Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hillary for President ... her new book

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 8:36:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Fox Business commentator Neil Cavuto said he spent the weekend reading Hillary Clinton's new 692 page book, "Hard Choices." He said that he now believes that Sec. Clinton will not get the Democrat nomination for president in 2016. His reason, if I understand correctly, is that she looks good from a distance but not close up. The book is a compilation of thin rationalizations. Cavuto thinks that's why Obama took the nomination from her with such ease in 2008. Other commentators say she projects inauthenticity, that every word seems calculated for political effect rather than heartfelt belief. That calculated posturing is as unappealing to liberal Democrats as it is to conservative Republicans.

The most often mentioned contender for the Democrat nomination is Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who would appeal to the ultra-left base of the Party. However, some say the Clinton vulnerability will draw new names into the field. Someone once said that every Senator looks into the mirror and sees the President looking back.

Does Hillary have a lock on the nomination?
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 10:11:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No and if you told me a few weeks ago I would have said yes. In fact if I was in her shoes I think running would be a very tough choice. It isn't going to be easy no doubt. There are plenty of Democrats that will challenge her. She also simply isn't a great campaigner. I don't know if she knows that but most people do. There is also the question if she has the "fire in the belly". She's 67 and she is capable to be president just like older presidents such as Reagan and Ike, but the questions always is if she wants to or would she prefer a nice retirement making $200,000 a speech while having the Clinton Foundation polish her record. The presidency won't be easy with Obama leaving a mess of scandals, weak economy, and foreign policy failures left and right. Finally, the country wants a new direction and Hillary stands for the old.

Then again, there is also the theory that she and Bill are still angry over the 2008 defeat that they are making the Democratic Party pay by taking forever and then at last minute not running in January 2015 to throw the nomination into a mess with a guaranteed amount of chaos and money moving.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
AnsweringAtheism
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:42:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 10:11:11 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
No and if you told me a few weeks ago I would have said yes. In fact if I was in her shoes I think running would be a very tough choice. It isn't going to be easy no doubt. There are plenty of Democrats that will challenge her. She also simply isn't a great campaigner. I don't know if she knows that but most people do. There is also the question if she has the "fire in the belly". She's 67 and she is capable to be president just like older presidents such as Reagan and Ike, but the questions always is if she wants to or would she prefer a nice retirement making $200,000 a speech while having the Clinton Foundation polish her record. The presidency won't be easy with Obama leaving a mess of scandals, weak economy, and foreign policy failures left and right. Finally, the country wants a new direction and Hillary stands for the old.

Then again, there is also the theory that she and Bill are still angry over the 2008 defeat that they are making the Democratic Party pay by taking forever and then at last minute not running in January 2015 to throw the nomination into a mess with a guaranteed amount of chaos and money moving.

Agreed - and when that happens the Republicans will easily take the white house
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:43:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 12:42:18 AM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
At 6/18/2014 10:11:11 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
No and if you told me a few weeks ago I would have said yes. In fact if I was in her shoes I think running would be a very tough choice. It isn't going to be easy no doubt. There are plenty of Democrats that will challenge her. She also simply isn't a great campaigner. I don't know if she knows that but most people do. There is also the question if she has the "fire in the belly". She's 67 and she is capable to be president just like older presidents such as Reagan and Ike, but the questions always is if she wants to or would she prefer a nice retirement making $200,000 a speech while having the Clinton Foundation polish her record. The presidency won't be easy with Obama leaving a mess of scandals, weak economy, and foreign policy failures left and right. Finally, the country wants a new direction and Hillary stands for the old.

Then again, there is also the theory that she and Bill are still angry over the 2008 defeat that they are making the Democratic Party pay by taking forever and then at last minute not running in January 2015 to throw the nomination into a mess with a guaranteed amount of chaos and money moving.

Agreed - and when that happens the Republicans will easily take the white house

...
...
...
...

I somehow doubt that. The Republican Party is falling apart.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:53:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 8:36:02 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Fox Business commentator Neil Cavuto said he spent the weekend reading Hillary Clinton's new 692 page book, "Hard Choices." He said that he now believes that Sec. Clinton will not get the Democrat nomination for president in 2016. His reason, if I understand correctly, is that she looks good from a distance but not close up. The book is a compilation of thin rationalizations. Cavuto thinks that's why Obama took the nomination from her with such ease in 2008. Other commentators say she projects inauthenticity, that every word seems calculated for political effect rather than heartfelt belief. That calculated posturing is as unappealing to liberal Democrats as it is to conservative Republicans.

The most often mentioned contender for the Democrat nomination is Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who would appeal to the ultra-left base of the Party. However, some say the Clinton vulnerability will draw new names into the field. Someone once said that every Senator looks into the mirror and sees the President looking back.

Does Hillary have a lock on the nomination?

I'm not quite sure if I would go so far as to say that Warren would appeal to the "ultra-left," but I would say, right now, that she's the anti-Clinton candidate in much the same way that Gingrich or Santorum were the anti-Romney candidate, though the parallel, I would say, isn't nearly as profound in their cases.

I didn't see the segment, so I'm not sure if Cavuto went into detail about the "thin rationalizations." I'm sure it was true, though, in much the same way that I'm sure that Hillary's ever move for years now has been calculated. As a public figure, I feel as though we would come to expect that from Hillary. However, is that not he case for any politician, never mind a politician whose names has been floated for a possible presidential run? I can't imagine how this would possibly preempt her from earning the Democratic nomination, especially when poll numbers are heavily in her favor.

Now, I don't believe by any means that she has a lock on the nomination. If memory serves, people were saying the same thing several years ago when she ran, and she ended up losing to a relatively unknown one-term Senator from Illinois. I don't think by any means Warren will "Obama" Hillary, but I wouldn't count out rising stars like Julian Castro or Martin O'Malley.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 10:30:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 12:53:54 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
I'm not quite sure if I would go so far as to say that Warren would appeal to the "ultra-left," but I would say, right now, that she's the anti-Clinton candidate in much the same way that Gingrich or Santorum were the anti-Romney candidate, though the parallel, I would say, isn't nearly as profound in their cases.

I don't think Warren has the political savvy to pull off a coup, but there are plenty of others. Even Al Gore has been mentioned. Clinton just radiates insincerity, and that's really unattractive in a candidate.

I didn't see the segment, so I'm not sure if Cavuto went into detail about the "thin rationalizations." I'm sure it was true, though, in much the same way that I'm sure that Hillary's ever move for years now has been calculated. As a public figure, I feel as though we would come to expect that from Hillary. However, is that not he case for any politician, never mind a politician whose names has been floated for a possible presidential run? I can't imagine how this would possibly preempt her from earning the Democratic nomination, especially when poll numbers are heavily in her favor.

