Republicans Too Divided To Challenge For The White House?

[HuskerNation1]

Boy this thread went down a million rabbit trails but good discussion.

I don't think the repbus are too divided at this point. Most of the 17 in the race are in it for attention only IMHO - they want a book deal, they want to be noticed for future political job, etc. Most have no chance and they hopefully know it. It will dwindle quickly once the real fun begins in Iowa and NH.

After S Carolina I expect it to be down to 5 candidates at the most - Rubio, Paul, Walker, Bush and Christie or Ohio Gov Kasich. Overall, the establishment will gang up on Trump - as candidates drop out - I see their support going to one of these 5. Maybe the Ohio governor will replace the NJ governor as Kasich's state is doing better than Christie's state. If one of these 6 puts Trump in his place during the debates (most likely Christie) you will see their stock rise in the polls.

 

I agree with your points here and that there are too many candidates. I wish Trump would go away, but his ego is too big to do that. There will be some division, but the one thing that will unite all factions on the GOP side (moderates, mainstream, and conservatives) is Hillary Clinton. While she has a lead now, I still have my doubts if she will make it through the primary process given how poor of a candidate she is. She avoids the media, and the few times she has done an interview, its completely backfired. If Hillary were a Republican candidate, the media would be all over her for destroying servers, not answering questions, etc...

 

I have been most impressed with Fiorina thus far, but she has yet to catch fire, and maybe never will. After her, I think Rubio is the most articulate of any of the candidates, and has a good story to tell. From there, you have Walker and Kasich that have strong records as Governor, and Walker has done a heck of a job in a blue/progressive state of challenging unions and getting that state turned around.

[BigRedBuster]

I didn't read the entire thread but I want to respond to the original post.

 

Back when I was a towed a party line (Republican), there was a point where I looked at the Democratic party and thought they were a total mess. I was sitting happy. I thought there was no way they would win a Presidential election anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

I was wrong. Out of the last 24 years (including the next year until election) 16 of those have been under a Democratic President and the Republicans are the ones that have been in a mess.

 

I actually view the sheer number of Republican candidates as a good thing. HOPEFULLY, some common sense can come out of it and someone who can actually lead a conservative party in a common sense manner instead of the crap it has been drowning in.

 

The part that I believe will hold this back is the conservative media. When I used to basically be talking about Fox News. However, now, I think the bigger problem is the internet, emails, Facebook...etc. The absolute total crap I see going around the internet and the people who believe this crap is just absolutely baffling to me and I believe this is a much bigger problem than anything any candidate or group of candidates.

[zoogs]

http://econproph.com/2011/03/02/the-misunderstood-national-debt/

[TGHusker]

http://econproph.com/2011/03/02/the-misunderstood-national-debt/

very interesting

[HuskerNation1]

http://econproph.com/2011/03/02/the-misunderstood-national-debt/

 

And here is one of many counter perspectives on why the national debt does matter

 

http://pgpf.org/issues/fiscal-outlook/2013/07/why-long-term-debt-matters

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/the-dangerous-notion-that-debt-doesnt-matter.html?_r=0

 

(when the liberal NY Times is saying Progressives are wrong for making light of the debt problem, then you know it's bad)

 

I was an Econ/Business major in college, and the notion that it's ok to just continuously add to our national debt and not think it's a serious issue is ridiculous. For starters, more and more tax dollars go to simply pay the interest in our debt, which means less funds to invest in all those programs that liberals love for the federal government to provide. It also makes it more difficult to implement needed stimulus measures to help grow the economy and create jobs during economic downturns which are cyclical in nature.

[ZRod]

 

http://econproph.com/2011/03/02/the-misunderstood-national-debt/

 

And here is one of many counter perspectives on why the national debt does matter

 

http://pgpf.org/issues/fiscal-outlook/2013/07/why-long-term-debt-matters

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/the-dangerous-notion-that-debt-doesnt-matter.html?_r=0

 

(when the liberal NY Times is saying Progressives are wrong for making light of the debt problem, then you know it's bad)

 

I was an Econ/Business major in college, and the notion that it's ok to just continuously add to our national debt and not think it's a serious issue is ridiculous. For starters, more and more tax dollars go to simply pay the interest in our debt, which means less funds to invest in all those programs that liberals love for the federal government to provide. It also makes it more difficult to implement needed stimulus measures to help grow the economy and create jobs during economic downturns which are cyclical in nature.

