For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (1 Viewer)

[SeaDogStat]

Guys, we screwed up bringing Barack into Office. The guy's approval rating says it all, but we were spoonfed this guy by the media and America has changed immensely over these past few years with Barack. But I'm telling you, do everything in your power to ensure the Hilary Clinton is not elected as even the Democratic nominee. Bring up Benghazi over and over.

Imagine the disappointment you have for Barack Obama and multiply it by two. It would be the worst thing that could happen to our country. That's a potential 16 years of liberalism jammed down our throats.

Based upon your track record with sports betting, thanks for assuring Hilary as the next President of the United States...

 

[lod01]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with corporate profitability. There's not even really anything wrong with our overall economic growth if you account for the drag created by gov't cutbacks. The problem is the increasing degree to which corporate and overall economic growth is disconnected from middle class growth and increased opportunity across all socioeconomic segments.
I'm on board with the idea of reworking the corporate tax code, which seems mainly to exist to keep lobbyists busy. I don't think it's currently a drain of any significant measure on our economic growth, however, and reforming it by itself won't help the distribution problems.

WWAoDD?

It's basically outlined in the things that would make me consider voting Republican. Expanding on that a little, I think the most important things for the next century would be:

Education reform, with an emphasis on developing critical thinking and life competency in primary education and making it less costly for individuals to pursue college and advanced degrees

Public investment in R&D, and next generation energy, transportation, and communication infrastructure

Tax and entitlement reform that I mentioned before and I think is critical

I'm on board with this as a start to a third party platform.

We have two parties that are stuck in the last century in terms of their economic approach...

The biggest problem is turning the brainwashed lemmings of both parties. You know when you can't turn one of them. They make the statement, 'You are wasting your vote'.

 

[Scoresman]

Doesn't look like Republicans are doing anything to indicate they care about making the changes they need to be able to relate to the direction the country is heading. Looks like I'll be voting Democrat again as another "keep a crazy republican out of the white house" vote. .

 

[humpback]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with corporate profitability. There's not even really anything wrong with our overall economic growth if you account for the drag created by gov't cutbacks. The problem is the increasing degree to which corporate and overall economic growth is disconnected from middle class growth and increased opportunity across all socioeconomic segments.
I'm on board with the idea of reworking the corporate tax code, which seems mainly to exist to keep lobbyists busy. I don't think it's currently a drain of any significant measure on our economic growth, however, and reforming it by itself won't help the distribution problems.

WWAoDD?

It's basically outlined in the things that would make me consider voting Republican. Expanding on that a little, I think the most important things for the next century would be:

Education reform, with an emphasis on developing critical thinking and life competency in primary education and making it less costly for individuals to pursue college and advanced degrees

Public investment in R&D, and next generation energy, transportation, and communication infrastructure

Tax and entitlement reform that I mentioned before and I think is critical

The problem with "reform" is that it can mean very different things to different people. Some people want to "reform" the tax code by adding brackets, increasing rates on the "greedy rich", and making it more progressive, while others want to do the opposite, etc.

 

[Sand]

Bring up Benghazi over and over.

Yes, this is certain to work.

Benghazi + Middle East mess + Russia + losing track of 6 billion dollars are all points that can be discussed. A very healthy argument can be made that she is a terrible executive. Whether that works, who knows - we have a horrible executive in office now and that didn't seem to matter much to the electorate.

POTUS doesnt matter nearly as much as being able to appoint Supreme Court justices. So dont vote conservative/republican no matter what else you do.

Sadly Antonin doesn't have a twin that could be shoehorned in there.

 

[Sand]

Cannot stand Hillary, but she would have been better than Obama, knowing what we know today. At least she had some experience.

If you look back if it wasn't for Florida and Michigan, who were eager to get in early primaries, having their primary votes revoked by the DNC she would have been president. Amazing to think about what had to happen for Obama to get the nomination in 2008.

 

[Rove!]

Bring up Benghazi over and over.

Yes, this is certain to work.

Benghazi + Middle East mess + Russia + losing track of 6 billion dollars are all points that can be discussed. A very healthy argument can be made that she is a terrible executive. Whether that works, who knows - we have a horrible executive in office now and that didn't seem to matter much to the electorate.