I don't think so. Obama was elected because he sounded so sincere. Who, other than an evil conservative, could doubt that he would usher in a new era of transparency in government? In fact we haven't seen such a government of secrecy and stonewalling since Nixon. When you get to Republicans like Santorum and Gingrich, I think they are sincere, and that's an obstacle to getting elected. To get elected these days it seems you have to promise that people will get a lot of free stuff from government, and the Republicans hesitate to do that.

There's a saying, "In Hollywood, sincerity is everything. Once you learn to fake that, you've got it made." Clinton's problem is that she hasn't learned to fake it in a believable way.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 12:49:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 12:43:51 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:42:18 AM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
At 6/18/2014 10:11:11 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
No and if you told me a few weeks ago I would have said yes. In fact if I was in her shoes I think running would be a very tough choice. It isn't going to be easy no doubt. There are plenty of Democrats that will challenge her. She also simply isn't a great campaigner. I don't know if she knows that but most people do. There is also the question if she has the "fire in the belly". She's 67 and she is capable to be president just like older presidents such as Reagan and Ike, but the questions always is if she wants to or would she prefer a nice retirement making $200,000 a speech while having the Clinton Foundation polish her record. The presidency won't be easy with Obama leaving a mess of scandals, weak economy, and foreign policy failures left and right. Finally, the country wants a new direction and Hillary stands for the old.

Then again, there is also the theory that she and Bill are still angry over the 2008 defeat that they are making the Democratic Party pay by taking forever and then at last minute not running in January 2015 to throw the nomination into a mess with a guaranteed amount of chaos and money moving.

Agreed - and when that happens the Republicans will easily take the white house

...
...
...
...

I somehow doubt that. The Republican Party is falling apart.

Political infighting within parties has existed since the first. The conservative vs. center-right war has existed for a while. Probably since Goldwater. Don't forget the conservatives and liberals battled in the Democratic Party until the 1980s. FDR had to put conservative Garner as his VP. This nothing new and the party doesn't look like it's falling apart. Especially since it's gearing up to take the Senate in November.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:23:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 12:53:54 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:36:02 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Fox Business commentator Neil Cavuto said he spent the weekend reading Hillary Clinton's new 692 page book, "Hard Choices." He said that he now believes that Sec. Clinton will not get the Democrat nomination for president in 2016. His reason, if I understand correctly, is that she looks good from a distance but not close up. The book is a compilation of thin rationalizations. Cavuto thinks that's why Obama took the nomination from her with such ease in 2008. Other commentators say she projects inauthenticity, that every word seems calculated for political effect rather than heartfelt belief. That calculated posturing is as unappealing to liberal Democrats as it is to conservative Republicans.

The most often mentioned contender for the Democrat nomination is Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who would appeal to the ultra-left base of the Party. However, some say the Clinton vulnerability will draw new names into the field. Someone once said that every Senator looks into the mirror and sees the President looking back.

Does Hillary have a lock on the nomination?

I'm not quite sure if I would go so far as to say that Warren would appeal to the "ultra-left," but I would say, right now, that she's the anti-Clinton candidate in much the same way that Gingrich or Santorum were the anti-Romney candidate, though the parallel, I would say, isn't nearly as profound in their cases.

I didn't see the segment, so I'm not sure if Cavuto went into detail about the "thin rationalizations." I'm sure it was true, though, in much the same way that I'm sure that Hillary's ever move for years now has been calculated. As a public figure, I feel as though we would come to expect that from Hillary. However, is that not he case for any politician, never mind a politician whose names has been floated for a possible presidential run? I can't imagine how this would possibly preempt her from earning the Democratic nomination, especially when poll numbers are heavily in her favor.

Now, I don't believe by any means that she has a lock on the nomination. If memory serves, people were saying the same thing several years ago when she ran, and she ended up losing to a relatively unknown one-term Senator from Illinois. I don't think by any means Warren will "Obama" Hillary, but I wouldn't count out rising stars like Julian Castro or Martin O'Malley.

I dint think they'd want Warren at this stage but would look for more experience. Brian Schweitzer is considered a run as an older kind of Democrat: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:24:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:23:18 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:53:54 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:36:02 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Fox Business commentator Neil Cavuto said he spent the weekend reading Hillary Clinton's new 692 page book, "Hard Choices." He said that he now believes that Sec. Clinton will not get the Democrat nomination for president in 2016. His reason, if I understand correctly, is that she looks good from a distance but not close up. The book is a compilation of thin rationalizations. Cavuto thinks that's why Obama took the nomination from her with such ease in 2008. Other commentators say she projects inauthenticity, that every word seems calculated for political effect rather than heartfelt belief. That calculated posturing is as unappealing to liberal Democrats as it is to conservative Republicans.

The most often mentioned contender for the Democrat nomination is Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who would appeal to the ultra-left base of the Party. However, some say the Clinton vulnerability will draw new names into the field. Someone once said that every Senator looks into the mirror and sees the President looking back.

Does Hillary have a lock on the nomination?

I'm not quite sure if I would go so far as to say that Warren would appeal to the "ultra-left," but I would say, right now, that she's the anti-Clinton candidate in much the same way that Gingrich or Santorum were the anti-Romney candidate, though the parallel, I would say, isn't nearly as profound in their cases.

I didn't see the segment, so I'm not sure if Cavuto went into detail about the "thin rationalizations." I'm sure it was true, though, in much the same way that I'm sure that Hillary's ever move for years now has been calculated. As a public figure, I feel as though we would come to expect that from Hillary. However, is that not he case for any politician, never mind a politician whose names has been floated for a possible presidential run? I can't imagine how this would possibly preempt her from earning the Democratic nomination, especially when poll numbers are heavily in her favor.

Now, I don't believe by any means that she has a lock on the nomination. If memory serves, people were saying the same thing several years ago when she ran, and she ended up losing to a relatively unknown one-term Senator from Illinois. I don't think by any means Warren will "Obama" Hillary, but I wouldn't count out rising stars like Julian Castro or Martin O'Malley.

I dint think they'd want Warren at this stage but would look for more experience. Brian Schweitzer is considered a run as an older kind of Democrat: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

I've never heard of him, to be perfectly honest, but I'll read into him. As a Democrat myself, I admit that I'm not too thrilled with Warren.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 3:46:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 1:24:16 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/19/2014 1:23:18 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:53:54 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/18/2014 8:36:02 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Fox Business commentator Neil Cavuto said he spent the weekend reading Hillary Clinton's new 692 page book, "Hard Choices." He said that he now believes that Sec. Clinton will not get the Democrat nomination for president in 2016. His reason, if I understand correctly, is that she looks good from a distance but not close up. The book is a compilation of thin rationalizations. Cavuto thinks that's why Obama took the nomination from her with such ease in 2008. Other commentators say she projects inauthenticity, that every word seems calculated for political effect rather than heartfelt belief. That calculated posturing is as unappealing to liberal Democrats as it is to conservative Republicans.

