ADVERTISEMENT

This is the Republican Party

Clong83a said:
Sigh... More Laffer optimum misconceptions.

It's true. Consider the extreme example of a flat tax rate at 99%, stifling economic development. One year, the government decides to cut the flat tax rate down to 98%. Now, you've just doubled the income of everyone in the country! People spend significantly more than they previously did with this new excess, and the economic output of the country grows, say by 50%. That 50% growth in the economy more than offsets the 1% drop in tax revenues, and the federal budget can actually grow by cuts.

This is the part you understand well as it has been parroted for decades by pretty much every politician that ever wanted to pass a tax cut.

But it is not a general truth. Consider the inverse. Taxes are a flat 1% on everyone. The government cuts taxes in half one year, down to 0.5%! The government has lost HALF of its income and cannot operate unless the economic output of the country quickly doubles. The everyday tax payer.... barely notices the change and had their take-home pay increase by less than 1%. Economic output actually suffers, because despite the fact that people have (slightly) more cash, things like underfunded schools and roads hurt productivity and the government enters a downward spiral of diminishing revenues.

Reality is there is no flat tax, and it is not so simple. But that's not convenient for people who want to pretend the tax code and economy are simple things. Most of the US tax code is pretty far below the Laffer optimum already to the point that cuts actually have an outsized negative effect and don't pay for themselves. Almsot every actual expert agrees with that.

I like a tax cut as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't pretend that any budget holes won't need to somehow be plugged, either by increasing revenues elsewhere, or program cuts. Doing so leaves us in a position with no choice but to incur massive debt and argue endlessly about whose fault it is.
Click to expand...
If you are a nation in debt & intend to get back to the black, why limit the amount of output the entire economy just because…without the government everybody dies? Or something? Lol

I look forward to all y’all’s hysteria when this happens:



“cuts” is putting it mildly.

Schedule F. The whole lot of them. Clearances, too. Lifetime bans.

jiq_21.gif
 
RIP represalia said:
If you are a nation in debt & intend to get back to the black, why limit the amount of output the entire economy just because…without the government everybody dies? Or something? Lol

I look forward to all y’all’s hysteria when this happens:

View embedded media


“cuts” is putting it mildly.

Schedule F. The whole lot of them. Clearances, too. Lifetime bans.

jiq_21.gif
Click to expand...
Great, another accountability and efficiency panel planning a big audit. Throw it on the pile, I am sure everyone involved in this massive audit of the entire government will work for free and it will pay for itself with all the fraud it finds, right?

It won't just add a new permanent watchdog that needs to be funded and creates ever more bloat and red tape and creates more paperwork and writings of justifications for every little expense which costs man hours, productivity, and ultimately is not cost-efficient and hurts morale, right?

I can assure you that the government already spends far more than most businesses trying to do this. Abuses exist and always will, but there comes a point where it is no longer cost effective to root it out because it is rare enough and the amount of effort it takes to get 100% compliance costs much more than the last 1% is worth.

I could give you a thousand examples of that, and if we ever meet in a bar, maybe I will. The point is, we already frequently spend $100 to save $10 in the name of accountability.

Since we are talking about the public sector, maybe that is an acceptable cost as government needs to be more transparent with taxpayer dollars than private industry. There's a bigger trust issue at play than with private industry, and trying to prevent fraud (at any cost) which might make the news does help to engender that trust. But I don't think we need more than we already have. Perhaps better communication of those efforts to the public would help.
 
Clong83a said:
Sigh... More Laffer optimum misconceptions.

It's true. Consider the extreme example of a flat tax rate at 99%, stifling economic development. One year, the government decides to cut the flat tax rate down to 98%. Now, you've just doubled the income of everyone in the country! People spend significantly more than they previously did with this new excess, and the economic output of the country grows, say by 50%. That 50% growth in the economy more than offsets the 1% drop in tax revenues, and the federal budget can actually grow by cuts.

This is the part you understand well as it has been parroted for decades by pretty much every politician that ever wanted to pass a tax cut.

But it is not a general truth. Consider the inverse. Taxes are a flat 1% on everyone. The government cuts taxes in half one year, down to 0.5%! The government has lost HALF of its income and cannot operate unless the economic output of the country quickly doubles. The everyday tax payer.... barely notices the change and had their take-home pay increase by less than 1%. Economic output actually suffers, because despite the fact that people have (slightly) more cash, things like underfunded schools and roads hurt productivity and the government enters a downward spiral of diminishing revenues.

