Here is something a bit more concrete for the liberals who think the Republicans dont have a shot this year to sink their teeth into. I would direct your attention to the current polling information that has McCain winning against Hilary in three out of four polls. Not bad for not having any chance.

Originally Posted by cbwm

So funny to see pundits build on their own BS. For instance, the most recent rant above me here started with the false presumption that McCain will win the Republican nomination.

Interesting how things have played out, eh?

About "the false presumption" being true, you mean?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

About "the false presumption" being true, you mean?

Yep. Not exactly false.

false = !true?

or

false = !(i_wish_it_was_true)

CBWM argues, as do many republicans, that things aren't true simply because they don't want them to be true and pervert logic to the point of absurdity. In the rant quoted above, the claim was that McCain wouldn't get the nomination. He has, however, done so, therefore the assertion that it was a false presumption was shown to be false. His subsequent argument that it was useless considering McCain's nomination is now moot.

For a prediction of my own: One will notice that the Republicans will, as they did in the previous election, declare that they will win; that Democrats cannot win; that if a Democrat wins, the whole country will be destroyed; etc. Truth is that I believe the Democratic nominee will win (yes, I know the polls indicate a probability leaning otherwise, but McCain will most likely be slaughtered [figuratively!] once the Democratic nominee is chosen and he's exposed for the war mongering, economic-policy ignorant candidate that he is.) I also believe that the Congress will become more Democratically controlled as the Republicans have shown that if they can't have it their way, they won't allow anything to go through Congress and then blame the Democrats for actions precipitated by the Republicans. Take the misnomer, "Protect America Act" which is so important that it cannot be allowed to expire or else a terrorist will suddenly be able to attack us when they weren't previously, but in an effort to ensure our safety which is more important than the act alone, the Republicans want to give immunity to companies which violated Americans' rights. So, Republicans, which is it? Is the Act important or is protecting businesses which facilitated your abolition of our freedoms more important? No need to answer, as the Republicans have already answered and the act has died: Protecting companies loyal to the Republicans is more important than protecting our country.

One more prediction which I cannot resist: You'll hear as the Democratic nominee is chosen that the "conventional wisdom" is wrong. That the polls are wrong. That everyone has it wrong except the Republican elite. You'll only hear that, of course, if the polls don't show Republicans winning.

Republicans have shown themselves to try and thwart all knowledge with beliefs:

• belief that they're doing their god's work;
• belief that their failed war policies work and that trying diplomacy was a futile suggestion from day one (why talk when you can kill?);
• belief that companies and govt officials shouldn't have to take responsibility for their actions -- victims are responsible for allowing themselves to be victimized, you know!;
• belief that it is the individual's responsibility to take on large companies whose contracts are written in an effort to deprive people of options and protections;
• belief that if they can get a large enough coalition of like-minded zealots, that the constitution is no longer relevant (remember here, that all you have to do is pass a law and have a religious, right-wing, sycophantic Supreme Court and the people are out of options to protect themselves -- we saw this with the Patriot Act, the Protect America Act, and, I'm sure, a number of secret presidential decrees which fly in the face of freedom).

It is time for change. Change from a policy that encourages the world to distrust us; change from a policy that destroys our economy; change from a policy which works to convert the US into a religious nation; change from a policy of war-without-diplomacy; change for a policy which fails to recognize that assisting our population to become greater (a.k.a. "social programs") is a role of govt and not simply by strengthening our military and world-conquering efforts; change from unfettered businesses wreaking havoc on the citizenry and our economy. Both Clinton and Obama will do their best to effect such a change, though not to the degree they claim as the Republicans will lie, cheat, steal, and distort in order to try and embarrass the Democrats instead of working together to achieve a country worthy of a new millennium and holds true to what our founders conceived.

I have to add, that I could be wrong. Perhaps the 2012 predictions necessitate another Republican in office. How can the world end on 12/21/2012 with a peace-promoting president? For that we really need a natural disaster or a Republican (really, a type of natural disaster).

When the Republicans declare that to be free, we must give up our freedoms. When the Republicans declare that giving up our freedoms is really foregoing the freedoms of our nation on terrorists and not 'peace-loving citizens' while hiding in the shadows about their actions when sued for attacking peace-loving citizens. When the Republicans declare that they are the only one's who can see the correct future for America and that the Republican way is the only way -- and do their damnedest to stop all other methods w/o even a hint of bipartisanship. When the Republicans open their mouth in defiance of a govt whose purpose is to 'secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Then, I declare to myself and to all those willing to listen what Patrick Henry declared so openly: "Give me liberty, or give me death." For liberty, I choose the Democratic party.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

When the Republicans declare that to be free, we must give up our freedoms.

