot that into your veins, be my guest. At least you'll be deliriously happy as the ship goes down. (Wasn't that Huxley's thesis? Drug the common man happy so that he didn't mind his slavery?) If you don't, then just say so plainly. did you mean "won't"? why would i be happy if the US went down? are you nuts? no, Virgil. i would do anything within my means to prevent that, and it would be utterly crushing and depressing to see that happen. since you didn't ask me what i WOULD do, again, i will assume you are not interested. which is fine. i already said it on the thread mentioned.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 16:46:44 GMT -5
Not a who, a what: Thanksgiving. oh. Happy Thanksgiving.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 16:48:28 GMT -5
To put it in the words of the two legal immigrants there that voted for Obama twice: "we were DONE with Democrats. Enough illegals. Enough islamic extremism. Enough debt. Enough!!!" DJ has a point that Mr. Trump's plan makes even less financial sense than Mr. Sanders'. And that... almost... defies the laws of physical reality. Aren't there any other candidates that want to avoid suicidal spending increases while simultaneously avoiding suicidal tax cuts? Can't you point people in that direction. Maybe buy yourselves a few years?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2015 16:49:49 GMT -5
I think raising taxes on the upper classes is a great idea. You need more revenue, and that will provide at least a bit for at least a while. Is that going to solve your deficit problem? Absolutely not. That's in the same dreamland as "the ACA will lower premiums and be revenue-neutral". Pure, unadulterated puppies and rainbows, or "hopium" as ZH calls it. The US hopium high from the ACA is now completely worn off and Mr. Sanders would appear to have the best stuff for Uncle Sam's next fix. If you want to shoot that into your veins, be my guest. At least you'll be deliriously happy as the ship goes down. (Wasn't that Huxley's thesis? Drug the common man happy so that he didn't mind his slavery?) If you don't, then just say so plainly. did you mean "won't"? why would i be happy if the US went down? are you nuts? no, Virgil. i would do anything within my means to prevent that, and it would be utterly crushing and depressing to see that happen. since you didn't ask me what i WOULD do, again, i will assume you are not interested. which is fine. i already said it on the thread mentioned. If you could link to the post, I'd appreciate it. But you're right to suggest this discussion thus far has been about what isn't suitable, not what is.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2015 16:52:12 GMT -5
did you mean "won't"? why would i be happy if the US went down? are you nuts? no, Virgil. i would do anything within my means to prevent that, and it would be utterly crushing and depressing to see that happen. since you didn't ask me what i WOULD do, again, i will assume you are not interested. which is fine. i already said it on the thread mentioned. If you could link to the post, I'd appreciate it. But you're right to suggest this discussion thus far has been about what isn't suitable, not what is. i will see if i can find it. i have to remember the exact title, or at least come close.
|
|