Reality is there is no flat tax, and it is not so simple. But that's not convenient for people who want to pretend the tax code and economy are simple things. Most of the US tax code is pretty far below the Laffer optimum already to the point that cuts actually have an outsized negative effect and don't pay for themselves. Almsot every actual expert agrees with that.

I like a tax cut as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't pretend that any budget holes won't need to somehow be plugged, either by increasing revenues elsewhere, or program cuts. Doing so leaves us in a position with no choice but to incur massive debt and argue endlessly about whose fault it is.
Click to expand...
isn't it better to have people working, purchasing goods, and paying taxes. instead of living off the gov.
 
Last edited:
Clong83a said:
Great, another accountability and efficiency panel planning a big audit. Throw it on the pile, I am sure everyone involved in this massive audit of the entire government will work for free and it will pay for itself with all the fraud it finds, right?

It won't just add a new permanent watchdog that needs to be funded and creates ever more bloat and red tape and creates more paperwork and writings of justifications for every little expense which costs man hours, productivity, and ultimately is not cost-efficient and hurts morale, right?

I can assure you that the government already spends far more than most businesses trying to do this. Abuses exist and always will, but there comes a point where it is no longer cost effective to root it out because it is rare enough and the amount of effort it takes to get 100% compliance costs much more than the last 1% is worth.

I could give you a thousand examples of that, and if we ever meet in a bar, maybe I will. The point is, we already frequently spend $100 to save $10 in the name of accountability.

Since we are talking about the public sector, maybe that is an acceptable cost as government needs to be more transparent with taxpayer dollars than private industry. There's a bigger trust issue at play than with private industry, and trying to prevent fraud (at any cost) which might make the news does help to engender that trust. But I don't think we need more than we already have. Perhaps better communication of those efforts to the public would help.
Click to expand...
Besides that, we need another guru who is always over budget and behind schedule, to tell us how to save $10 while he costs us $100. Go get um mr bankruptcy boss. He always points out the intelligence of those who endorse him. Sorry for your feelings of inadequacy Mr Trump.
 
Was Trump born after 1980 when interest rates and inflation were multiples of what they are today? Somehow we got from there to where we are now without having a dictator. But at least after nine years of planning, he has "concepts of a plan" for health care. What could do wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay
watu05 said:
Was Trump born after 1980 when interest rates and inflation were multiples of what they are today? Somehow we got from there to where we are now without having a dictator. But at least after nine years of planning, he has "concepts of a plan" for health care. What could do wrong?
Click to expand...
There’s a big difference today when everyone has residential and commercial loans in the 3s. We also weren’t servicing $36T in debt. Not sure how relevant the 80s are to our $2T yearly interest payments. Regardless who the next President is they better have a plan to reign in these deficits.
 
lawpoke87 said:
There’s a big difference today when everyone has residential and commercial loans in the 3s. We also weren’t servicing $36T in debt. Not sure how relevant the 80s are to our $2T yearly interest payments. Regardless who the next President is they better have a plan to reign in these deficits.
Click to expand...
You are dealing with two different things here. Interest and inflation that affects the consumer, which both candidates are talking about bettering. Trump is talking about it being the worst it's ever been, when it was worse in the late 70's. The thing you are talking about is the deficit(s) under high interest and high inflation. Neither candidate is going to attempt to fix this. So Trump's argument doesn't hold any water for what he is addressing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay
Inflation has moderated and interest rates are not that high. I for one am much better off than four years ago.

We have our problems including our debt and deficit. But as you say, neither candidate has a serious plan.

All things considered, I have to pick the stereotypical, evasive politician over the thin skinned dictator wannabe. It is a harm reduction strategy. Like nicotine gum.
 
drboobay said:
Inflation has moderated and interest rates are not that high. I for one am much better off than four years ago.

We have our problems including our debt and deficit. But as you say, neither candidate has a serious plan.

All things considered, I have to pick the stereotypical, evasive politician over the thin skinned dictator wannabe. It is a harm reduction strategy. Like nicotine gum.
Click to expand...
Trump is saying typical political nonsense. I was speaking of the real consequences of current interest rates and debt service. I do agree that neither candidate has a plan nor the political will to address the pending debt crisis.