It made sense to me. The terrorists hate us for our freedom, so we need to stop having freedom, then they'll stop hating us, and Saddam won't want to kill your puppy in front of your anymore. (Meanwhile, Osama bin Forgotton doesn't care whether Bush tells us it's orange or yellow alert on Fear Factor USA.)

You guys have really run out of material. False or True (My mistake for declaring one way or other prior to the fact), presuming John McCain would be Nominee on January 13th was exactly that... a presumption. Many presumed Hillary would have the Dem nomination by defacto as well, and all evidence pointed to it.

I can understand your need to fall back to nit-picking predictions gone awry. I suppose its a natural consequence of lacking a sensible position. I see Whym(and likely you two as well) have refused to acknowledge that Bush's tax cuts have generated more tax dollars than any President alive.

Originally Posted by cbwm

have refused to acknowledge that Bush's tax cuts have generated more tax dollars than any President alive.

Correlation does not imply causation. There are many, many factors involved in how tax dollars accumulate, production and taxation only 2 factors amongst them. You cannot simply cite one potential influence (never proven, but constantly assumed, nonetheless) as a correlation which is subsequently the causation.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Correlation does not imply causation. There are many, many factors involved in how tax dollars accumulate, production and taxation only 2 factors amongst them. You cannot simply cite one potential influence (never proven, but constantly assumed, nonetheless) as a correlation which is subsequently the causation.

While what you say is true, it still doesn't mean the tax cut wasn't the cause. I noticed you didn't propose a plausible alternate reason(Does one exist?). I also fail to see the logic behind raising taxes, if lowering taxes is likely to be one of the causes of increased tax revenues. Deny Deny Deny Deny.

I wasn't proposing a correct solution to the multivariable problem. I was denying your overly simplified solution. The full solution is beyond my mathematical abilities and I have never claimed otherwise.

Your principle, as is the Republicans, is that lowering taxes is always a positive thing for the economy and populace in general. Fact of the matter is that sometimes a large, govt run project assists a population to grow more productive and subsequently earn more money which then raises more taxes.

For example, a govt program to help small businesses get up off the ground w/o having to become bogged down with contracts from a large corporation increases, in most cases, the productivity of each business owner and provides additional jobs. Those companies and their employees then earn more money which goes back into the US economy and subsequently increases money received. Giving the money back, i.e. through a tax reduction, to the individual taxpayer does not create such a situation and slows growth. The overall net growth from assisting small businesses into success far outweighs the individual net loss and actually benefits each individual tax payer by increasing competition (thereby decreasing prices) and adding additional monies into the national economy.

One must remember some of the large, national projects which have resulted in a stonger nation, both internally and militarily. For example, the Panama Canal built under the guidance of Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican); the eradication of Malaria (Franklin Roosevelt, a Republican) and the national highway which was built under yet another Republican, Dwight Eisenhower. Those projects were funded by what else but tax dollars? Had we lowered taxes, the country people would have had more money but when would these things have been addressed? When would they have been a profitable private investment and at what cost of life? Do you think they were worth it? If so, consider the amount of money being spent on Iraq -- no, consider how that money could have been spent domestically...What would our country be like today? Would the middle east be at least as stable as it was when Saddam was making Iran (and the world) think he could defend his country through WMD, if necessary?

You see, as our founding fathers were keen to point out, it is the govt's responsibility to 'ensure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. Sometimes to achieve that goal, it is necessary to manage things a bit more than otherwise, but this is primarily driven by businesses (usually larger ones) practices or disease. Sometimes to achieve great things, it is necessary for a govt, under the guidance of the people, to invest in a project which may not make money in the short term, but in the longer term (say 40-50 years which is outside most investors' willlingness to wait period) is a positive, productive contribution to humankind and, specifically, the nation.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I also fail to see the logic behind raising taxes, if lowering taxes is likely to be one of the causes of increased tax revenues. Deny Deny Deny Deny.

Sorry did I just read that?! I agree that lowering taxes to an extent can benefit the economy, but there's a limit - if you pass that limit, you begin to lose tax revenue as it's not recuperated from the stimulated growth.

Plus, what do you see is the main objective of any government? To benefit it's own citezens or to benefit the economy and businesses? People repeatedly go on about how increased economic activity and wealth improves the standard of living and happiness of the populace, but some of the most content nations are ones where they don't focus continually on the economy but simply on high tax spend per head and personal happiness - i.e. shorter working hours etc.

You can go on and on about how important economic success is to a country but it just seems like people are more happy when they pay less attention to the economy. I'm sure you'll find something to contradict this though.....

Originally Posted by whym

Sorry did I just read that?! I agree that lowering taxes to an extent can benefit the economy, but there's a limit - if you pass that limit, you begin to lose tax revenue as it's not recuperated from the stimulated growth.

