John Kasich needs to be prez

[Execute]

Kasich and Christie are the only Republicans ones that don't completely terrify me. The rest won't even be considered.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Taunts aside, there isn't any question as to which political party is out of its mind right now.

Agreed. The Democrat primary voters are seriously considering nominating an admitted Socalialist.

And if not this time, they will in the future. 80+% of young primary votersin Iowa supported Bernie. That says alot about the future of your party.

Bernie a foreign policy disaster? Dubious claim. Hillary has loyalty to the moderate left, it's clear.

Both would continue the foreign policy of appeasing hostile regimes and organizations.

I said specifically "policy paths" and not "campaign speech" because, as 90% of Americans have seemingly forgotten, the president cannot write laws unilaterally.

More like Democrats have forgotten this, when cheering most of what Bernie's agenda consists of, forgetting they have the Congress, Senate, and courts to be a filter.

Bernie's personal ideology would not make it through the house, and he would be forced to propose small improvements to Obamacare (such as closing the medicaid gap), college initiatives,

Happy to see at least someone in the left aknowledges this.

etc, just like Hillary. Bernie is saying what's right and Hillary is saying what's attainable. Both approaches have their merits on the campaign trail. They are headed for the same effective policy road in almost every respect. You can argue the future of trade agreements, but that is going to happen no matter who is in office. Notably, both have shown indications that our foreign policy is going to continue being similar to what it is now- the area where the president has the largest amount of power.

Yeah, trade agreements, which the Democrats make sure are in the advantage of American companies and workers.

Look at the republican side and the policy path shared by all. Regressive on women's rights, super aggressive on foreign policy (dangerously so), xenophobic with respect to immigration (Rubio barely being an exception), in favor of pushing for more disparity via personal enrichment of the wealthiest (capital gains, tax cuts, etc), cutting welfare without there being jobs, ignoring climate science, pushing religion back into our lives, etc etc etc. That's the policy path all the republicans will pursue, unless by some miracle Trump is simply lying about every single thing he says (we should not assume that) and becomes an exception.

Nice Democrat talking points. Whoever wins the nomination, better talk about these constantly.

These are two different animals. One has a road ahead of moderate movement to the left, while the other is sharply regressive and on the wrong side of nearly every issue concerning general welfare.

Sure. Ask your parents about the 1980s, and the 1990s, which Clinton rode the surf with.

If I could sum it up in a sentence, the Republicans are behaving like the sort of faction Madison warned us about.

And the Democrats are forgetting the quote 'Socialism is great, until the government runs out of other people's money.'

Prepare for a landslide.

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

Agreed. The Democrat primary voters are seriously considering nominating an admitted Socalialist.

And if not this time, they will in the future. 80+% of young primary votersin Iowa supported Bernie. That says alot about the future of your party.



Both would continue the foreign policy of appeasing hostile regimes and organizations.



More like Democrats have forgotten this, when cheering most of what Bernie's agenda consists of, forgetting they have the Congress, Senate, and courts to be a filter.



Happy to see at least someone in the left aknowledges this.



Yeah, trade agreements, which the Democrats make sure are in the advantage of American companies and workers.



Nice Democrat talking points. Whoever wins the nomination, better talk about these constantly.



Sure. Ask your parents about the 1980s, and the 1990s, which Clinton rode the surf with.



And the Democrats are forgetting the quote 'Socialism is great, until the government runs out of other people's money.'

Prepare for a landslide.

Nah. Democrats unless there is an economic collapse or another 9/11 will crush the republicans. It won't be close.

They'll go bush policies versus Obama policies

Whose worked better for you?

/game over

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Nah. Democrats unless there is an economic collapse or another 9/11 will crush the republicans. It won't be close.

They'll go bush policies versus Obama policies

Whose worked better for you?

/game over

Knowing the randomness of Terrorist mass shootings across the globe, that just might happen. And it wouldn't be close anyway. There's big fears of an enconomic downturn sometime this year. You better hope they're wrong.