Congrats on being better off today than 4 years ago. You’re one of the few people I know who can say as much. Rapidly rising housing and food costs have really taken a toll on middle America. Wages simply haven’t kept up.

In a round about way I do believe Harris might be better for inflation as long as there’s a Pub House or Senate to control her “give aways”. Raising capital gains tax rates in aggregate to over 50% should significantly affect investment and growth….especially in the short term. Thus slowing economic growth and in turn inflation.
 
lawpoke87 said:
Trump is saying typical political nonsense. I was speaking of the real consequences of current interest rates and debt service. I do agree that neither candidate has a plan nor the political will to address the pending debt crisis.

Congrats on being better off today than 4 years ago. You’re one of the few people I know who can say as much. Rapidly rising housing and food costs have really taken a toll on middle America. Wages simply haven’t kept up.

In a round about way I do believe Harris might be better for inflation as long as there’s a Pub House or Senate to control her “give aways”. Raising capital gains tax rates in aggregate to over 50% should significantly affect investment and growth….especially in the short term. Thus slowing economic growth and in turn inflation.
Click to expand...
I would say that I’m better off than I was 4 years ago. I had years of stagnation professionally in the oil industry under Trump and I saw only modest wage increases. Under Biden my salary has increased ~120% since late 2020.

(Though I also think that had to do somewhat with talent and work ethic)

At least this economic environment allowed for some upward mobility of talented individuals. I feel like the Trump years were good if you were already established, but crappy if you were trying to get a break.
 
astonmartin708 said:
I would say that I’m better off than I was 4 years ago. I had years of stagnation professionally in the oil industry under Trump and I saw only modest wage increases. Under Biden my salary has increased ~120% since late 2020.

(Though I also think that had to do somewhat with talent and work ethic)

At least this economic environment allowed for some upward mobility of talented individuals. I feel like the Trump years were good if you were already established, but crappy if you were trying to get a break.
Click to expand...
it had to, everything cost 20% more so your buying power is just even with what it was 4 years ago
 
lawpoke87 said:
Trump is saying typical political nonsense. I was speaking of the real consequences of current interest rates and debt service. I do agree that neither candidate has a plan nor the political will to address the pending debt crisis.

Congrats on being better off today than 4 years ago. You’re one of the few people I know who can say as much. Rapidly rising housing and food costs have really taken a toll on middle America. Wages simply haven’t kept up.

In a round about way I do believe Harris might be better for inflation as long as there’s a Pub House or Senate to control her “give aways”. Raising capital gains tax rates in aggregate to over 50% should significantly affect investment and growth….especially in the short term. Thus slowing economic growth and in turn inflation.
Click to expand...
My biggest point is that I really think he is an existential threat. Even if I were worse off I could never vote for him. He has shown who he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clong83a
aTUfan said:
it had to, everything cost 20% more so your buying power is just even with what it was 4 years ago
Click to expand...
Ok, if I go from making $4K a month to $10K a month and I was paying $500 for groceries, but I'm now paying $750 for groceries. Even with a 50% increase in food prices, food went from representing 12% of monthly expenses to 7.5%

Now I understand that's not the same case for people on a semi-fixed income like SS or who lack upward mobility. It's not the same everywhere.... but some people are doing quite well.
 
astonmartin708 said:
Ok, if I go from making $4K a month to $10K a month and I was paying $500 for groceries, but I'm now paying $750 for groceries. Even with a 50% increase in food prices, food went from representing 12% of monthly expenses to 7.5%

Now I understand that's not the same case for people on a semi-fixed income like SS or who lack upward mobility. It's not the same everywhere.... but some people are doing quite well.
Click to expand...
some people always do well, but the majority aren't
Her solution to fix Biden-Harris-Dem inflation, is to Take more from some and Give it to others.

NOT up to the gov to make sure I have enough money, it IS up to the gov that I have an opportunity to earn
 
Last edited:
aTUfan said:
some people always do well, but the majority aren't
Her solution to fix Biden-Harris-Dem inflation, is to Take more from some and Give it to others.