Outside of the chart that has been presented several times showing higher tax receipts under Bush's economic plan (lower taxes), the math is really pretty simple.

(20% *100,000,000 ) > (50% * 1,000,000)

Sim City 101 (not that it is any kind of economic authority, but the game illustrates this point very well). Raise the taxes past a certain point, businesses move out of the city, and people don't have enough cash to spend, slowing the overall economy. At some point, the high tax rate returns very little real tax revenue. Lower taxes, encourage businesses, give people more money to spend, and you get more people with more cash creating higher overall tax revenue. The only time you actually truly fail to generate revenue is when you bring the tax rate close to zero (like that could ever happen in the U.S. or Britain). Most middle class Americans pay more than 50%. This is higher in Canada and Britain. Yes, lowering that number creates more tax revenue. Anywhere around 25% would be terrific. I'd be a big fan of the flat tax, if they could find a way to phase it in.

Originally Posted by whym

Plus, what do you see is the main objective of any government?

This quote deserves its own thread. There is no way any of us are going to agree on the answer to this question. That said, I'll put forward the idea that the purpose of the government is not to keep our work week short, and thereby, it's people happy. You (I think) were the one touting Social Mobility, and I think that is a good thing for a government to be sure exists for it's people. That and to keep it's people safe, prevent exploitation of people and planet, maintain personal freedom to the extent it doesn't impinge on the freedoms of others. I think the Constitution pretty much hit the nail on the head. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness (note not the provision of happiness).

All this and, of course, the right to carry concealed automatic weapons.

Originally Posted by cbwm

(20% *100,000,000 ) > (50% * 1,000,000)

Sim City 101

Either:
1) You're totally obsessed with that game
2) You think the only way of telling me anything about economics is to use SimCity as an example (since supposedly I'd know nothing about real economics.
3) You think that whatever happens in SimCity = whatever happens in real life.

SimCity isn't realistic - I've played it a lot and it's obvious in the game that favouring the rich nurtures the city and increases tax revenue. Does this happen in real life? I doubt it. Besides, taxing is a way of stopping anyone getting too rich (IMO), therefore tax rates should increase slightly the further you go up until it prevents people from becoming multi-billionaires altogether!

Originally Posted by cbwm

Raise the taxes past a certain point, businesses move out of the city, and people don't have enough cash to spend, slowing the overall economy. At some point, the high tax rate returns very little real tax revenue. Lower taxes, encourage businesses, give people more money to spend, and you get more people with more cash creating higher overall tax revenue.

What seems to happen when people have too much money lying around is that they go on stupid spending sprees and expect the economy will continue to boom indefinitely.

The sub-prime crash would have been far less serious if the banks had been more responsible lending the money but also if people hadn't tried to buy something they couldn't realistically afford. The more money you have, the more people will try stretching it further and further. Just add to that businesses being irresponsible and you end up with things like the .com crash, the Great Depression and this sub prime lending crash. Continued economic boom (which isn't sustainable might I add) makes people complacent and they start investing in things that don't end up paying off - things they wouldn't invest in if the economy was growing at a more gentle pace.

Also note that inflation often leaps up when the economy is doing well and interest rates are low - people spend rather than save and the money supply increases as does demand pushing prices up. You end up with a boom followed by bust cycle if the government doesn't do anything responsible - I'm sure both of us wouldn't want that.

Originally Posted by cbwm

The only time you actually truly fail to generate revenue is when you bring the tax rate close to zero (like that could ever happen in the U.S. or Britain). Most middle class Americans pay more than 50%. This is higher in Canada and Britain. Yes, lowering that number creates more tax revenue. Anywhere around 25% would be terrific. I'd be a big fan of the flat tax, if they could find a way to phase it in.

Are you positive it's that high? That certainly comes as a surprise to me - we get taxed 17.5% on everything that we buy, then plus council tax, business taxes, 40% inheritance tax over £300,000 plus plenty of other taxes. I'm fairly sure that Britain is more heavily taxed than the US, although there are other European countries with higher tax rates too.

Originally Posted by cbwm

This quote deserves its own thread. There is no way any of us are going to agree on the answer to this question. That said, I'll put forward the idea that the purpose of the government is not to keep our work week short, and thereby, it's people happy. You (I think) were the one touting Social Mobility, and I think that is a good thing for a government to be sure exists for it's people. That and to keep it's people safe, prevent exploitation of people and planet, maintain personal freedom to the extent it doesn't impinge on the freedoms of others.

These all fit into the general rule of keeping citezens happy! Gentle economy growth can make the populace happy also but it often leads to materialism which usually then leads to unhappiness. The debate over whether material goods leads to happiness is obviously quite debatable and does vary from person to person - research generally shows though that people are more content with the simple things in life

Originally Posted by cbwm

All this and, of course, the right to carry concealed automatic weapons.