The most often mentioned contender for the Democrat nomination is Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who would appeal to the ultra-left base of the Party. However, some say the Clinton vulnerability will draw new names into the field. Someone once said that every Senator looks into the mirror and sees the President looking back.

Does Hillary have a lock on the nomination?

I'm not quite sure if I would go so far as to say that Warren would appeal to the "ultra-left," but I would say, right now, that she's the anti-Clinton candidate in much the same way that Gingrich or Santorum were the anti-Romney candidate, though the parallel, I would say, isn't nearly as profound in their cases.

I didn't see the segment, so I'm not sure if Cavuto went into detail about the "thin rationalizations." I'm sure it was true, though, in much the same way that I'm sure that Hillary's ever move for years now has been calculated. As a public figure, I feel as though we would come to expect that from Hillary. However, is that not he case for any politician, never mind a politician whose names has been floated for a possible presidential run? I can't imagine how this would possibly preempt her from earning the Democratic nomination, especially when poll numbers are heavily in her favor.

Now, I don't believe by any means that she has a lock on the nomination. If memory serves, people were saying the same thing several years ago when she ran, and she ended up losing to a relatively unknown one-term Senator from Illinois. I don't think by any means Warren will "Obama" Hillary, but I wouldn't count out rising stars like Julian Castro or Martin O'Malley.

I dint think they'd want Warren at this stage but would look for more experience. Brian Schweitzer is considered a run as an older kind of Democrat: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

I've never heard of him, to be perfectly honest, but I'll read into him. As a Democrat myself, I admit that I'm not too thrilled with Warren.

She'll run if Hillary does not, but I don't think she'll win and she'd probably win the nomination at an election perhaps in 2020 assuming the GOP wins in 2016.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 3:50:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This election is going to go down with ultra left Bernie Sanders and Ultra Right Rand Paul
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 4:06:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 3:50:14 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
This election is going to go down with ultra left Bernie Sanders and Ultra Right Rand Paul

Probably not. No one as right as Rand Paul will win the GOP nomination, and he certainly wouldn't win the election against Clinton, but against Bernie, will, that would be weird.
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 4:14:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 8:36:02 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Fox Business commentator Neil Cavuto said he spent the weekend reading Hillary Clinton's new 692 page book, "Hard Choices." He said that he now believes that Sec. Clinton will not get the Democrat nomination for president in 2016. His reason, if I understand correctly, is that she looks good from a distance but not close up. The book is a compilation of thin rationalizations. Cavuto thinks that's why Obama took the nomination from her with such ease in 2008. Other commentators say she projects inauthenticity, that every word seems calculated for political effect rather than heartfelt belief. That calculated posturing is as unappealing to liberal Democrats as it is to conservative Republicans.

The most often mentioned contender for the Democrat nomination is Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who would appeal to the ultra-left base of the Party. However, some say the Clinton vulnerability will draw new names into the field. Someone once said that every Senator looks into the mirror and sees the President looking back.

Does Hillary have a lock on the nomination?

I think that if she goes for it she has a lock. Right now there aren't that many big name democrats who would be able to challenge her. I think Warren might be a little far left for some democrats and I doubt she'd win an election if she won the candidacy. I don't think that Clinton is vulnerable at all, I doubt anyone like Obama will pop up in 2016 and take her by surprise the way he did.

I've had doubts about Hiliary for a while myself. My gut has been saying she won't run for it since 2012, but with the GOP where they are right now if she did run she would probably win.

I kind of agree that she seems not so genuine sometimes. But she really isn't "vulnerable" as a candidate, she is practically a shoe in. I bet Cauvato wishes she was vulnerable, it's gonna be hard for the right to come up with a candidate as strong Clinton and right now it looks like they have no one right now, at least from what I see.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 4:23:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 4:06:45 PM, numberwang wrote:
At 6/19/2014 3:50:14 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
This election is going to go down with ultra left Bernie Sanders and Ultra Right Rand Paul


Probably not. No one as right as Rand Paul will win the GOP nomination, and he certainly wouldn't win the election against Clinton, but against Bernie, will, that would be weird.

I was kidding. Rand Paul's grab bag of political advocations makes him a joke. As soon as people here he wants to tax the rich 25%, and abolish public schooling, he's long gone.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 4:27:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 4:23:59 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/19/2014 4:06:45 PM, numberwang wrote:
At 6/19/2014 3:50:14 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
This election is going to go down with ultra left Bernie Sanders and Ultra Right Rand Paul


Probably not. No one as right as Rand Paul will win the GOP nomination, and he certainly wouldn't win the election against Clinton, but against Bernie, will, that would be weird.

I was kidding. Rand Paul's grab bag of political advocations makes him a joke. As soon as people here he wants to tax the rich 25%, and abolish public schooling, he's long gone.

Does he want to abolish the Fed too, like good ol' pop?
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 4:29:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 4:27:17 PM, numberwang wrote:

Does he want to abolish the Fed too, like good ol' pop?

He wants to get rid of the IRS. He thinks all social groups should be taxed 10%.

Libertarianism = Economic Anarchy
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 5:07:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 3:50:14 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
This election is going to go down with ultra left Bernie Sanders and Ultra Right Rand Paul

I don't see how Bernie Sanders is ultra-left, at least not ultra left to the degree that Rand Paul is ultra right.

What does Bernie want?

(1) single-payer healthcare; this was the left-wing position, and is what the individual mandate -- the conservative health care plan -- was created as a response to.

(2) $10.10 minimum wage. About 80% of the country agrees with him, as does basic economics.

(3) Don't worry about the deficit now, now, now. This isn't "ultra left," it's basic economics. Republicans haven't cared about deficits in ages; they only complain when a Democrat is in office. The last time they had a balanced budget was under Eisenhower.

(4) Raise taxes. The fact that he cited the 1950s -- where, yes, tax rates were about 91% -- doesn't mean he wants to return to a 91% top tax bracket.

(5) Protect Social Security and Medicare.Most of the country agrees with him.

What does Rand Paul want to do?

Let's not even get into it......basically, let's just call it a de-facto shutdown of the federal government.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 6:19:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 5:07:20 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/19/2014 3:50:14 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
This election is going to go down with ultra left Bernie Sanders and Ultra Right Rand Paul

I don't see how Bernie Sanders is ultra-left, at least not ultra left to the degree that Rand Paul is ultra right.