POTUS doesnt matter nearly as much as being able to appoint Supreme Court justices. So dont vote conservative/republican no matter what else you do.

Sadly Antonin doesn't have a twin that could be shoehorned in there.

She is a terrible executive with no tangible accomplishments, whose main talent seems to be getting herself selected for different levels of power. The media will sell it differently, though

 

[lod01]

She is a terrible executive with no tangible accomplishments, whose main talent seems to be getting herself selected for different levels of power. The media will sell it differently, though

You can insert just about everyone's name in gov't into that phrase. That's why they are there. They are failures in the real world. It's far easier to suck ### and climb the ladder when you don't have to produce results.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Cannot stand Hillary, but she would have been better than Obama, knowing what we know today. At least she had some experience.

If you look back if it wasn't for Florida and Michigan, who were eager to get in early primaries, having their primary votes revoked by the DNC she would have been president. Amazing to think about what had to happen for Obama to get the nomination in 2008.

Hillary Clinton won more votes in primaries that Obama. And she won more votes after Super Tuesday, which is pretty unusual. If she had wanted a convention fight she could have had one.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I am very surprised that this thread has not produced the sort of reasoned, intelligent political discourse that the thread title led me to believe I'd find.

 

[NutterButter]

I am very surprised that this thread has not produced the sort of reasoned, intelligent political discourse that the thread title led me to believe I'd find.

What would be the fun in that

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I am very surprised that this thread has not produced the sort of reasoned, intelligent political discourse that the thread title led me to believe I'd find.

What would be the fun in that

Also, makes for a nice preview of the actual election season.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I am very surprised that this thread has not produced the sort of reasoned, intelligent political discourse that the thread title led me to believe I'd find.

What would be the fun in that

Also, makes for a nice preview of the actual election season.

Two solid points.

I for one am excited for millions of cries of BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Doesn't Biden want the gig? Is he too old? Man, I'd love to get a beer at Hooters with that guy.

I think Joltin' Joe will definitely be making an appearance.

There's also going to have to be a wing candidate though, always is.

 

[DocHolliday]

Doesn't Biden want the gig? Is he too old? Man, I'd love to get a beer at Hooters with that guy.

I think Joltin' Joe will definitely be making an appearance.

There's also going to have to be a wing candidate though, always is.

I cannot wait to hear Joe every day. That is going to be endless entertainment.

 

[igbomb]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

 

[timschochet]

Benghazi + Middle East mess + Russia + losing track of 6 billion dollars are all points that can be discussed

Sand, I honestly dispute all of all these points. I don't think that Hillary or Obama or anyone at such a high level is responsible for what happened at Benghazi. It was a tragic occurrence which conspiracy theorists on the right have tried to blow up into a big affair.

As far as the "middle east mess", it's true that we were taken by surprise by Arab Spring, as was the whole world. In a way it's similar to how we were taken by surprise by the fall of the Soviet Empire and Tiennammen Square in 1989-90. I think both Obama and Hillary reacted very well to these situations, and I'm not sure I would have done anything differently.

Not sure how you can blame Hillary for Russia, since she hasn't been Secretary of State since January 1. In any event, I have no complaints about Obama's performance with regard to Russia. I think he's done very well.

I had to Google the 6 billion thing because I had no idea what you were talking about. Sounds like a nothing story to me- typical State Department malfeasance- irritating as hell but not unusual at all- remember how many billions were lost in Iraq? Only an extremely partisan source like the Washington Times would try to tie it to Hillary.

On the whole, I think Hillary Clinton has been an outstanding Secretary of State. I have a few complaints with the direction of the Obama Administration on a few issues with regard to foreign policy (though I mostly approve) but none with regard to her.

 

[timschochet]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

Why?

Let's make this pretty simple: we are currently several trillions of dollars in debt. It is not unsustainable now, but there will be a point in the future where it becomes unsustainable. That point will be when our interest payments on the debt take up so much of our budget that we will not be able to pay for current or future government services, requiring drastic immediate cuts. Nobody wants to see that.