Those damn liberals just adding to our debt...

[BigRedBuster]

 

http://econproph.com/2011/03/02/the-misunderstood-national-debt/

 

And here is one of many counter perspectives on why the national debt does matter

 

http://pgpf.org/issues/fiscal-outlook/2013/07/why-long-term-debt-matters

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/the-dangerous-notion-that-debt-doesnt-matter.html?_r=0

 

(when the liberal NY Times is saying Progressives are wrong for making light of the debt problem, then you know it's bad)

 

I was an Econ/Business major in college, and the notion that it's ok to just continuously add to our national debt and not think it's a serious issue is ridiculous. For starters, more and more tax dollars go to simply pay the interest in our debt, which means less funds to invest in all those programs that liberals love for the federal government to provide. It also makes it more difficult to implement needed stimulus measures to help grow the economy and create jobs during economic downturns which are cyclical in nature.

 

This is a statement that people who don't think the national debt matters completely ignore. If we had even half the interest payments we have now, just think of the infrastructure and social programs we could fund. I agree with the original article that national debt is very different than personal debt. However, in the form of interest payment eating up what you could spend your money on, it's pretty close to being the same.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

http://econproph.com/2011/03/02/the-misunderstood-national-debt/

And here is one of many counter perspectives on why the national debt does matter

 

http://pgpf.org/issues/fiscal-outlook/2013/07/why-long-term-debt-matters

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/the-dangerous-notion-that-debt-doesnt-matter.html?_r=0

 

(when the liberal NY Times is saying Progressives are wrong for making light of the debt problem, then you know it's bad)

 

I was an Econ/Business major in college, and the notion that it's ok to just continuously add to our national debt and not think it's a serious issue is ridiculous. For starters, more and more tax dollars go to simply pay the interest in our debt, which means less funds to invest in all those programs that liberals love for the federal government to provide. It also makes it more difficult to implement needed stimulus measures to help grow the economy and create jobs during economic downturns which are cyclical in nature.

Those damn liberals just adding to our debt...

 

 

To be honest, it's both parties that have added to the debt, so I hold both accountable. Bush 43 implemented Medicare Part D without proving a way of funding it moving forward, and that's the problem with all entitlement programs. There needs to be a way to pay for these programs without raising taxes on everyone by billions of dollars. When you raise taxes, time and again, it shrinks GDP and economic growth, which is then followed by increases in unemployment as a lagging indicator.

[ZRod]

When you raise taxes, time and again, it shrinks GDP and economic growth, which is then followed by increases in unemployment as a lagging indicator.

Except when it doesn't...

[HuskerNation1]

 

When you raise taxes, time and again, it shrinks GDP and economic growth, which is then followed by increases in unemployment as a lagging indicator.

Except when it doesn't...

 

 

Wow...if you ask any economist regardless if they lean to the left or right, they will tell you that when taxes are reduced, it will stimulate GDP and economic growth, and when raised, it will slow economic growth. It's not rocket science. In 2014 Japan's Prime Minister raised taxes on his country, and their economy shrank at the fastest rate in 5 years. My college Econ professors were very liberal and even stated that changes to fiscal policy through tax hikes or reductions have the biggest impact on GDP growth of any lever the government can take.

[ZRod]

 

 

When you raise taxes, time and again, it shrinks GDP and economic growth, which is then followed by increases in unemployment as a lagging indicator.

 

Except when it doesn't...

Wow...if you ask any economist regardless if they lean to the left or right, they will tell you that when taxes are reduced, it will stimulate GDP and economic growth, and when raised, it will slow economic growth. It's not rocket science. In 2014 Japan's Prime Minister raised taxes on his country, and their economy shrank at the fastest rate in 5 years. My college Econ professors were very liberal and even stated that changes to fiscal policy through tax hikes or reductions have the biggest impact on GDP growth of any lever the government can take.

Doubling sales tax in a year and a half will do that. Consumption taxes affect everyone, so yes it would have a negative impact. There's more than enough evidence in our history to suggest that income tax is out of wack in this country, and that we can flourish when top earners are paying higher taxes and the middle class isn't bearing the brunt.

