GOP'ish candidates

[transjen]

Originally Posted by Chichester

Palin is "toying" with fame again as she hops on the bus to ruin the biker's weekend in DC. What a whore. I like Bachman better, but how would you have liked having Trump's trophy wife as First Lady??!! WOOO!!!!

Palin and Bachman make me ashamed to be of the same gender
Jerseygirl Jen

[Chichester]

Date me and find out what shame really is!

Palin's eyes really scare me. Psycho. Bachman adopted tons of kids at least, I think Romney will get the nomination???....Too early to tell for sure. It doesn't really matter who the Republicans nominate, they run everything by committee anyway, but killing Medicare as their platform? Hello? Anybody home?
Maybe this country really is about to crash and all the Powerbrokers have gone to Europe. Or Wall St. Or they're hiding til Obama is gone.

[transjen]

After watching the GOP debate i would say all seven of em are true GOP candidates
All seven of em believe in trickle down economics and all we need to do to put America back to work is cut taxes and deregalate
So they all want to go back to the failed W policies
So if one of those seven morrons win in 12 it'll be like having W back in power
If they win get ready for the great depression to return if you think things are bad now wait till one of these bozos take over and pick up where W left off
We'll be a thrid world country for sure
Jerseygirl Jen

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by transjen

If they win get ready for the great depression to return if you think things are bad now wait till one of these bozos take over and pick up where W left off
We'll be a thrid world country for sure
Jerseygirl Jen

How's that "Hopey changey thingy working out for ya ?"

[GRH]

So far the "Hopey, changey" thing is working out better than the failed supply side economic policies of Republicans.

To illustrate just how fiscally bankrupt some of the candidates are, Tim Pawlenty calls for a tax plan that would give an average tax break of $1.4 million to the top 0.1% of the populace. (That's an additional $1.4 million tax break in addition to what they currently receive.) In an economy where "cutting the debt and reducing spending" is so vogue, the cost for Pawlenty's tax plan rings in at a cool $11.6 trillion in lost revenue.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by GRH

So far the "Hopey, changey" thing is working out better than the failed supply side economic policies of Republicans.

To illustrate just how fiscally bankrupt some of the candidates are, Tim Pawlenty calls for a tax plan that would give an average tax break of $1.4 million to the top 0.1% of the populace. (That's an additional $1.4 million tax break in addition to what they currently receive.) In an economy where "cutting the debt and reducing spending" is so vogue, the cost for Pawlenty's tax plan rings in at a cool $11.6 trillion in lost revenue.

Democrat math? How does $1.4 million equal $11.6trillion?
How long does it take for our government to spend $1.4 million? ( not as long as it took me to write the question.)

Granted, we can not have debt. But "lost revenue"? Is it lost in the government pocket or yours and mine?

[GRH]

Republican economics? Drastically reduce taxes while expecting the budget to balance itself? I've never heard that one explained. If one thing supply side economics have taught us its that cutting taxes does not increase government revenues. Or are you one of those who thinks that we can just cut our way out of $14 trillion in debt?

And $1.4 million does not equal $11.6 trillion. But when you multiply that tax cut by all the various millionaires and billionaires over several years...It begins to add up. And don't forget Pawlenty's call to eliminate capital gains, estate taxes, etc.

Lest we forget...The top 10% of the population owns 80% of the US stock market. So while the rich like to complain about top marginal income tax rates, they in fact have most of their wealth sitting in securities that are taxed at discounted rates (15% on capital gains and dividends). This is how the rich end up paying lower effective tax rates than working stiffs.

And before you get all "but we can't hurt the job creators" on me...Tell me one thing...What economic benefit (other than liquidity) does the secondary buying and selling of securities do for the economy? And why should the gains on such sales be tax-advantaged?

I favor tax-advantaged treatment for investment capital that is actually put to work as venture capital for starting up/expanding firms. Someone that buys shares in an IPO is actually providing investment capital to a corporation-- they are investing in the economy. And perhaps gains on this sort of capital deployment should be tax advantaged.

But let's take an established corporation that is not selling shares on the market...In other words, you are the secondary purchaser of those company shares. Someone long before you bought the IPO shares and actually provided investment capital to the corporation. But once the original buyer sells those shares...That is where the tax-advantaged treatment should end. Because the next person in line may buy the shares at a higher price than the original owner...But he is merely providing capital to the seller of the securities...His capital is not being deployed by the corporation that initially sold shares. Secondary stock sales have no net economic benefit to the issuing companies. Arguably, the only benefit that secondary sales provide is to create liquidity in the market...But this benefit should not receive favorable tax treatment.

Now I got off track...But the idea that we can cut our way out of the debt without raising taxes is absurd. I believe we will ALL have to pay higher taxes if we want to keep the social programs that our society has grown to love...And yes, that means the middle class will have to pay higher taxes alongside the wealthy.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

So they all want to go back to the failed W policies

875 days after Bush and still rockin with the W gripes. Whose policies would you like to see come back? Spending ourselves into oblivion didn't work. Even Obama admits that, as he recently smiled and said: "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected" as those around him laughed. (You can get away with laughing at the dismal state of your economy when the media is working for you btw).

Originally Posted by transjen

So if one of those seven morrons win in 12 it'll be like having W back in power

Except W comes off looking like a secular science wiz next to most of those guys (gals).

Originally Posted by transjen

How many jobs were created by extending the Bush tax cuts?

How many more jobs would have been lost if BO ended the Bush tax cuts?

[RobbyPants]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Whose policies would you like to see come back?

Clinton? I'm all for a budget surplus.

Yeah, yeah, I know: this isn't the .com bubble. Still, I couldn't resist.

[Chichester]

It's fabulous that the Republican field is so pathetic, because Obama is going to trip lots of alarms and warning lights before his eight year mission is over. If you Republicans are so right why can't you come up with a candidate that's not a joke?
Because Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are too smart to run.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Chichester

If you Republicans are so right why can't you come up with a candidate that's not a joke?

Because they've been hijacked by the religious right.

Originally Posted by Chichester

Because Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are too smart to run.

I'm wondering why Christie is so popular? What does he have that other GOPish candidates don't? And I think the country is done with the Bushes.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by RobbyPants

Clinton? I'm all for a budget surplus.

Yeah, yeah, I know: this isn't the .com bubble. Still, I couldn't resist.

Yeah, those were good times. Although he did have a pretty tough time taxing and spending with the republican controlled House & Senate.