What does Bernie want?

(1) single-payer healthcare; this was the left-wing position, and is what the individual mandate -- the conservative health care plan -- was created as a response to.

(2) $10.10 minimum wage. About 80% of the country agrees with him, as does basic economics.

The country itself can be in a leftist mood. Reagan would not have won had he run in 1932 and FDR wouldn't have won had he run in 1980. Those are the two most recent conservative and liberal (but really in FDR's case socialist) presidents we've had.

(3) Don't worry about the deficit now, now, now. This isn't "ultra left," it's basic economics. Republicans haven't cared about deficits in ages; they only complain when a Democrat is in office. The last time they had a balanced budget was under Eisenhower.

Yeah and I don't think people care as much as the deficit as people think. After withdrawing from wars we should really cut it further though to pursue another surplus no matter who wins in 2016.

(4) Raise taxes. The fact that he cited the 1950s -- where, yes, tax rates were about 91% -- doesn't mean he wants to return to a 91% top tax bracket.

He would only win if he argued for increasing cap gains or corporate. I don't think Americans want income taxes up. Generally most strong leftists wild increase the income tax. I think general leftists or the center-left would approve only cap gain and corporate tax increase even though they would be wrong to lower government's revenue over time and economic productivity.

(5) Protect Social Security and Medicare.Most of the country agrees with him.

I think there is a sizable amount that want some reform, but watch out for Baby Boomer voters.


What does Rand Paul want to do?

Let's not even get into it......basically, let's just call it a de-facto shutdown of the federal government.

You can't be sure about that. He probably would be able to negotiate defense and social cuts in order to please both sides.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 6:21:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 4:29:18 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 6/19/2014 4:27:17 PM, numberwang wrote:

Does he want to abolish the Fed too, like good ol' pop?

He wants to get rid of the IRS. He thinks all social groups should be taxed 10%.

Libertarianism = Economic Anarchy

Actually that isn't really economic anarchy because numerous countries have flat taxes. However, I consider myself between an Austrian and monetarist. I believe there needs to be a central bank.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 6:30:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 6:19:53 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/19/2014 5:07:20 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/19/2014 3:50:14 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
This election is going to go down with ultra left Bernie Sanders and Ultra Right Rand Paul

I don't see how Bernie Sanders is ultra-left, at least not ultra left to the degree that Rand Paul is ultra right.

What does Bernie want?

(1) single-payer healthcare; this was the left-wing position, and is what the individual mandate -- the conservative health care plan -- was created as a response to.

(2) $10.10 minimum wage. About 80% of the country agrees with him, as does basic economics.

The country itself can be in a leftist mood. Reagan would not have won had he run in 1932 and FDR wouldn't have won had he run in 1980. Those are the two most recent conservative and liberal (but really in FDR's case socialist) presidents we've had.


There are so many fallacies here. First, calling FDR a socialist is ludicrous. Socialism means government-run businesses. No one supports full-on socialism. Police forces, for instance, are socialist. The Pentagon is socialist. Socialist means that the government does something.

Second, Eisenhower, a Republican, seemed pretty darn socialist -- 91% top tax rate, heavy regulation of the financial sector, investment in infrastructure and education, etc. In fact, 1945 to 1980, a time when taxes didn't fall below 70% sounds pretty darn "socialist."

Was Reagan the most conservative president in recent history? Let's see....He ran from Lebanon, raised taxes 11 times, wanted to protect Social Security, tripled the federal deficit whereas Obama has reduced the deficit that George W. Bush left him at historic rates, had significantly more federal employees than Obama, etc.

So conservative in this context is largely a misnomer. "Conservatives" claim they want small government and persona responsibility and want to purge the "moochers" from the system, then get behind restrictions on personal lives and habits -- whether it's abortion, contraceptives, gay marriage, and the list goes on -- and then endorse actual moochers like Cliven Bundy.

You suggested that times may be evolving and the country may be in a "lefty" mood. That is quite possible, except for the fact that, post-Reagan, the country has moved so unbelievably far to the right that "lefty" mood today would be seen as center-right ages ago. Do you think politicians from the 40s, 50s, and 60s who endorsed 90% tax rates would be thrilled with Ron Paul who wants a 0% tax rate, or Ben Carson who wants a 10% flat tax? I'm not sure what kind of fantasy world you're living in, but this isn't even a policy debate: it's insanity.

(3) Don't worry about the deficit now, now, now. This isn't "ultra left," it's basic economics. Republicans haven't cared about deficits in ages; they only complain when a Democrat is in office. The last time they had a balanced budget was under Eisenhower.

Yeah and I don't think people care as much as the deficit as people think. After withdrawing from wars we should really cut it further though to pursue another surplus no matter who wins in 2016.


I'm not for a surplus right now, but sure, down the road we could consider a surplus. Per Europe, austerity amid a downturn in search of a surplus is simply horrible economics.

(4) Raise taxes. The fact that he cited the 1950s -- where, yes, tax rates were about 91% -- doesn't mean he wants to return to a 91% top tax bracket.

He would only win if he argued for increasing cap gains or corporate. I don't think Americans want income taxes up. Generally most strong leftists wild increase the income tax. I think general leftists or the center-left would approve only cap gain and corporate tax increase even though they would be wrong to lower government's revenue over time and economic productivity.


Well, "general leftists" just got behind "raising taxes" in the form of allowing much of the Bush tax cuts to expire, and Obama, whom I consider center-left, campaigned on that twice, only to cave. I think Bernie would want to increase taxes on the high end, which is inclusive of capital gains and corporate taxes, but also involves individual income taxes on the affluent.

And most Americans do support tax hikes for the very rich -- about $250,000 and above. So you're wrong on that, as well. Again, we had much higher taxes historically, and it's not as though tax breaks under Reagan or Bush did a damned thing.

(5) Protect Social Security and Medicare.Most of the country agrees with him.

I think there is a sizable amount that want some reform, but watch out for Baby Boomer voters.


You mean Baby Boomers who want to keep their SS and Medicare which was promised for them since they paid into the system an there is absolutely NO crisis in either program right now? Yes, that sounds about right. Again, this isn't an "ultra left" idea by any stretch.


What does Rand Paul want to do?

Let's not even get into it......basically, let's just call it a de-facto shutdown of the federal government.

You can't be sure about that. He probably would be able to negotiate defense and social cuts in order to please both sides.