How to solve this problem? We could raise taxes, or we could cut spending. But we can't do either enough- All we can do by either raising taxes or cutting spending is slow the rate of increase and decrease the annual deficit, a little. We can't actually attack the debt itself without severe tax raises or severe spending cuts, either of which would cause lots of pain, neither of which the public will tolerate.

So that leaves only one solution: growing the economy. That's how we dealt with previous debt, such as during World War II: by growing the economy to a point where the debt becomes insignificant. Our debt is currently so high, and growing at such an alarming rate, that I'm not even sure we can do this. But we've got to try. And how else can you grow the economy on a significant basis other than by slashing corporate tax rates and freeing up red tape? If you have another solution that will grow the economy significantly, I'd love to hear it. So long as you understand that this has to be the priority.

 

[Sand]

Benghazi + Middle East mess + Russia + losing track of 6 billion dollars are all points that can be discussed

Sand, I honestly dispute all of all these points. I don't think that Hillary or Obama or anyone at such a high level is responsible for what happened at Benghazi. It was a tragic occurrence which conspiracy theorists on the right have tried to blow up into a big affair.

As far as the "middle east mess", it's true that we were taken by surprise by Arab Spring, as was the whole world. In a way it's similar to how we were taken by surprise by the fall of the Soviet Empire and Tiennammen Square in 1989-90. I think both Obama and Hillary reacted very well to these situations, and I'm not sure I would have done anything differently.

Not sure how you can blame Hillary for Russia, since she hasn't been Secretary of State since January 1. In any event, I have no complaints about Obama's performance with regard to Russia. I think he's done very well.

I had to Google the 6 billion thing because I had no idea what you were talking about. Sounds like a nothing story to me- typical State Department malfeasance- irritating as hell but not unusual at all- remember how many billions were lost in Iraq? Only an extremely partisan source like the Washington Times would try to tie it to Hillary.

On the whole, I think Hillary Clinton has been an outstanding Secretary of State. I have a few complaints with the direction of the Obama Administration on a few issues with regard to foreign policy (though I mostly approve) but none with regard to her.

Six billion. Whether or not it is typical or not is irrelevant. Being audited and losing that amount of money in the last six years is staggering.

As far as middle east issues, our actions with regards to Israel and Egypt have really put us in a hole. You can add in Syria, too. Crossing the line, indeed.

 

[Sand]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

When you lower these types of taxes revenue tends to increase, not decrease. Even Clinton realized this, which is why he lowered the capital gains tax. And it worked.

 

[timschochet]

Benghazi + Middle East mess + Russia + losing track of 6 billion dollars are all points that can be discussed

Sand, I honestly dispute all of all these points. I don't think that Hillary or Obama or anyone at such a high level is responsible for what happened at Benghazi. It was a tragic occurrence which conspiracy theorists on the right have tried to blow up into a big affair.

As far as the "middle east mess", it's true that we were taken by surprise by Arab Spring, as was the whole world. In a way it's similar to how we were taken by surprise by the fall of the Soviet Empire and Tiennammen Square in 1989-90. I think both Obama and Hillary reacted very well to these situations, and I'm not sure I would have done anything differently.

Not sure how you can blame Hillary for Russia, since she hasn't been Secretary of State since January 1. In any event, I have no complaints about Obama's performance with regard to Russia. I think he's done very well.

I had to Google the 6 billion thing because I had no idea what you were talking about. Sounds like a nothing story to me- typical State Department malfeasance- irritating as hell but not unusual at all- remember how many billions were lost in Iraq? Only an extremely partisan source like the Washington Times would try to tie it to Hillary.

On the whole, I think Hillary Clinton has been an outstanding Secretary of State. I have a few complaints with the direction of the Obama Administration on a few issues with regard to foreign policy (though I mostly approve) but none with regard to her.

Six billion. Whether or not it is typical or not is irrelevant. Being audited and losing that amount of money in the last six years is staggering.

As far as middle east issues, our actions with regards to Israel and Egypt have really put us in a hole. You can add in Syria, too. Crossing the line, indeed.

How can you argue that it's irrelevant whether or not it's typical? If it's typical, then Hillary is not responsible. It would have to be atypical to possibly relate it to Hillary (and even then I doubt it.)