To answer your question, Bush.

And have you seen Obama's approval rating? It's around than the last two two-term Presidents, before handing the White House to the other party.

 

[Fawlty]

Agreed. The Democrat primary voters are seriously considering nominating an admitted Socalialist.

And if not this time, they will in the future. 80+% of young primary votersin Iowa supported Bernie. That says alot about the future of your party.



Both would continue the foreign policy of appeasing hostile regimes and organizations.



More like Democrats have forgotten this, when cheering most of what Bernie's agenda consists of, forgetting they have the Congress, Senate, and courts to be a filter.



Happy to see at least someone in the left aknowledges this.



Yeah, trade agreements, which the Democrats make sure are in the advantage of American companies and workers.



Nice Democrat talking points. Whoever wins the nomination, better talk about these constantly.



Sure. Ask your parents about the 1980s, and the 1990s, which Clinton rode the surf with.



And the Democrats are forgetting the quote 'Socialism is great, until the government runs out of other people's money.'

Prepare for a landslide.

I'm not keen on these obnoxious chopped up responses, because they don't lend themselves to coherent communication, and lack substance. If you could form a paragraph or two in the future I would be happy to respond properly. I will say that your dismissal of my listing republican positions as "talking points" is an attempt to dodge, but I'll let you have another shot at defending their platform if you want to talk issues instead of around them. I was very much around in the 80's and 90's, if you'd like to discuss the political climate, or circus, whichever term you prefer.

Your assertion that we are appeasing hostile regimes needs a little meat on it. That's what I would call a talking point, because it is widely circulated, sounds like it means something, but says nothing in particular. Which regime, and which appeasement? We can go over as many of them as you like, but you'll be required to accept both the "appeasement" and the penalties we exact on these nations, to keep a balance of accountability and progress, which Obama will one day no doubt be generally praised for.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So it'd be the least electable Democrat VS the least electable Republican.

What do you mean? I'm saying that Cruz is the least electable Republican in the current field (excluding people like Gilmore).

I guess you're referring to his tax code proposal. But ask yourself - Isn't that kind of shit already happening? Like GE getting huge tax breaks that effectively lowered the amount of federal taxes they owed, to zero, for Obama's first two years in office?

No. No similarity at all. Cruz is proposing a massive tax cut for the rich, financed with debt and tax hikes on everyone else. Generally, these stories about big companies (including GE) paying zero federal taxes are severely flawed, and there are no huge tax breaks for them.

Wouldn't it be nice to cut the bullshit, stop punishing success, and tax everyone the same rate across the board?

No. ??? It would be nice if you're rich to pay fewer taxes, and have part of the shortfall be paid by everyone else. Not sure why that would be nice for anyone else, though.

 

[COTUR1@43]

Well, looks like he has been listening to the liberals in the WR
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/268511-kasich-i-ought-to-be-running-in-a-democratic-primary

 

[Sasquatch Smith]

We nominated the candidate liberals in the media wanted us to nominate in '08 and '12, the ones that 'only candidate with that could win' and 'reaches across the isle.' And they both lost, just like liberals in the media wanted them to.

Thank God Republican primary voters are listening to the liberals in the media again, to hear who not to support, and support them.

Appreciated very much.

I love that you think the reason the republicans lost those years was because the candidates were too centrist, and that the "liberal media" chose the republican candidates. And that the way for the GOP to win is to pick the MOST extreme conservative. What a hilarious way of looking at things.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

What do you mean? I'm saying that Cruz is the least electable Republican in the current field (excluding people like Gilmore).

Yes, and Bernie is the least electable of the Democrats.

No. No similarity at all. Cruz is proposing a massive tax cut for the rich, financed with debt and tax hikes on everyone else.

This is a canned response to every suggestion of changing the tax code.

-'Tax the rich more!'
- How about we increase the amount tax revenue from high income earners by lowering taxes?
-'Wait... wait... what?'

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/does-lowering-taxes-increase-government-revenue.