He does want defense cuts, which I could probably get onboard with, but "social" cuts are ridiculous. The social safety net has already been cut, and we already spend less of our GDP on social welfare programs than any other industrial country, so cutting social programs as a prerequisite for cutting defense, as Paul wants, is ridiculous, uncompassionate, and horrible economics. We already have a thorough case study on the impact of austerity amid a downturn: it just doesn't work. In fact, it makes everything worse.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:00:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 6:30:51 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/19/2014 6:19:53 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/19/2014 5:07:20 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/19/2014 3:50:14 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
This election is going to go down with ultra left Bernie Sanders and Ultra Right Rand Paul

I don't see how Bernie Sanders is ultra-left, at least not ultra left to the degree that Rand Paul is ultra right.

What does Bernie want?

(1) single-payer healthcare; this was the left-wing position, and is what the individual mandate -- the conservative health care plan -- was created as a response to.

(2) $10.10 minimum wage. About 80% of the country agrees with him, as does basic economics.

The country itself can be in a leftist mood. Reagan would not have won had he run in 1932 and FDR wouldn't have won had he run in 1980. Those are the two most recent conservative and liberal (but really in FDR's case socialist) presidents we've had.


There are so many fallacies here. First, calling FDR a socialist is ludicrous. Socialism means government-run businesses. No one supports full-on socialism. Police forces, for instance, are socialist. The Pentagon is socialist. Socialist means that the government does something.

The New Deal however was a model of many economic systems including Keynesian economics, Mussolini's fascism, and Stalin's communism. Generally, the system was socialist however because of the number of regulations imposed on businesses as well as making a variety of government-run industries like the TVA, which sucked up business and capital from private businesses. Indeed it has to be considered an overstrech of the executive branch when tried to pack the Supreme Court. Which is why he usually gets an F in terms of holding up the Constitution. This is a complete expansion if the government on private property.

Second, Eisenhower, a Republican, seemed pretty darn socialist -- 91% top tax rate, heavy regulation of the financial sector, investment in infrastructure and education, etc. In fact, 1945 to 1980, a time when taxes didn't fall below 70% sounds pretty darn "socialist."

I don't think it is since he did not raise the tax rate and he did not go on a spending spree like people think. This I shown by the fact that the Dow Jones average finally recovered to pre-Depression levels. Also, other taxes like the corporate rate were much lower at the time. Infrastructure is widely considered by both ideologies something the government should do. Also, back then conservatives would argue 70%, 60%, 50% because of their lack of thinking on taxes at the time. But these numbers were considered conservative back then. Laffer curve doesn't come until later.

Was Reagan the most conservative president in recent history? Let's see....He ran from Lebanon, raised taxes 11 times, wanted to protect Social Security, tripled the federal deficit whereas Obama has reduced the deficit that George W. Bush left him at historic rates, had significantly more federal employees than Obama, etc.

Not in history, but certainly most recent. I think you are looking too much at what they ended up with and not what they wanted to do. We shouldn't look at taxes by the number of times it was raised or lowered, but look at the rates overall and the size of the reductions/increases which shows a conservative president. His 1981 and 1986 tax rates overall lowered taxes and it is what he campaigned on. He wanted to get rid of Education but had to compromise, if anything it is better he got half his agenda than none of it. The overall growth of domestic outlays slowed from 3.5% to 1%.

So conservative in this context is largely a misnomer. "Conservatives" claim they want small government and persona responsibility and want to purge the "moochers" from the system, then get behind restrictions on personal lives and habits -- whether it's abortion, contraceptives, gay marriage, and the list goes on -- and then endorse actual moochers like Cliven Bundy.

Conservatives are for cutting the size of the government in numbers domestically but even when it is time to cut military they do such as Harding/Coolidge.

You suggested that times may be evolving and the country may be in a "lefty" mood. That is quite possible, except for the fact that, post-Reagan, the country has moved so unbelievably far to the right that "lefty" mood today would be seen as center-right ages ago. Do you think politicians from the 40s, 50s, and 60s who endorsed 90% tax rates would be thrilled with Ron Paul who wants a 0% tax rate, or Ben Carson who wants a 10% flat tax? I'm not sure what kind of fantasy world you're living in, but this isn't even a policy debate: it's insanity.

(3) Don't worry about the deficit now, now, now. This isn't "ultra left," it's basic economics. Republicans haven't cared about deficits in ages; they only complain when a Democrat is in office. The last time they had a balanced budget was under Eisenhower.

Yeah and I don't think people care as much as the deficit as people think. After withdrawing from wars we should really cut it further though to pursue another surplus no matter who wins in 2016.


I'm not for a surplus right now, but sure, down the road we could consider a surplus. Per Europe, austerity amid a downturn in search of a surplus is simply horrible economics.

(4) Raise taxes. The fact that he cited the 1950s -- where, yes, tax rates were about 91% -- doesn't mean he wants to return to a 91% top tax bracket.

He would only win if he argued for increasing cap gains or corporate. I don't think Americans want income taxes up. Generally most strong leftists wild increase the income tax. I think general leftists or the center-left would approve only cap gain and corporate tax increase even though they would be wrong to lower government's revenue over time and economic productivity.


Well, "general leftists" just got behind "raising taxes" in the form of allowing much of the Bush tax cuts to expire, and Obama, whom I consider center-left, campaigned on that twice, only to cave. I think Bernie would want to increase taxes on the high end, which is inclusive of capital gains and corporate taxes, but also involves individual income taxes on the affluent.

And most Americans do support tax hikes for the very rich -- about $250,000 and above. So you're wrong on that, as well. Again, we had much higher taxes historically, and it's not as though tax breaks under Reagan or Bush did a damned thing.

(5) Protect Social Security and Medicare.Most of the country agrees with him.

I think there is a sizable amount that want some reform, but watch out for Baby Boomer voters.


You mean Baby Boomers who want to keep their SS and Medicare which was promised for them since they paid into the system an there is absolutely NO crisis in either program right now? Yes, that sounds about right. Again, this isn't an "ultra left" idea by any stretch.


What does Rand Paul want to do?

Let's not even get into it......basically, let's just call it a de-facto shutdown of the federal government.

You can't be sure about that. He probably would be able to negotiate defense and social cuts in order to please both sides.

