Elections Why does Huckabee have a following?

[ultramanhyata]

He's a big government statist after you scratch the surface. He's not fiscally conservative at all.

Where would you say that Huckabee veers the most sharply away from Tea Party economics?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Where would you say that Huckabee veers the most sharply away from Tea Party economics?

What the heck is "Tea Party economics"? Nothing consistent and definable, as far as I can see. Or, worse, Austrian bullshit.

 

[ucunc156]

Republicans aren't offering tax breaks for the middle class, though. I posted this in another thread, but it illustrates the point:

And if you recall the 2012 presidential campaign, the GOP's plan was to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for big tax cuts for the rich.

Generally speaking, also, full employment is beneficial for the middle class and potentially not beneficial to the rich (it increases the labor share of the economy/decreases the share that goes to owners of capital, but it also grows the overall economy which may or may not offset the distributional loss to the rich). Democrats have been pushing full-employment policy, while the GOP has been opposing it--that's one of the biggest current differences between the parties, actually. Environmental problems also fall heavily on both the poor and middle class, while not necessarily hurting the rich, and the cost for preventing it does fall more heavily on the rich. Finally, the ACA is highly beneficial to both the poor and the middle class, while increasing the costs to the rich and only providing abstract benefits to the rich in return (a lowering of overall healthcare costs).

am i misunderstanding what taxes we are talking about? Texas doesn't have a state income tax... for anyone?

As for the 2012 election, pretty sure romney was offering a flat 20% tax break for everyone with a limit on deductions (though he wouldn't reveal which deductions).

 

[Jack V Savage]

am i misunderstanding what taxes we are talking about? Texas doesn't have a state income tax... for anyone?

As for the 2012 election, pretty sure romney was offering a flat 20% tax break for everyone with a limit on deductions (though he wouldn't reveal which deductions).

Texas doesn't have an *income* tax, but you don't think that they fund their govt with bake sales, do you?

And you're wrong about Romney's proposal.

 

[ucunc156]

Texas doesn't have an *income* tax, but you don't think that they fund their govt with bake sales, do you?

And you're wrong about Romney's proposal.

obviously higher sales tax and property taxes in general. which is the whole point, and the logic is to tax according to spending (which would be more frivolous among the rich since they would have more money to spend). regardless, texas's sales taxes are lower than that of california. And while texas's property tax in relation to property of house value is much higher than Cali, they property tax as a % of income is roughly the same (3.59% vs 3.65%). All this meas is that a higher % of ones income goes into their mortgage loan in Cali than it does in Texas. A lower middle class person in texas can get much more for their income in texas than they can in cali. The only reason the property taxes appear lower is due to the value of the houses in cali (which of course, there is something to be said for).

As for romney's proposal, no I am not wrong:

"The details:

2001-2010 Tax Cuts: Romney would make all of the 2001-2008 tax cuts permanent. He’d allow some of the 2009-2010 tax cuts to expire as scheduled in January.

Additional tax cuts: He’d cut tax rates on ordinary income by 20 percent across the board. For instance, he’d reduce the top rate (35 percent following extension of the 2001 tax cut) to 28 percent. He’d repeal the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. He’d also repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act’s tax increases."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/10/29/what-exactly-is-mitt-romneys-tax-plan/

if you don't want to believe forbes because its pro business then:

"The plan would reduce the six current income tax rates by one-fifth, bringing the top rate down from 35 percent to 28 percent and the bottom rate from 10 percent to 8 percent. The accompanying repeal of the AMT would increase the tax savings from the rate cuts—without that repeal, the AMT would reclaim much of the tax savings."

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

Clearly that isn't all of it but to deny he offered 20% cuts across the board is foolish.

 

[trojansc82]

He's an Evangelical's wet dream. They are more concerned with gay people humping and starting a war with Iran than lowering taxes.

 

[Captain Davis]

Republicans aren't getting voted in for a longtime at least not until the first woman president gets 8 years and then the first gay president gets 8 years, and the the first transgendered president gets 8 years, and finally the first immigrant president gets 8 years.