 

[Slapdash]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

When you lower these types of taxes revenue tends to increase, not decrease. Even Clinton realized this, which is why he lowered the capital gains tax. And it worked.

If by worked you mean helped concentrate wealth even further.

 

[humpback]

I am very surprised that this thread has not produced the sort of reasoned, intelligent political discourse that the thread title led me to believe I'd find.

What would be the fun in that

Also, makes for a nice preview of the actual election season.

Two solid points.

I for one am excited for millions of cries of BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!

Followed by WAR ON WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Rove!]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

When you lower these types of taxes revenue tends to increase, not decrease. Even Clinton realized this, which is why he lowered the capital gains tax. And it worked.

If by worked you mean helped concentrate wealth even further.

The recession, peak oil etc have all worked to concentrate wealth into the hands of the rich.

Now, they dictate (from their opulent castles) that we are using up too much light in heat ...

 

[tommyGunZ]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

Why?

Let's make this pretty simple: we are currently several trillions of dollars in debt. It is not unsustainable now, but there will be a point in the future where it becomes unsustainable. That point will be when our interest payments on the debt take up so much of our budget that we will not be able to pay for current or future government services, requiring drastic immediate cuts. Nobody wants to see that.

How to solve this problem? We could raise taxes, or we could cut spending. But we can't do either enough- All we can do by either raising taxes or cutting spending is slow the rate of increase and decrease the annual deficit, a little. We can't actually attack the debt itself without severe tax raises or severe spending cuts, either of which would cause lots of pain, neither of which the public will tolerate.

So that leaves only one solution: growing the economy. That's how we dealt with previous debt, such as during World War II: by growing the economy to a point where the debt becomes insignificant. Our debt is currently so high, and growing at such an alarming rate, that I'm not even sure we can do this. But we've got to try. And how else can you grow the economy on a significant basis other than by slashing corporate tax rates and freeing up red tape? If you have another solution that will grow the economy significantly, I'd love to hear it. So long as you understand that this has to be the priority.

So it's taxes and red tape that are holding us back, and not a lack of demand from consumers?

 

[humpback]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

Do you think the trillions of dollars sitting overseas is because our corporate income tax rates are too low?

 

[timschochet]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

Why?

Let's make this pretty simple: we are currently several trillions of dollars in debt. It is not unsustainable now, but there will be a point in the future where it becomes unsustainable. That point will be when our interest payments on the debt take up so much of our budget that we will not be able to pay for current or future government services, requiring drastic immediate cuts. Nobody wants to see that.

How to solve this problem? We could raise taxes, or we could cut spending. But we can't do either enough- All we can do by either raising taxes or cutting spending is slow the rate of increase and decrease the annual deficit, a little. We can't actually attack the debt itself without severe tax raises or severe spending cuts, either of which would cause lots of pain, neither of which the public will tolerate.

So that leaves only one solution: growing the economy. That's how we dealt with previous debt, such as during World War II: by growing the economy to a point where the debt becomes insignificant. Our debt is currently so high, and growing at such an alarming rate, that I'm not even sure we can do this. But we've got to try. And how else can you grow the economy on a significant basis other than by slashing corporate tax rates and freeing up red tape? If you have another solution that will grow the economy significantly, I'd love to hear it. So long as you understand that this has to be the priority.

So it's taxes and red tape that are holding us back, and not a lack of demand from consumers?

It's all 3. But the government cannot create consumer demand. What it can do is set the conditions which will make it easier for private enterprise to create and meet consumer demand. And high tax rates and excessive regulations do little to help that along.

 

[Josie Maran]

Doesn't Biden want the gig? Is he too old? Man, I'd love to get a beer at Hooters with that guy.

I think Joltin' Joe will definitely be making an appearance.

There's also going to have to be a wing candidate though, always is.

I cannot wait to hear Joe every day. That is going to be endless entertainment.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

Well someone should ask President Obama because he keeps pushing back employer mandate limits, penalties and taxes from the ACA better than any gopper could ever hope.

 

[Slapdash]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

Why?