Generally, these stories about big companies (including GE) paying zero federal taxes are severely flawed, and there are no huge tax breaks for them.

Would you consider Huffington post a credible source on this?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/general-electric-taxes_n_2852094.html

No. ??? It would be nice if you're rich to pay fewer taxes, and have part of the shortfall be paid by everyone else. Not sure why that would be nice for anyone else, though.

'The Rich' is the ultimate strawman. Everyone has an opinion of who they are, and how much money you have to make to automatically labeled one of 'The Rich.'

But let's be honest here, if you make $34K a year, you're in the 1%, and a horrible person.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...obal-elite--half-worlds-richest-live-U-S.html

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I love that you think the reason the republicans lost those years was because the candidates were too centrist, and that the "liberal media" chose the republican candidates. And that the way for the GOP to win is to pick the MOST extreme conservative. What a hilarious way of looking at things.

That way of looking at things, is called reality.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

lol at Bush coming out a winner.

 

[SODACKER]

No. No similarity at all. Cruz is proposing a massive tax cut for the rich, financed with debt and tax hikes on everyone else. Generally, these stories about big companies (including GE) paying zero federal taxes are severely flawed, and there are no huge tax breaks for them.

Obviously Cruz has said that he is going to lower the tax rate on the rich but he has also said that he is going to drastically lower it on lower income classes as well. A family of 4 making 70k a year will pay an income tax of less than 5 percent. Where do you see a huge increase in taxes for lower classes?

 

[Sasquatch Smith]

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism. Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater could see the future. The God Warriors have turned conservatives into the Christian Taliban, instead of a party of less government and fiscal responsibility.
The GOP has no room for a person like me, who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Now to gain any traction in the GOP, you have to play "Eye of the Tiger" over the loudspeaker while you have your arm wrapped around Kim Davis.

lol, this is a great post. So accurate with the Kim Davis comment.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes, and Bernie is the least electable of the Democrats.

Well, there are only two candidates, and Bernie isn't a likely winner.

This is a canned response to every suggestion of changing the tax code.

No. That's not the response when you look at proposals to change the tax code from Clinton or Sanders.

-'Tax the rich more!'
- How about we increase the amount tax revenue from high income earners by lowering taxes?
-'Wait... wait... what?'

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/does-lowering-taxes-increase-government-revenue.

Did you read the link? It doesn't support the crazy claim.

Would you consider Huffington post a credible source on this?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/general-electric-taxes_n_2852094.html

On what? That story isn't about special tax breaks for GE. It's about GE having profits overseas. And it points out that tax rates were low in 2010 because of losses.

'The Rich' is the ultimate strawman. Everyone has an opinion of who they are, and how much money you have to make to automatically labeled one of 'The Rich.'

No, Cruz's plan is a huge tax cut for the rich. Remember, the median American family pays very little in income taxes, and thus stands to benefit very little from cuts to income taxes. Cutting all rates to 10% provides a massive giveaway to the rich and very little to anyone else. Plus he wants to eliminate taxes on large estates--something that only affects the rich.

But let's be honest here, if you make $34K a year, you're in the 1%, and a horrible person.

Huh?

Obviously Cruz has said that he is going to lower the tax rate on the rich but he has also said that he is going to drastically lower it on lower income classes as well. A family of 4 making 70k a year will pay an income tax of less than 5 percent. Where do you see a huge increase in taxes for lower classes?

Note that lower-income people generally don't even have net income-tax obligations, and even median-income people currently pay very little. But Cruz is proposing a large VAT that would have the effect of increasing the amount of taxes paid by most Americans even while drastically reducing overall revenue (hence the point that he's paying for a massive giveaway to the rich partly through debt and partly though tax increases on everyone else).

 

[Sasquatch Smith]

When gas prices are high - NOBAMA'S FAULT!
When the stock market is in the tank - NOBAMA'S FAULT!
When unemployment is high - NOBAMA'S FAULT!