Haha, sounds about right.

 

[Jack V Savage]

obviously higher sales tax and property taxes in general. which is the whole point, and the logic is to tax according to spending (which would be more frivolous among the rich since they would have more money to spend). regardless, texas's sales taxes are lower than that of california. And while texas's property tax in relation to property of house value is much higher than Cali, they property tax as a % of income is roughly the same (3.59% vs 3.65%). All this meas is that a higher % of ones income goes into their mortgage loan in Cali than it does in Texas. A lower middle class person in texas can get much more for their income in texas than they can in cali. The only reason the property taxes appear lower is due to the value of the houses in cali (which of course, there is something to be said for).

No, you're missing the point. CA collects about 11% of GDP in taxes, while Texas is at about 8%, but CA actually collects less from most people (and about the same for another large percentage). The difference is that Texas collects so little from the rich that it lowers the average. And that's generally what the GOP offers--not low taxes for everyone; higher taxes for some or most and much lower taxes for the rich. That was part of the general point that the GOP platform offers nothing for the middle class or poor, while the Democrat platform might *primarily* benefit high earners, but it generally benefits everyone.

Remember this?:

"Generally speaking, also, full employment is beneficial for the middle class and potentially not beneficial to the rich (it increases the labor share of the economy/decreases the share that goes to owners of capital, but it also grows the overall economy which may or may not offset the distributional loss to the rich). Democrats have been pushing full-employment policy, while the GOP has been opposing it--that's one of the biggest current differences between the parties, actually. Environmental problems also fall heavily on both the poor and middle class, while not necessarily hurting the rich, and the cost for preventing it does fall more heavily on the rich. Finally, the ACA is highly beneficial to both the poor and the middle class, while increasing the costs to the rich and only providing abstract benefits to the rich in return (a lowering of overall healthcare costs)."

 

[DhakaMMA]

He has a TV show on Fox News. So he's kinda famous in that way.

 

[ucunc156]

No, you're missing the point. CA collects about 11% of GDP in taxes, while Texas is at about 8%, but CA actually collects less from most people (and about the same for another large percentage). The difference is that Texas collects so little from the rich that it lowers the average. And that's generally what the GOP offers--not low taxes for everyone; higher taxes for some or most and much lower taxes for the rich. That was part of the general point that the GOP platform offers nothing for the middle class or poor, while the Democrat platform might *primarily* benefit high earners, but it generally benefits everyone.

Remember this?:

"Generally speaking, also, full employment is beneficial for the middle class and potentially not beneficial to the rich (it increases the labor share of the economy/decreases the share that goes to owners of capital, but it also grows the overall economy which may or may not offset the distributional loss to the rich). Democrats have been pushing full-employment policy, while the GOP has been opposing it--that's one of the biggest current differences between the parties, actually. Environmental problems also fall heavily on both the poor and middle class, while not necessarily hurting the rich, and the cost for preventing it does fall more heavily on the rich. Finally, the ACA is highly beneficial to both the poor and the middle class, while increasing the costs to the rich and only providing abstract benefits to the rich in return (a lowering of overall healthcare costs)."

cool, I can repeat myself also. Please tell me how the math works. lets say a person makes 60k a year in both cali and texas. Leave aside cost of living (you can get a much nicer house for the same price in texas than in cali) and look at just taxes a person pays. national income tax is same. state income tax is less in texas, so no deduction from that 60k there. both people are losing about 3.6% of their income in property tax, so the same amount of money less than 60k ($2160). am I forgetting any major taxes? If so, that person in texas has whatever that difference in state income tax is to play around with while the cali resident does not.

There is a reason that texas and florida are so desirable to the middle class. This isn't some elaborate trick that actually makes them pay more per dollar earned.

also, i must have missed your rebuttal to how i was wrong about romney offering 20% cuts across the board. I'll be waiting.

 

[Jack V Savage]

cool, I can repeat myself also.

Apparently you can also make multiple responses while completely avoiding the substance of the posts you're responding to. That's what necessitated the repetition.