Do I take that seriously or not? "The cash register says: NRA4EVER, just one of the hundreds of radical right wing messages inserted into every episode by creator Matt Groening"

Originally Posted by whym

1) You're totally obsessed with that game

Guilty as charged. Or at least I used to be. That doesn't mean some of the premises of the game don't hold accurate in real life. Maybe the game was built by a Republican.

Originally Posted by whym

Besides, taxing is a way of stopping anyone getting too rich (IMO), therefore tax rates should increase slightly the further you go up until it prevents people from becoming multi-billionaires altogether!

A stated goal of preventing people from being too rich..... Obviously something I and many like me would disagree with and would debate, but I doubt either of us would move from our belief.

Originally Posted by whym

The sub-prime crash would have been far less serious if the banks had been more responsible lending the money but also if people hadn't tried to buy something they couldn't realistically afford.

Interestingly enough, I agree completely with this. I also wish we wouldn't bail out the people who bought something they couldn't afford. I have a feeling the predatory lending practices are about to receive a lot of new legislation in an effort to prevent this from happening again. Funny that neither of these causes is Bush's fault, yet the Dems try to pin the downturn in the economy on him.

Originally Posted by whym

What seems to happen when people have too much money lying around is that they go on stupid spending sprees and expect the economy will continue to boom indefinitely.
...
The more money you have, the more people will try stretching it further and further. Just add to that businesses being irresponsible and you end up with things like the .com crash, the Great Depression and this sub prime lending crash. Continued economic boom (which isn't sustainable might I add) makes people complacent and they start investing in things that don't end up paying off - things they wouldn't invest in if the economy was growing at a more gentle pace.

Also note that inflation often leaps up when the economy is doing well and interest rates are low - people spend rather than save and the money supply increases as does demand pushing prices up. You end up with a boom followed by bust cycle if the government doesn't do anything responsible - I'm sure both of us wouldn't want that.
...
These all fit into the general rule of keeping citezens happy! Gentle economy growth can make the populace happy also but it often leads to materialism which usually then leads to unhappiness. The debate over whether material goods leads to happiness is obviously quite debatable and does vary from person to person - research generally shows though that people are more content with the simple things in life

While most of what you say here falls into the common understanding of economics, though I notice the seeding of dictating a lifestyle for general panacea. Yes, inflation is bad, but inflation in the U.S. has not been out of control. Yes the economy that rises must dip, but hopefully the government puts some controls in place to keep the highs and lows from being too high or too low. At the end of the day, you still want a steadily growing economy. Dictating how many hours a person works in a week, or how they spend their money according to your opinion of what will make them happy I would oppose, even if you are right about what will make them happy. If making our populace happy is the stated goal, I'd say the movie the Matrix presented a viable solution on how to spoon feed a brain happiness.

Originally Posted by whym

Are you positive it's that high? That certainly comes as a surprise to me - we get taxed 17.5% on everything that we buy, then plus council tax, business taxes, 40% inheritance tax over £300,000 plus plenty of other taxes. I'm fairly sure that Britain is more heavily taxed than the US, although there are other European countries with higher tax rates too.

You have payroll taxes, disability, and social security taxes which you and your employer share the costs of in equal parts and come directly out of your check. Federal income tax I believe ranges from 15% to 39% depending on your income level. California leverages an additional amount on top which I believe can reach 10%. California sales tax is 8% vs your 17.5%, but lets not forget that tax is on money you've already paid income taxes on. Then you have the gasoline tax which I believe is approximately 80-90 cents per gallon. Luxury tax for any vehicle exceeding 50k$. Property taxes at 1.25% of the purchase price per year. Mello-roos (Special city property taxes for some homes) which equal the state property tax. A variety of special interest taxes on things such as cigarretes (nearly 4$ a pack), airline tickets, and cargo. Other use based taxes such as toll roads, auto registration, auto-insurance taxes... etc etc. Dividend taxes, capital gains taxes, death taxes. I could go on and on, but truth be told, less than 50% of what we earn gets saved or passed along to someone other than the U.S. government. This is one of the big reasons Ron Paul was so popular.

Originally Posted by whym

Do I take that seriously or not?

Only as serious as arming bears. The trick is to figure out how.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Only as serious as arming bears. The trick is to figure out how.

There is no trick. Just make them Republicans



fastreplies

Originally Posted by fastreplies

There is no trick. Just make them Republicans

Would they be permitted to vote?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Would they be permitted to vote?

Are you kidding me?
Who will say NO to an armed Bear



fastreplies

Originally Posted by Lackofheart

If a republicaoin wins its only because the cheat and kill (and I do mean Kill with a capital K) like they always do.

You do realize your avatar is a drawing of Bush, right?

Or are you just taking after cbwm and mocking it?