When gas prices are under $2.00 for the first time in several years - NOTHING DO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT!
When unemployment goes a few % lower than what Bush left with - BUT THEY'RE NOT GOOD JOBS!
When the stock market hits all time highs - BUT BUT BUT...UH...HUSSEIN.
When US exports rise over 30% (even though he wanted 50%) - HE'S A DANG MOOSLAM!
When oil imports/reliance on foreign oil goes down 60% and there are steep rises in wind and solar power - COMMY!

When a Republican raise the deficit for a war based on misinformation - DATS COO WIT ME.
When a Democrat continues to raise the deficit because of the aforementioned war - ENTITLEMENTS! NO STEAK FOR POOR PEOPLE! GAAAHHHHH!

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Well, there are only two candidates, and Bernie isn't a likely winner.

We shall see.

I'm pulling for him.

No. That's not the response when you look at proposals to change the tax code from Clinton or Sanders.

Yeah, 'increase taxes on the rich to pay for everything!' has been disproved time and time again, and it wouldn't even be close.

Did you read the link? It doesn't support the crazy claim.

I first read the beginning paragraphs, and figured it supported my position, then it comes close to discrediting the first assertion, but gives knit-picky reasons and examples why it's not the case when it's very clear the reasons they site are not real reasons for the opposite effect of the undesired result.

So, how about real-world whole-economy examples? The Reagan administration is THE example of cutting taxes across the board, and how it increases tax revenue.

"Federal income tax and payroll tax levels
During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew from $618 billion to $991 billion (an increase of 60%); while outlays grew from $746 billion to $1144 billion (an increase of 53%)."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

On what? That story isn't about special tax breaks for GE. It's about GE having profits overseas. And it points out that tax rates were low in 2010 because of losses.

Did you read the link?

"GE said in a Feb. 26 regulatory filing that it was holding $108 billion in profits overseas as of the end of last year."

'But GE has come under fire for its light tax burden. Though it has been earning billions in profits, it paid an average tax rate of just 1.8 percent between 2002 and 2011, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. GE CEO Jeff Immelt has said that the U.S. tax system is "old, complex and uncompetitive" and has had a "hugely negative impact" on the economy.'

Yeah, the rich hate the tax code, so they park their money overseas, and that's 100% legal.

No, Cruz's plan is a huge tax cut for the rich. Remember, the median American family pays very little in income taxes, and thus stands to benefit very little from cuts to income taxes. Cutting all rates to 10% provides a massive giveaway to the rich and very little to anyone else. Plus he wants to eliminate taxes on large estates--something that only affects the rich.

Good. Success shouldn't be punished.

Huh?

Read the link. If you're middle-class in America, you make more than 99% of the rest of humanity.

Note that lower-income people generally don't even have net income-tax obligations, and even median-income people currently pay very little. But Cruz is proposing a large VAT that would have the effect of increasing the amount of taxes paid by most Americans even while drastically reducing overall revenue (hence the point that he's paying for a massive giveaway to the rich partly through debt and partly though tax increases on everyone else).

If it was a VAT, Democrats would be all for Cruz's tax plan. They've been pushing to add it to our tax code for decades.

And a VAT is a tax on the rich, to which they pass onto consumers (Rich, middle-class, and poor) of their products. Which is done with any increases in taxes upon the rich anyway.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We shall see.

I'm pulling for him.

Yeah, 'increase taxes on the rich to pay for everything!' has been disproved time and time again, and it wouldn't even be close.

That's not relevant to this discussion. I pointed out that Cruz's plan is to drastically cut taxes on the rich and pay for it with debt and by raising taxes on everyone else.

[Gimmie a sec]

Yeah, get back to me when you're done. While it is theoretically possible to increase revenue with lower rates, the current rates would have to be MUCH higher than they are now for that to happen.

Did you read the link?

"GE said in a Feb. 26 regulatory filing that it was holding $108 billion in profits overseas as of the end of last year."