Let's make this pretty simple: we are currently several trillions of dollars in debt. It is not unsustainable now, but there will be a point in the future where it becomes unsustainable. That point will be when our interest payments on the debt take up so much of our budget that we will not be able to pay for current or future government services, requiring drastic immediate cuts. Nobody wants to see that.

How to solve this problem? We could raise taxes, or we could cut spending. But we can't do either enough- All we can do by either raising taxes or cutting spending is slow the rate of increase and decrease the annual deficit, a little. We can't actually attack the debt itself without severe tax raises or severe spending cuts, either of which would cause lots of pain, neither of which the public will tolerate.

So that leaves only one solution: growing the economy. That's how we dealt with previous debt, such as during World War II: by growing the economy to a point where the debt becomes insignificant. Our debt is currently so high, and growing at such an alarming rate, that I'm not even sure we can do this. But we've got to try. And how else can you grow the economy on a significant basis other than by slashing corporate tax rates and freeing up red tape? If you have another solution that will grow the economy significantly, I'd love to hear it. So long as you understand that this has to be the priority.

So it's taxes and red tape that are holding us back, and not a lack of demand from consumers?

It's all 3. But the government cannot create consumer demand. What it can do is set the conditions which will make it easier for private enterprise to create and meet consumer demand. And high tax rates and excessive regulations do little to help that along.

 

[igbomb]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

Why?

Let's make this pretty simple: we are currently several trillions of dollars in debt. It is not unsustainable now, but there will be a point in the future where it becomes unsustainable. That point will be when our interest payments on the debt take up so much of our budget that we will not be able to pay for current or future government services, requiring drastic immediate cuts. Nobody wants to see that.

How to solve this problem? We could raise taxes, or we could cut spending. But we can't do either enough- All we can do by either raising taxes or cutting spending is slow the rate of increase and decrease the annual deficit, a little. We can't actually attack the debt itself without severe tax raises or severe spending cuts, either of which would cause lots of pain, neither of which the public will tolerate.

So that leaves only one solution: growing the economy. That's how we dealt with previous debt, such as during World War II: by growing the economy to a point where the debt becomes insignificant. Our debt is currently so high, and growing at such an alarming rate, that I'm not even sure we can do this. But we've got to try. And how else can you grow the economy on a significant basis other than by slashing corporate tax rates and freeing up red tape? If you have another solution that will grow the economy significantly, I'd love to hear it. So long as you understand that this has to be the priority.

While conservatives today (see earlier post in this very thread) will decry the socialist policies of our current administration, they will also point back to the 50s as some golden age of American capitalism. Growth was abundant, debt was low and everyone was middle class.

Now compare that time to today:

• Federal revenue due to corporate income taxes is dramatically lower and has been on a rather steady decline for 50+ years (while profits are through the roof)
• Federal revenue due to payroll taxes is way up
• Federal revenue due to personal income tax is well up, though the top tax brackets are dramatically reduced, pushing more of the burden on the middle class
• The gap between rich and poor has widened dramatically in the last 30 years
• The effective minimum wage is much lower today
• The amount of government welfare crashed in the 80s as we started to demonize the poor

So we had higher taxes for the rich and corporations, lower effective taxes for middle and lower classes. We had more support for the poor and higher minimum wages. And we had probably the healthiest middle class we've ever seen.

I won't pretend to have all of the answers, but how anyone can possibly believe in 'trickle-down economics' or that lowering corporate tax rates will somehow boost the economy for anyone except the already rich is beyond me. In the last several years alone, we have seen some of the best profits ever yet the unemployment rate barely budges. It doesn't work. It won't work now.

 

[cstu]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

Why?

Let's make this pretty simple: we are currently several trillions of dollars in debt. It is not unsustainable now, but there will be a point in the future where it becomes unsustainable. That point will be when our interest payments on the debt take up so much of our budget that we will not be able to pay for current or future government services, requiring drastic immediate cuts. Nobody wants to see that.

How to solve this problem? We could raise taxes, or we could cut spending. But we can't do either enough- All we can do by either raising taxes or cutting spending is slow the rate of increase and decrease the annual deficit, a little. We can't actually attack the debt itself without severe tax raises or severe spending cuts, either of which would cause lots of pain, neither of which the public will tolerate.

