Republicans Too Divided To Challenge For The White House?

[Moiraine]

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

 

AR made two posts in this entire thread, and neither of them were all that negative. You sound like a complete wackjob.

[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

 

AR made two posts in this entire thread, and neither of them were all that negative. You sound like a complete wackjob.

 

Obviously you are oblivious to what exactly I am talking about, or you are in agreement with him. It is a known fact that AR is a liberal. The question is how does a liberal start a condescending thread critical of people he isn't ideologically aligned with? You got that Moraine? Can you say deflection? Read it three times slowly if you still don't get it.-----Signed Wackjob

[cornographic]

Chris Crispy Creme Christie recently called Cuba a 'terrorist state' because it has harbored Assatta Shakur(former Black Panther who was framed in an NJ cop killing and escaped to Cuba back in the day) which again reveals his complete ignorance of real history. Sabor rattling re: Cuba, what a fool. He also wants to increase the retirement age to whatever to 'save social security'--which has billions in surplus each year, BTW. Oh well, he has no shot at pres, so it doesn't matter I guess. Just beware of Repubs who are pushing for increasing the retirement age.

[Landlord]

 

 

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

 

AR made two posts in this entire thread, and neither of them were all that negative. You sound like a complete wackjob.

 

Obviously you are oblivious to what exactly I am talking about, or you are in agreement with him. It is a known fact that AR is a liberal. The question is how does a liberal start a condescending thread critical of people he isn't ideologically aligned with? You got that Moraine? Can you say deflection? Read it three times slowly if you still don't get it.-----Signed Wackjob

 

 

 

 

Can you point me towards the empirical evidence of this fact please because I personally did not know it.

 

 

Also, can you explain the bit where people aren't allowed to criticize others that they disagree with?

[Moiraine]

 

 

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

 

AR made two posts in this entire thread, and neither of them were all that negative. You sound like a complete wackjob.

 

Obviously you are oblivious to what exactly I am talking about, or you are in agreement with him. It is a known fact that AR is a liberal. The question is how does a liberal start a condescending thread critical of people he isn't ideologically aligned with? You got that Moraine? Can you say deflection? Read it three times slowly if you still don't get it.-----Signed Wackjob

 

 

By clicking make new topic. And it wasn't all that critical. There are plenty of threads around here "critical" of both liberal and conservative ideas. I'm not understanding what you think is supposed to happen in the politics & religion forum.

[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.

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.

A flat tax would be awful. 30% for someone making $30,000 is a lot of money from their budget, compared to the same percentage for someone making over 100k.

[Husker_x]

 

 

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

 

AR made two posts in this entire thread, and neither of them were all that negative. You sound like a complete wackjob.

 

Obviously you are oblivious to what exactly I am talking about, or you are in agreement with him. It is a known fact that AR is a liberal. The question is how does a liberal start a condescending thread critical of people he isn't ideologically aligned with? You got that Moraine? Can you say deflection? Read it three times slowly if you still don't get it.-----Signed Wackjob

 

 

I love your avatar. It's a perfect image for what our future as a nation looks like if we continue to vote for conservative policies and fail to address the most significant challenges of our time.

 

By the way your original post about liberals starting threads talking about national conservative figures is nose-bleed inducing. What the hell do you think Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Alex Jones, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, George Will, Monica Crowley, Greg Gutfeld, or Megyn Kelly do for a living?

[Husker_x]

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.

 

 

I agree with the bold (not so much the Heritage Foundation, whose sole purpose is to advance conservative ideology by hook or by crook). People making hundreds of millions of dollars a year by buying Stock A at 9:30 and selling it at 10:30, or who move piles of money around according to algorithms designed by Ivy League scientists (who ended up on Wall Street instead of doing something useful with their lives) should be asked to pay a share of taxes commensurate with their "productivity." That would go a ways to curing our ills. We could also afford to cut our military expenditures and police-state armaments. This is easier than it sounds when you don't plan to invade or bomb half the countries in the Middle East.

 

Your note is a little puzzling. It reads as if I indicated something to the contrary. Even in the 1950s (where like I mentioned twice before without comment that the top marginal tax rates were roughly triple what they are now) there were extremely wealthy individuals that everyone envied. What we live in now is a Gilded Age, wealth discrepancy like we haven't seen since the 20s. I'm a little strange, I admit. Although I'm an atheist, I style myself a social Christian in many respects, meaning I believe that the extravagancies of the wealthy are secondary to the needs of the impoverished. Laissez faire capitalism be damned.

 

Edit: Ditto Zrod on the flat tax/fair tax/voodoo tax structure. If you think someone worth ten billion dollars should fork over the same percentage in taxes as a janitor making twenty thousand a year, I'm afraid this is where we part ways again.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

No thanks. Not sure if this is something you seriously support, but a person who makes minimum wage and works 40 hours a week makes ~ $16,000 per year. They should pay $5,000? It's not "fair" to work that hard and not earn enough to feed yourself.

[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.

 

 

No thanks. Not sure if this is something you seriously support, but a person who makes minimum wage and works 40 hours a week makes ~ $16,000 per year. They should pay $5,000? It's not "fair" to work that hard and not earn enough to feed yourself.