'But GE has come under fire for its light tax burden. Though it has been earning billions in profits, it paid an average tax rate of just 1.8 percent between 2002 and 2011, according to Citizens for Tax Justice. GE CEO Jeff Immelt has said that the U.S. tax system is "old, complex and uncompetitive" and has had a "hugely negative impact" on the economy.'

Yeah, the rich hate the tax code, so they park their money overseas, and that's 100% legal.

Well, to some extent. But your claim was that GE was getting "tax breaks" in Obama's first two years. You ineffectively attempted to support that claim by linking to a piece talking about how GE was taking advantage of normal rules, and had been for many years.

Good. Success shouldn't be punished.

It's fine (I obviously disagree) if you think the rich not being rich enough everyone else being too rich are problems that we should try to address, but that's not a winning message in a democracy, which was my initial point (that Cruz is a really unlikable guy who will be running on really unpopular policy ideas).

Read the link. If you're middle-class in America, you make more than 99% of the rest of humanity.

So? Again, the point is that Cruz's plan would make the rich (in America) richer and everyone else poorer. He's not getting hit on that in the GOP primary because they all have similar plans, but good luck in the general.

If it was a VAT, Democrats would be all for Cruz's tax plan. They've been pushing to add it to our tax code for decades.

And a VAT is a tax on the rich, to which they pass onto consumers (Rich, middle-class, and poor) of their products. Which is done with any increases in taxes upon the rich anyway.

Democrats will never support the kind of plan that Cruz has proposed, and your last statement is false.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Democrats will never support the kind of plan that Cruz has proposed, and your last statement is false.

That's my entire point, it's not a VAT.

I added to the tax portion, I'll respond to the rest of the post in a while.

 

[Madmick]

We nominated the candidate liberals in the media wanted us to nominate in '08 and '12, the ones that 'only candidate with that could win' and 'reaches across the isle.' And they both lost, just like liberals in the media wanted them to.

Thank God Republican primary voters are listening to the liberals in the media again, to hear who not to support, and support them.

Appreciated very much.

What is this revisionism? Mitt Romney's electability in a national election was a huge question mark due to his religion. He was a proven administrator. That was about the only major plus sign in his "Electability" column where he stood above the other candidates. Between these two runs Gingrich would have been the "electable establishment" pick. And McCain was doing FANTASTICALLY until he brought aboard a dumb trophy VP pick trying to pander to the same Tea Party base that drives Cruz. This is the uncompromising wing of the party that blew up that GOP chance at the Presidency, not the other way around.

It's a pity narcissists like Trump and Cruz suck so much oxygen out rooms that only the mouth breathers can respire quickly enough to regurgitate some hot air. It means reasonable guys like Kasich have a tough time getting a word in.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I first read the beginning paragraphs, and figured it supported my position, then it comes close to discrediting the first assertion, but gives knit-picky reasons and examples why it's not the case when it's very clear the reasons they site are not real reasons for the opposite effect of the undesired result.

So, how about real-world whole-economy examples? The Reagan administration is THE example of cutting taxes across the board, and how it increases tax revenue.

"Federal income tax and payroll tax levels
During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew from $618 billion to $991 billion (an increase of 60%); while outlays grew from $746 billion to $1144 billion (an increase of 53%)."

Do you think that's the best way to evaluate the effects of tax changes on revenue? To get a more accurate picture just of the changes in revenue (before you begin the difficult work of assigning causes), you want to adjust for inflation and population growth. Then you also might want to try to get a better handle on context by comparing it with other similar periods (probably also want to adjust for business cycles). You'd also want to look only at income-tax revenues (note, for example, that the FICA rate was raised significantly under Reagan) so you can isolate the effects of income-tax cuts (as opposed to looking at all revenue). It might be better if you do the math yourself (spoiler alert: the income-tax cuts did not cause revenue to go up, or if it did, it's somehow hidden as revenue growth was way below what you'd expect).

On top of that, rates were much higher when they were first cut under Reagan.