NOT up to the gov to make sure I have enough money, it IS up to the gov that I have an opportunity to earn
Click to expand...
Point of order: Year over year food price inflation in January 2021 when Trump left office was already at 6.2%. Source: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_02102021.pdf

Not saying that Biden handled it perfectly, but let's not pretend there was no brewing storm and that suddenly, by sheer force of fiscal incompetence, Biden managed to send it soaring all by his lonesome across the entire planet. Inflation happened worldwide, and it was already starting by January 2021.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay and astonmartin708
aTUfan said:
world-inflation has happened before, without us
Click to expand...
It's not like there wasn't a new, unusual, and external cause, that affected us and the world, as far as inflation was concerned, this time. It happened that way because of a monumental event in world history, and due to mismanagement by both parties. The past inflationary problems before it became a global economy were for Hungary and Germany following WWII, because they were on the losing side, and that affected their economy after the war. Then there was the past inflationary problems of Venezuela and Argentina due to political instability and mismanagement by dictators and the like.

There has never been a serious problem with world inflation that did not affect the US. Even after WWII we had a brief problem with inflation at a pretty darn serious 18% during 1946. Then we entered a boom period that destroyed inflationary problems with great speed. Quit throwing out false gobbled gook, because you think it's true, when you have nothing to back it up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay
astonmartin708 said:
She's married to a lawyer who represents corporate clients such as Walmart and Merck. Hardly the behavior of a "card carrying Marxist".
Click to expand...
She has a history of using "useful idiots" for personal gain.. what would be more Marxist than to use the means of a decadent capitalist system to incrementally erode its will and collapse it from within..
 
noble cane said:
She has a history of using "useful idiots" for personal gain.. what would be more Marxist than to use the means of a decadent capitalist system to incrementally erode its will and collapse it from within..
Click to expand...
Most definitely, she must be plotting the demise of our whole system of government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay
For different reasons I was shocked that there were so few assassination attempts on Obama, and shocked there were so few assassination attempts on Trump. But now that he's out of office, they are coming out of the woodworks. Wasn't there an 'attempt' that didn't go very far, while he was in office? My poor memory says it was somebody that approached the whitehouse but was apprehended or shot before he entered the building? Or was that Obama that had that happen?
 
Last edited:
Gmoney4WW said:
For different reasons I was shocked that there were so few assassination attempts on Obama, and shocked there were so few assassination attempts on Trump. But now that he's out of office, they are coming out of the woodworks. Wasn't there an 'attempt' that
didn't go very far, while he was in office? My poor memory says it was somebody that approached the whitehouse but was apprehended or shot before he entered the building? Or was that Obama that had that happen?
Click to expand...
maybe the secret service was better the and stopped many that were not made public.
 
Gmoney4WW said:
For different reasons I was shocked that there were so few assassination attempts on Obama, and shocked there were so few assassination attempts on Trump. But now that he's out of office, they are coming out of the woodworks. Wasn't there an 'attempt' that didn't go very far, while he was in office? My poor memory says it was somebody that approached the whitehouse but was apprehended or shot before he entered the building? Or was that Obama that had that happen?
Click to expand...
I think there was a similar one with some crazy guy trying to scale the fence for Obama? And maybe even Bush? I dunno, the crazy white house lawn guys seem to happen every 5-6 years.

There is one thing to consider, and that is the fact that since he left office, he has not had the same level of SS protection.

Presidential candidates still do not get the same level of coverage as sitting presidents do, so he still has less protection than he did while in office. But being a very controversial former president with a very real chance of winning again, he may be a bigger target than most "normal" candidates at this stage and they are having trouble keeping up with the threats with the resources they have.

It doesn't help that Trump is not known for patience or planning ahead, so if he insists on doing things like go playing unscheduled rounds of golf, then the SS has to scramble to secure a giant area with lots of bushes, trees, and cover at a moment's notice. There might always be incidents like this. While president, he might have had enough of a protective force that his golf courses were more full-time secured by SS staff with infrared cameras, command centers, well positioned sentries, etc. Even if they want to extend the full POTUS protection to him again (And I think they probably should if they can), it might not be feasible to provide it to the current sitting POTUS, the VPOTUS/Dem Candidate, and the GOP candidate simultaneously with the manpower they have.
 
Clong83a said:
I think there was a similar one with some crazy guy trying to scale the fence for Obama? And maybe even Bush? I dunno, the crazy white house lawn guys seem to happen every 5-6 years.

There is one thing to consider, and that is the fact that since he left office, he has not had the same level of SS protection.

Presidential candidates still do not get the same level of coverage as sitting presidents do, so he still has less protection than he did while in office. But being a very controversial former president with a very real chance of winning again, he may be a bigger target than most "normal" candidates at this stage and they are having trouble keeping up with the threats with the resources they have.