He does want defense cuts, which I could probably get onboard with, but "social" cuts are ridiculous. The social safety net has already been cut, and we already spend less of our GDP on social welfare programs than any other industrial country, so cutting social programs as a prerequisite for cutting defense, as Paul wants, is ridiculous, uncompassionate, and horrible economics. We already have a thorough case study on the impact of austerity amid a downturn: it just doesn't work. In fact, it makes e
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:05:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 12:49:06 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:43:51 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 6/19/2014 12:42:18 AM, AnsweringAtheism wrote:
At 6/18/2014 10:11:11 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
No and if you told me a few weeks ago I would have said yes. In fact if I was in her shoes I think running would be a very tough choice. It isn't going to be easy no doubt. There are plenty of Democrats that will challenge her. She also simply isn't a great campaigner. I don't know if she knows that but most people do. There is also the question if she has the "fire in the belly". She's 67 and she is capable to be president just like older presidents such as Reagan and Ike, but the questions always is if she wants to or would she prefer a nice retirement making $200,000 a speech while having the Clinton Foundation polish her record. The presidency won't be easy with Obama leaving a mess of scandals, weak economy, and foreign policy failures left and right. Finally, the country wants a new direction and Hillary stands for the old.

Then again, there is also the theory that she and Bill are still angry over the 2008 defeat that they are making the Democratic Party pay by taking forever and then at last minute not running in January 2015 to throw the nomination into a mess with a guaranteed amount of chaos and money moving.

Agreed - and when that happens the Republicans will easily take the white house

...
...
...
...

I somehow doubt that. The Republican Party is falling apart.

Political infighting within parties has existed since the first. The conservative vs. center-right war has existed for a while. Probably since Goldwater. Don't forget the conservatives and liberals battled in the Democratic Party until the 1980s. FDR had to put conservative Garner as his VP. This nothing new and the party doesn't look like it's falling apart. Especially since it's gearing up to take the Senate in November.

Oh, sure, but like this? The Tea Party could tear the party in two. The more and more radical they get, the more people they lose. Most Americans are moderates. Sure, the extremists vote in primaries, but that's their only lead. Additionally, the Republican Party is isolating itself from just about everyone (to generalise).
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:09:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 6:30:51 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/19/2014 6:19:53 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/19/2014 5:07:20 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/19/2014 3:50:14 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
This election is going to go down with ultra left Bernie Sanders and Ultra Right Rand Paul

I don't see how Bernie Sanders is ultra-left, at least not ultra left to the degree that Rand Paul is ultra right.

What does Bernie want?

(1) single-payer healthcare; this was the left-wing position, and is what the individual mandate -- the conservative health care plan -- was created as a response to.

(2) $10.10 minimum wage. About 80% of the country agrees with him, as does basic economics.

The country itself can be in a leftist mood. Reagan would not have won had he run in 1932 and FDR wouldn't have won had he run in 1980. Those are the two most recent conservative and liberal (but really in FDR's case socialist) presidents we've had.


There are so many fallacies here. First, calling FDR a socialist is ludicrous. Socialism means government-run businesses. No one supports full-on socialism. Police forces, for instance, are socialist. The Pentagon is socialist. Socialist means that the government does something.

Second, Eisenhower, a Republican, seemed pretty darn socialist -- 91% top tax rate, heavy regulation of the financial sector, investment in infrastructure and education, etc. In fact, 1945 to 1980, a time when taxes didn't fall below 70% sounds pretty darn "socialist."

Was Reagan the most conservative president in recent history? Let's see....He ran from Lebanon, raised taxes 11 times, wanted to protect Social Security, tripled the federal deficit whereas Obama has reduced the deficit that George W. Bush left him at historic rates, had significantly more federal employees than Obama, etc.

So conservative in this context is largely a misnomer. "Conservatives" claim they want small government and persona responsibility and want to purge the "moochers" from the system, then get behind restrictions on personal lives and habits -- whether it's abortion, contraceptives, gay marriage, and the list goes on -- and then endorse actual moochers like Cliven Bundy.

You suggested that times may be evolving and the country may be in a "lefty" mood. That is quite possible, except for the fact that, post-Reagan, the country has moved so unbelievably far to the right that "lefty" mood today would be seen as center-right ages ago. Do you think politicians from the 40s, 50s, and 60s who endorsed 90% tax rates would be thrilled with Ron Paul who wants a 0% tax rate, or Ben Carson who wants a 10% flat tax? I'm not sure what kind of fantasy world you're living in, but this isn't even a policy debate: it's insanity.

With more knowledge of tax rates, we know lower rates actually generate more revenue overall and economic growth as evidenced by the Laffer Curve. Today we argue 20% to 50% not 90% or 50%.

(3) Don't worry about the deficit now, now, now. This isn't "ultra left," it's basic economics. Republicans haven't cared about deficits in ages; they only complain when a Democrat is in office. The last time they had a balanced budget was under Eisenhower.

Yeah and I don't think people care as much as the deficit as people think. After withdrawing from wars we should really cut it further though to pursue another surplus no matter who wins in 2016.


I'm not for a surplus right now, but sure, down the road we could consider a surplus. Per Europe, austerity amid a downturn in search of a surplus is simply horrible economics.

No, but it saves the country when you pay your bills. You don't want to be buried in death. Also, we need to get rid of welfare and cut the military. We shouldn't just cut military. We need a surplus NOW and not kick it down the road.

(4) Raise taxes. The fact that he cited the 1950s -- where, yes, tax rates were about 91% -- doesn't mean he wants to return to a 91% top tax bracket.

He would only win if he argued for increasing cap gains or corporate. I don't think Americans want income taxes up. Generally most strong leftists wild increase the income tax. I think general leftists or the center-left would approve only cap gain and corporate tax increase even though they would be wrong to lower government's revenue over time and economic productivity.


Well, "general leftists" just got behind "raising taxes" in the form of allowing much of the Bush tax cuts to expire, and Obama, whom I consider center-left, campaigned on that twice, only to cave. I think Bernie would want to increase taxes on the high end, which is inclusive of capital gains and corporate taxes, but also involves individual income taxes on the affluent.

And most Americans do support tax hikes for the very rich -- about $250,000 and above. So you're wrong on that, as well. Again, we had much higher taxes historically, and it's not as though tax breaks under Reagan or Bush did a damned thing.

(5) Protect Social Security and Medicare.Most of the country agrees with him.

I think there is a sizable amount that want some reform, but watch out for Baby Boomer voters.


You mean Baby Boomers who want to keep their SS and Medicare which was promised for them since they paid into the system an there is absolutely NO crisis in either program right now? Yes, that sounds about right. Again, this isn't an "ultra left" idea by any stretch.

Not Baby Boomers in General, some don't vote. If there no crisis in the system why are problems by both sides talked about so much. Why are their plans to reform it. Because everyone knows it is too expensive to maintain.


What does Rand Paul want to do?

Let's not even get into it......basically, let's just call it a de-facto shutdown of the federal government.

You can't be sure about that. He probably would be able to negotiate defense and social cuts in order to please both sides.