Please tell me how the math works. lets say a person makes 60k a year in both cali and texas. Leave aside cost of living (you can get a much nicer house for the same price in texas than in cali) and look at just taxes a person pays.

Per the data I already provided, they're paying around 8.6% in Texas and 8.2% in CA. Not a huge difference, but it illustrates my point that the GOP isn't pushing lower taxes for the middle class--they're pushing lower taxes for the rich, and dealing with the lowered revenue by reducing services that benefit everyone.

also, i must have missed your rebuttal to how i was wrong about romney offering 20% cuts across the board. I'll be waiting.

It's a diversion from the main point and it was done to death before the election so I didn't want to waste any time with it. If it actually mattered for my point, I'd link you to an old thread on it.

Meanwhile, all this is unaddressed:

"Generally speaking, also, full employment is beneficial for the middle class and potentially not beneficial to the rich (it increases the labor share of the economy/decreases the share that goes to owners of capital, but it also grows the overall economy which may or may not offset the distributional loss to the rich). Democrats have been pushing full-employment policy, while the GOP has been opposing it--that's one of the biggest current differences between the parties, actually. Environmental problems also fall heavily on both the poor and middle class, while not necessarily hurting the rich, and the cost for preventing it does fall more heavily on the rich. Finally, the ACA is highly beneficial to both the poor and the middle class, while increasing the costs to the rich and only providing abstract benefits to the rich in return (a lowering of overall healthcare costs)."

Contrary to your claims, the GOP is offering nothing at all for the middle class or the non-rich generally.

 

[ultramanhyata]

What the heck is "Tea Party economics"? Nothing consistent and definable, as far as I can see. Or, even, worse, Austrian bullshit.

Yes, I think "Austrian bullshit" is a good definition of the TP'ers majority opinion on economics.

I asked the question because it seemed clear to me from the poster's outlandishly hyperbolic statements that he didn't really have a grip on the facts.

 

[juggler86]

Because he can play the bass like a mothafucka.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

cool, I can repeat myself also. Please tell me how the math works. .

Hey, but he

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hey, but he

 

[Jukai]

He's a big government statist after you scratch the surface. He's not fiscally conservative at all. He's basically GWB with more Jesus Juice.

Well, yeah, is there more to it outside of him thinking we should double our military budget?

 

[ucunc156]

Hey, but he’s got a pretty graph; it must be true….

a graph from mother jones of all places, one of the most left wing "news" orgs out there. When I ask him to apply logic and tell me how they got to those numbers (something I did to show exactly how much more of one's income they would have), he has nothing. Its cool though, JVS probably doesn't have the fundemental math or economic understanding to prove his point anyway. Still don't know why I bother wasting my time lol

 

[Jack V Savage]

a graph from mother jones of all places, one of the most left wing "news" orgs out there. When I ask him to apply logic and tell me how they got to those numbers (something I did to show exactly how much more of one's income they would have), he has nothing. Its cool though, JVS probably doesn't have the fundemental math or economic understanding to prove his point anyway. Still don't know why I bother wasting my time lol

You're wasting time by trying to cover up facts that are not favorable to your "side" and ducking points. It wouldn't be a waste if you were honest and you actually addressed points.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

You hacks react to facts like a vampire reacts to the sun.

JVS, I like to give you a hard time for you liberal trolling, but all goofing aside; the fact of the matter is that in this situation it is impossible to pay more in taxes in TX with a sales tax and no income tax than it is in Cali with income tax and sales tax if you're starting with the same amount of money - as UCUNC already pointed out to you.

I don't care what site you read it on or who made the graph, it just isn't possible.

 

[ucunc156]

You're wasting time by trying to cover up facts that are not favorable to your "side" and ducking points. It wouldn't be a waste if you were honest and you actually addressed points.

what fact am i covering up? That 100% employment is great for the economy and the middle class? I don't think I ever made a claim to the contrary... In fact, I'm not even sure why you brought up 100% employment, which is obviously a good thing.