It doesn't help that Trump is not known for patience or planning ahead, so if he insists on doing things like go playing unscheduled rounds of golf, then the SS has to scramble to secure a giant area with lots of bushes, trees, and cover at a moment's notice. There might always be incidents like this. While president, he might have had enough of a protective force that his golf courses were more full-time secured by SS staff with infrared cameras, command centers, well positioned sentries, etc. Even if they want to extend the full POTUS protection to him again (And I think they probably should if they can), it might not be feasible to provide it to the current sitting POTUS, the VPOTUS/Dem Candidate, and the GOP candidate simultaneously with the manpower they have.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't doubt that another one happens before the election. Even more if he wins. Funny that both attempts did not come from left wing nut 🌰 jobs.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: noble cane
I love conservatives complaining about being called fascists…. And then running ads on YouTube where Trump opens with “Comrade Kamala is dangerous…”
 
astonmartin708 said:
I love conservatives complaining about being called fascists…. And then running ads on YouTube where Trump opens with “Comrade Kamala is dangerous…”
Click to expand...
Politicians have been calling each other dangerous for well over 50 years. Not sure I see anything new here.

Carter’s words during that 1980 face-off, Reagan was “extremely dangerous and belligerent” on nuclear weapons policy, “very dangerous” on Social Security, as well as “heartless” toward "working families"
 
  • Like
Reactions: TulsaRulzOSUdrools
lawpoke87 said:
Politicians have been calling each other dangerous for well over 50 years. Not sure I see anything new here.

Carter’s words during that 1980 face-off, Reagan was “extremely dangerous and belligerent” on nuclear weapons policy, “very dangerous” on Social Security, as well as “heartless” toward "working families"
Click to expand...
It’s not the dangerous that was the problem. It was comparing her to a communist…. Which has been going on since what the 20’s?

But “fascist” is a bridge too far. Lol
 
astonmartin708 said:
It’s not the dangerous that was the problem. It was comparing her to a communist…. Which has been going on since what the 20’s?

But “fascist” is a bridge too far. Lol
Click to expand...
lol. Which is worse in 2024? Being called a

1). Communist
2). Fascist
3). Racist.

How times change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay
Kennedy wants to change his middle name. Scary. Wants to try & make vaccinations illegal?

RF(auchi)K
 
astonmartin708 said:
Well, it only took a few months for the Republican party to start lobbing the states rights argument at civil issues. Looks like the time when they thought America was great was when black kids couldn’t drink from the same water fountain as white kids.

Indiana’s Senator says Interracial Marriage should be left to the states.
Click to expand...
While I appreciate his desire to be consistent on constitutional issues the answer was beyond dumb. I saw where he quickly backtracked his response. Maybe someone told him his VP nominee is in an interracial marriage ?
 
lawpoke87 said:
While I appreciate his desire to be consistent on constitutional issues the answer was beyond dumb. I saw where he quickly backtracked his response. Maybe someone told him his VP nominee is in an interracial marriage ?
Click to expand...
Yeah, he changed his tune right about when his pollster and gubernatorial campaign manager called him having pulled their hair out.

What it really shows is the short-sightedness of the Republican’s states rights argument.

When pressed on less generally controversial issues protected by similar rulings as Roe was they don’t understand or care about the precedent they set.
 
astonmartin708 said:
Yeah, he changed his tune right about when his pollster and gubernatorial campaign manager called him having pulled their hair out.

What it really shows is the short-sightedness of the Republican’s states rights argument.

When pressed on less generally controversial issues protected by similar rulings as Roe was they don’t understand or care about the precedent they set.
Click to expand...
Abortion shouldn’t be a state’s rights issue. Nor should it be a constitutional issue. There needs to be federal law which guarantees access within reasonable limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: astonmartin708
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L

2024 Election prediction/discussion

Replies
522
Views
10K
Crossfire
astonmartin708
astonmartin708
R

If a presidential candidate can’t stand up to public scrutiny, they can’t stand up to our adversaries

Replies
7
Views
914
Crossfire
RIP represalia
R
R

Elon / Trump highlights

Replies
0
Views
676
Crossfire
RIP represalia
R
W

What to Republican's do now?

Replies
10
Views
529
Crossfire
Clong83a
C
goldenhurricane2

Missouri S&T Game Thoughts

Replies
35
Views
1K
Hurricane Alley
TU 1978
TU 1978
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back