He does want defense cuts, which I could probably get onboard with, but "social" cuts are ridiculous. The social safety net has already been cut, and we already spend less of our GDP on social welfare programs than any other industrial country, so cutting social programs as a prerequisite for cutting defense, as Paul wants, is ridiculous, uncompassionate, and horrible economics. We already have a thorough case study on the impact of austerity amid a downturn: it just doesn't work. In fact, it makes everything worse.

Let's not look at other countries but our own in terms of wants/needs which could be different. Also, everyone knows welfare reforms are needed so we don't end up like the Roman Empire which had so much welfare in the end it wasn't even funny.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:30:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
With more knowledge of tax rates, we know lower rates actually generate more revenue overall and economic growth as evidenced by the Laffer Curve. Today we argue 20% to 50% not 90% or 50%.


You completely dodged the point that tax rates are lower now than they've been at any other time in the post-WWII era, and yet we're worse off, as well as the fact that the Bush and Reagan tax cuts didn't accomplish anything.

You're completely misunderstanding the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve is not perpetually downward sloping, even though its creator seems to think that it is.

There have been PLENTY of studies on this -- Diamond and Saez, Fieldhouse, etc. -- and they place the Laffer Curve at an effective rate of about 68.7% effective, at a tax rate of about 54-80%. There has NEVER been a tax cut -- and I challenge you to find me one, as even Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times and had massive deficits because he couldn't recover the revenue from his 1981 tax cut -- that has raised revenue.

I'm not for a surplus right now, but sure, down the road we could consider a surplus. Per Europe, austerity amid a downturn in search of a surplus is simply horrible economics.

No, but it saves the country when you pay your bills. You don't want to be buried in death. Also, we need to get rid of welfare and cut the military. We shouldn't just cut military. We need a surplus NOW and not kick it down the road.


You dodged the austerity point with a simple "no." Again, you're flat wrong. Britain, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland..the list goes on and on. We KNOW that austerity doesn't work. Debt: GDP ratios actually INCREASED in Europe after austerity.

You're wrong on debt, too. No countries with a debt nominally denominated in its own currency has ever had a problem with paying its debt. We can borrow now at negative real interest rates. So save the "bankruptcy" for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Abolishing welfare and cutting the military....that sounds lovely. Let's "cut" the massive defense contracts to people who benefitted from Bush's spending binge and then hit the poor people who suffered from his BS deregulation and the resulting recession. That's not only horrible economics; it's immoral.

You said we're "kicking it down the road." Frankly, that's not the case at all. We kicked it down the road in the early 2000s when Bush put two rounds of tax cuts, two wars, Medicare Part D, a recession, and defense contracts on a credit card. During boom years we should cut back, not during a recession. That's economics 101.


(4) Raise taxes. The fact that he cited the 1950s -- where, yes, tax rates were about 91% -- doesn't mean he wants to return to a 91% top tax bracket.

He would only win if he argued for increasing cap gains or corporate. I don't think Americans want income taxes up. Generally most strong leftists wild increase the income tax. I think general leftists or the center-left would approve only cap gain and corporate tax increase even though they would be wrong to lower government's revenue over time and economic productivity.


Well, "general leftists" just got behind "raising taxes" in the form of allowing much of the Bush tax cuts to expire, and Obama, whom I consider center-left, campaigned on that twice, only to cave. I think Bernie would want to increase taxes on the high end, which is inclusive of capital gains and corporate taxes, but also involves individual income taxes on the affluent.

And most Americans do support tax hikes for the very rich -- about $250,000 and above. So you're wrong on that, as well. Again, we had much higher taxes historically, and it's not as though tax breaks under Reagan or Bush did a damned thing.


Not Baby Boomers in General, some don't vote. If there no crisis in the system why are problems by both sides talked about so much. Why are their plans to reform it. Because everyone knows it is too expensive to maintain.


It's interesting that you dodged a myriad of points in the middle of this quote, but we can get back to that.

Your logic for this is unfounded. It's essentially an ad-populum fallacy: People say it is so, so therefore it is so. There is a long-term problem with the solvency of Social Security and Medicare which very simple changes will solve -- e.g., raising the cap on income subject to the payroll withholding tax so that it isn't regressive. But, sure, the logic in the Beltway is to be a Very Serious Person, as Paul Krugman calls them, you need to be willing to make hard, stupid choices that hurt other people who aren't rich and aren't your donors. if you actually looked at the numbers rather than finding refuge and platitudes, you'd see that.


Let's not look at other countries but our own in terms of wants/needs which could be different. Also, everyone knows welfare reforms are needed so we don't end up like the Roman Empire which had so much welfare in the end it wasn't even funny.

"Let's not look at other countries" is a tacit concession that they're doing things that we could learn from, but haven't: e.g., universal healthcare and education, which isn't the scare that conservatives would have us believe it is.

Your comments on welfare represent ANOTHER ad-populum fallacy. Just because someone says something doesn't make it true. Welfare was already reformed in the 90s, and extreme poverty increased. Overall poverty declined, but that was largely because of a booming economy under Bill Clinton. The truth is, many people suffered because of "welfare reform." The fact is, food stamps were already cut: the GOP voted to cut them while funding agricultural subsidies. It's funny that we're too bankrupt to fund food stamps, according to them, but the Pentagon, oil companies, and agribusinesses will receive their payments.

I had to actually google that piece on the Roman Empire. I have no idea of what you're talking about, but I assure you that (1) the differences in the economies now and back in the Roman Empire are so profound that we're comparing apples and oranges and (2) no one denies that there's a "Laffer Curve" in welfare, but the fact is, like with tax rates, we are nowhere NEAR that point.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:37:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The New Deal however was a model of many economic systems including Keynesian economics, Mussolini's fascism, and Stalin's communism. Generally, the system was socialist however because of the number of regulations imposed on businesses as well as making a variety of government-run industries like the TVA, which sucked up business and capital from private businesses. Indeed it has to be considered an overstrech of the executive branch when tried to pack the Supreme Court. Which is why he usually gets an F in terms of holding up the Constitution. This is a complete expansion if the government on private property.


None of this is even remotely true. It's so embarrassingly wrong that I don't even know where to start.

Not to mention, Keynesian economics predated the New Deal. Keynes actually wrote to FDR disapproving of it because it wasn't big enough. So, once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.


I don't think it is since he did not raise the tax rate and he did not go on a spending spree like people think. This I shown by the fact that the Dow Jones average finally recovered to pre-Depression levels. Also, other taxes like the corporate rate were much lower at the time. Infrastructure is widely considered by both ideologies something the government should do. Also, back then conservatives would argue 70%, 60%, 50% because of their lack of thinking on taxes at the time. But these numbers were considered conservative back then. Laffer curve doesn't come until later.