[Husker_x]

 

 

When you raise taxes, time and again, it shrinks GDP and economic growth, which is then followed by increases in unemployment as a lagging indicator.

Except when it doesn't...

 

 

Wow...if you ask any economist regardless if they lean to the left or right, they will tell you that when taxes are reduced, it will stimulate GDP and economic growth, and when raised, it will slow economic growth. It's not rocket science. In 2014 Japan's Prime Minister raised taxes on his country, and their economy shrank at the fastest rate in 5 years. My college Econ professors were very liberal and even stated that changes to fiscal policy through tax hikes or reductions have the biggest impact on GDP growth of any lever the government can take.

 

 

Really?

 

Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds

 

Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates "have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth." However, the study found that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality. Past studies cited in the report have suggested that a broad-based tax rate reduction can have "a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth" or "no effect on economic growth."

 

Well into the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was above 90%. Today it's 35%. But both real GDP and real per capita GDP were growing more than twice as fast in the 1950s as in the 2000s. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top tenth of a percent fell from about 50% to 25% in the last 60 years, while their share of income increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% before the recession.

[zoogs]

Your liberal college economics professors must not have met Paul Krugman:

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/opinion/paul-krugman-the-mit-gang.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fpaul-krugman&contentCollection=opinion&action=click&module=NextInCollection&region=Footer&pgtype=article

 

This open-minded, pragmatic approach was overwhelmingly vindicated after crisis struck in 2008. Chicago-school types warned incessantly that responding to the crisis by printing money and running deficits would lead to 70s-type stagflation, with soaring inflation and interest rates. But M.I.T. types predicted, correctly, that inflation and interest rates would stay low in a depressed economy, and that attempts to slash deficits too soon would deepen the slump....

 

The I.M.F.’s research department, under Mr. Blanchard’s leadership, has done authoritative work on the effects of fiscal policy, demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt that slashing spending in a depressed economy is a terrible mistake, and that attempts to reduce high levels of debt via austerity are self-defeating. But European politicians have slashed spending and demanded crippling austerity from debtors anyway.

[Alamo City Husker]

I like how a liberal starts a thread about the opposite party. Alinsky much? How about we talk about what your CIC has done or better yet the democrats running for president??? Nevermind...Bush lied people died. Lion, Confederate flag, gays, haters, cops...Look.....nothing to see here but a buch of racists idiots? #welcometoaddamerica

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

When you raise taxes, time and again, it shrinks GDP and economic growth, which is then followed by increases in unemployment as a lagging indicator.

Except when it doesn't...

 

 

Wow...if you ask any economist regardless if they lean to the left or right, they will tell you that when taxes are reduced, it will stimulate GDP and economic growth, and when raised, it will slow economic growth. It's not rocket science. In 2014 Japan's Prime Minister raised taxes on his country, and their economy shrank at the fastest rate in 5 years. My college Econ professors were very liberal and even stated that changes to fiscal policy through tax hikes or reductions have the biggest impact on GDP growth of any lever the government can take.

 

 

Really?

 

Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds

 

Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates "have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth." However, the study found that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality. Past studies cited in the report have suggested that a broad-based tax rate reduction can have "a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth" or "no effect on economic growth."

 

Well into the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was above 90%. Today it's 35%. But both real GDP and real per capita GDP were growing more than twice as fast in the 1950s as in the 2000s. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top tenth of a percent fell from about 50% to 25% in the last 60 years, while their share of income increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% before the recession.

 

 

We can go back and forth citing different economic studies with empirical evidence. Here is just one of many showing the impact of raising taxes on economic growth. The others cite the fact that if we really want to shrink our deficits without affecting GDP growth, the best way to do that is through spending reductions, not tax increases.

 

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp11158.pdf

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/america-s-austerity-tax-increases-and-deficit-reduction

 

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20101227-Econ-WP-2010-04.pdf

 

Part of the reason that the current progressive tax structure is not effective is that there are way too many loopholes within the tax code. It must be simplified as the wealthiest are the ones most able to take advantage of the loopholes. If Liberals are truly for treating everyone fairly, then we should have a fair/flat income tax where everyone is treated the same.

 

NOTE: Equality does not mean equal outcomes for all.