 

 

Where do you get $5000 in taxes. That's assuming a fair equal tax rate of 31%. Most proposals have a fair tax rate in the low 20 range. Also, many fair tax proposals actually call for 0% tax if you fall below poverty level. You might still have OASDI and other taxes taken out, but the income tax component would be void.

 

As was the case in the last election, there are many millionaires whose effective tax rate after loopholes is at 10 or 15%, well below their marginal tax bracket. This is really an idea I would think that those who hate those who have been successful would go for.

[HuskerNation1]

 

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.

 

 

I agree with the bold (not so much the Heritage Foundation, whose sole purpose is to advance conservative ideology by hook or by crook). People making hundreds of millions of dollars a year by buying Stock A at 9:30 and selling it at 10:30, or who move piles of money around according to algorithms designed by Ivy League scientists (who ended up on Wall Street instead of doing something useful with their lives) should be asked to pay a share of taxes commensurate with their "productivity." That would go a ways to curing our ills. We could also afford to cut our military expenditures and police-state armaments. This is easier than it sounds when you don't plan to invade or bomb half the countries in the Middle East.

 

Your note is a little puzzling. It reads as if I indicated something to the contrary. Even in the 1950s (where like I mentioned twice before without comment that the top marginal tax rates were roughly triple what they are now) there were extremely wealthy individuals that everyone envied. What we live in now is a Gilded Age, wealth discrepancy like we haven't seen since the 20s. I'm a little strange, I admit. Although I'm an atheist, I style myself a social Christian in many respects, meaning I believe that the extravagancies of the wealthy are secondary to the needs of the impoverished. Laissez faire capitalism be damned.

 

Edit: Ditto Zrod on the flat tax/fair tax/voodoo tax structure. If you think someone worth ten billion dollars should fork over the same percentage in taxes as a janitor making twenty thousand a year, I'm afraid this is where we part ways again.

 

 

I definitely agree with the bolded part here. But in all seriousness, as I just posted, I would think a fair/flat tax (with a lower or zero rate for those under the poverty line or at a threshold of $40K or below) would make both sides happy, as super millionaires would not be allowed to have a lower effective tax rate than someone barely above the poverty line. It takes away the ability for the powerful with plenty of cash to find loopholes. Also, most fair tax plans call for a rate in the lower 20s, not the 30s as has been suggested.

 

Also, as I pointed out earlier, there are many different lenses to view these topics, and just as the Heritage foundation leans to the right, Paul Krugman, the NY Times, and other sources cited previously have a leftist angle. On many issues I lean to the right, but I don't like a lot of politicians from either party.

[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.

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.

No thanks. Not sure if this is something you seriously support, but a person who makes minimum wage and works 40 hours a week makes ~ $16,000 per year. They should pay $5,000? It's not "fair" to work that hard and not earn enough to feed yourself.

Where do you get $5000 in taxes. That's assuming a fair equal tax rate of 31%. Most proposals have a fair tax rate in the low 20 range. Also, many fair tax proposals actually call for 0% tax if you fall below poverty level. You might still have OASDI and other taxes taken out, but the income tax component would be void.

 

As was the case in the last election, there are many millionaires whose effective tax rate after loopholes is at 10 or 15%, well below their marginal tax bracket. This is really an idea I would think that those who hate those who have been successful would go for.

Vitriol always makes for a better discussion.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

No thanks. Not sure if this is something you seriously support, but a person who makes minimum wage and works 40 hours a week makes ~ $16,000 per year. They should pay $5,000? It's not "fair" to work that hard and not earn enough to feed yourself.

 

 

Where do you get $5000 in taxes. That's assuming a fair equal tax rate of 31%. Most proposals have a fair tax rate in the low 20 range. Also, many fair tax proposals actually call for 0% tax if you fall below poverty level. You might still have OASDI and other taxes taken out, but the income tax component would be void.

 

As was the case in the last election, there are many millionaires whose effective tax rate after loopholes is at 10 or 15%, well below their marginal tax bracket. This is really an idea I would think that those who hate those who have been successful would go for.

 

 

Ok, low 20% then. Someone who makes $40,000 pays $8,000 leaving them with $32,000. Someone who makes $400,000 pays $80,000 leaving them with $320,000. The first person needs to spend pretty much all of that money in a year with nothing left over. The 2nd person, who worked the same number of hours and is not 10 times more valuable than the other person (imo) still has about $220,000 leftover after buying everything any reasonable person could possibly need in a year (on average).

[carlfense]

I would think a fair/flat tax (with a lower or zero rate for those under the poverty line or at a threshold of $40K or below) would make both sides happy.

So someone who makes $41,000 would take home $32,800 after your "fair tax" . . . while someone making $39,000 would take home $39,000?

 

Might want to work on your proposal. That or come up with a new name.

[walksalone]

 

I would think a fair/flat tax (with a lower or zero rate for those under the poverty line or at a threshold of $40K or below) would make both sides happy.

So someone who makes $41,000 would take home $32,800 after your "fair tax" . . . while someone making $39,000 would take home $39,000?

 

Might want to work on your proposal. That or come up with a new name.

 

 

who the f*ck are you?