He didn't go on a "spending spree' because he didn't have to. He didn't inherit a depression; the depression was over. It ended because of the New Deal and giant military spending. Now we're in a massive depression, and for conservatives to come around and suddenly start caring about deficits is ludicrous.

Again, you're BS"ing on the laffer curve, and there's plenty of research showing you're flat wrong. Heck, ART LAFFER doesn't agree with you. Art Laffer wants more "tax collections." He just wants to do it differently.

Not in history, but certainly most recent. I think you are looking too much at what they ended up with and not what they wanted to do. We shouldn't look at taxes by the number of times it was raised or lowered, but look at the rates overall and the size of the reductions/increases which shows a conservative president. His 1981 and 1986 tax rates overall lowered taxes and it is what he campaigned on. He wanted to get rid of Education but had to compromise, if anything it is better he got half his agenda than none of it. The overall growth of domestic outlays slowed from 3.5% to 1%.


So we should focus on rhetoric instead of actions? Nonsense.

Your numbers are flat wrong. Spending has grown at historically low levels under Obama -- about 1.1 percent. Spending increases under Reagan and Bush was MUCH higher than spending increases under Obama and Clinton. So, again, your numbers are flat wrong. I don't even know the figures off-hand, but I've seen the charts.

Conservatives are for cutting the size of the government in numbers domestically but even when it is time to cut military they do such as Harding/Coolidge.


Is that why Mitt Romney proposed a tax cut that added $5 trillion over 10 years, without telling us which deductions he wanted to cut, and ONLY was revenue-neutral if it raised taxes on the middle class by killing charitable deductions et al., all whilst giving millionaires and billionaires an, on average, $250,000 tax cut.

That's the point: you're all platitudes and no facts.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:40:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
NO!

Rick Perry!
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:45:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 8:40:26 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
NO!

Rick Perry!

Excuse me whilst I vomit blood at the mere thought of a........President James Richard "Rick" Perry.

For goodness' sake, I'd take Ted Crux over that guy!
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:46:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 8:45:46 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 6/19/2014 8:40:26 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
NO!

Rick Perry!

Excuse me whilst I vomit blood at the mere thought of a........President James Richard "Rick" Perry.

For goodness' sake, I'd take Ted Crux over that guy!

Cruz*
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:50:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 8:40:26 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
NO!

Rick Perry!

He's can't even remember all of the steps in his 3 step plan, how can he be president?

I take comfort in the fact that the GOP, as much as I disagree with them, is sane enough not to nominate Rick Perry.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 11:03:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/19/2014 8:37:23 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
The New Deal however was a model of many economic systems including Keynesian economics, Mussolini's fascism, and Stalin's communism. Generally, the system was socialist however because of the number of regulations imposed on businesses as well as making a variety of government-run industries like the TVA, which sucked up business and capital from private businesses. Indeed it has to be considered an overstrech of the executive branch when tried to pack the Supreme Court. Which is why he usually gets an F in terms of holding up the Constitution. This is a complete expansion if the government on private property.


None of this is even remotely true. It's so embarrassingly wrong that I don't even know where to start.

Not to mention, Keynesian economics predated the New Deal. Keynes actually wrote to FDR disapproving of it because it wasn't big enough. So, once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Incorrect. FDR's Brain Trust was largely made up of academics that had visited the Soviet Union and were impressed with it, hoping to apply those ideals to the United States. Keynes had visited the White House before and talked with FDR in May '34 and the conservation did not go well as they birth relayed to others, but still Keynes told the New Dealers the tall the speeding was a good thing. The New Deal was not completely Keynesian pm but a mix if things baked into a leftist cake and that is why it failed miserably. Most economists make an excuse to defend themselves by saying the policies didn't go far enough when they shouldn't have been enacted anyway because we all know left-wing economic policies don't work.


I don't think it is since he did not raise the tax rate and he did not go on a spending spree like people think. This I shown by the fact that the Dow Jones average finally recovered to pre-Depression levels. Also, other taxes like the corporate rate were much lower at the time. Infrastructure is widely considered by both ideologies something the government should do. Also, back then conservatives would argue 70%, 60%, 50% because of their lack of thinking on taxes at the time. But these numbers were considered conservative back then. Laffer curve doesn't come until later.


He didn't go on a "spending spree' because he didn't have to. He didn't inherit a depression; the depression was over. It ended because of the New Deal and giant military spending. Now we're in a massive depression, and for conservatives to come around and suddenly start caring about deficits is ludicrous.

Nope, New Deal ended in 1947 or 48 as the war adjusted everything. Keep in mind FDR had been discussing a 99% top income tax rare after the war. When Truman entered, the corporate tax rate was dramatically cut thus bring the economy back. Power of unions was also cut.

Again, you're BS"ing on the laffer curve, and there's plenty of research showing you're flat wrong. Heck, ART LAFFER doesn't agree with you. Art Laffer wants more "tax collections." He just wants to do it differently.

Not in history, but certainly most recent. I think you are looking too much at what they ended up with and not what they wanted to do. We shouldn't look at taxes by the number of times it was raised or lowered, but look at the rates overall and the size of the reductions/increases which shows a conservative president. His 1981 and 1986 tax rates overall lowered taxes and it is what he campaigned on. He wanted to get rid of Education but had to compromise, if anything it is better he got half his agenda than none of it. The overall growth of domestic outlays slowed from 3.5% to 1%.


So we should focus on rhetoric instead of actions? Nonsense.

And his actions were largely conservative, how is overall lowering tax rates and reducing the growth of the government not conservative?

Your numbers are flat wrong. Spending has grown at historically low levels under Obama -- about 1.1 percent. Spending increases under Reagan and Bush was MUCH higher than spending increases under Obama and Clinton. So, again, your numbers are flat wrong. I don't even know the figures off-hand, but I've seen the charts.

Incorrect, look up CATO Institute's report on growth of federal government domestic outlaws. Also you only picked overall spending.



Conservatives are for cutting the size of the government in numbers domestically but even when it is time to cut military they do such as Harding/Coolidge.


Is that why Mitt Romney proposed a tax cut that added $5 trillion over 10 years, without telling us which deductions he wanted to cut, and ONLY was revenue-neutral if it raised taxes on the middle class by killing charitable deductions et al., all whilst giving millionaires and billionaires an, on average, $250,000 tax cut.

That's the point: you're all platitudes and no facts.

You're no facts. That's good because we'ed be in a better economy now just like were we saved the country's economy in 1921, 1964, and 1981.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...