So that leaves only one solution: growing the economy. That's how we dealt with previous debt, such as during World War II: by growing the economy to a point where the debt becomes insignificant. Our debt is currently so high, and growing at such an alarming rate, that I'm not even sure we can do this. But we've got to try. And how else can you grow the economy on a significant basis other than by slashing corporate tax rates and freeing up red tape? If you have another solution that will grow the economy significantly, I'd love to hear it. So long as you understand that this has to be the priority.

So it's taxes and red tape that are holding us back, and not a lack of demand from consumers?

It's all 3. But the government cannot create consumer demand. What it can do is set the conditions which will make it easier for private enterprise to create and meet consumer demand. And high tax rates and excessive regulations do little to help that along.

I'm not against lowering the corporate tax rate but only if corporate tax breaks are cut as well.

 

[timschochet]

I really struggle to fathom how people can still believe that at least a partial answer to our economic difficulties is to reduce corporate income tax rates.

Why?

Let's make this pretty simple: we are currently several trillions of dollars in debt. It is not unsustainable now, but there will be a point in the future where it becomes unsustainable. That point will be when our interest payments on the debt take up so much of our budget that we will not be able to pay for current or future government services, requiring drastic immediate cuts. Nobody wants to see that.

How to solve this problem? We could raise taxes, or we could cut spending. But we can't do either enough- All we can do by either raising taxes or cutting spending is slow the rate of increase and decrease the annual deficit, a little. We can't actually attack the debt itself without severe tax raises or severe spending cuts, either of which would cause lots of pain, neither of which the public will tolerate.

So that leaves only one solution: growing the economy. That's how we dealt with previous debt, such as during World War II: by growing the economy to a point where the debt becomes insignificant. Our debt is currently so high, and growing at such an alarming rate, that I'm not even sure we can do this. But we've got to try. And how else can you grow the economy on a significant basis other than by slashing corporate tax rates and freeing up red tape? If you have another solution that will grow the economy significantly, I'd love to hear it. So long as you understand that this has to be the priority.

So it's taxes and red tape that are holding us back, and not a lack of demand from consumers?

It's all 3. But the government cannot create consumer demand. What it can do is set the conditions which will make it easier for private enterprise to create and meet consumer demand. And high tax rates and excessive regulations do little to help that along.

I'm not against lowering the corporate tax rate but only if corporate tax breaks are cut as well.

That is exactly what I have in mind.

 

[timschochet]

igbomb, I agree with much of what you've written. Personally, I don't hold out the 50s as an example- much of that prosperity was a result of World War II, plus cheap energy. I also won't claim here, as Sand did, that cutting corporate tax rates will produce more revenue. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. We live in a very complicated world, and it's extremely difficult to predict what's going to happen to the economy. So I can't promise you that cutting corporate tax rates will result in more jobs and more revenue. It very well might not, or it might take years to accomplish.

All I can do is make the argument that the more free private enterprise is, the less burdens are placed on it, the greater it will grow. Sometimes it can take a long time, but eventually it will grow if you just free it up.

 

[NutterButter]

igbomb, I agree with much of what you've written. Personally, I don't hold out the 50s as an example- much of that prosperity was a result of World War II, plus cheap energy. I also won't claim here, as Sand did, that cutting corporate tax rates will produce more revenue. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. We live in a very complicated world, and it's extremely difficult to predict what's going to happen to the economy. So I can't promise you that cutting corporate tax rates will result in more jobs and more revenue. It very well might not, or it might take years to accomplish.

All I can do is make the argument that the more free private enterprise is, the less burdens are placed on it, the greater it will grow. Sometimes it can take a long time, but eventually it will grow if you just free it up.

Would you also then suggest greater deregulation?

 

[timschochet]

igbomb, I agree with much of what you've written. Personally, I don't hold out the 50s as an example- much of that prosperity was a result of World War II, plus cheap energy. I also won't claim here, as Sand did, that cutting corporate tax rates will produce more revenue. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. We live in a very complicated world, and it's extremely difficult to predict what's going to happen to the economy. So I can't promise you that cutting corporate tax rates will result in more jobs and more revenue. It very well might not, or it might take years to accomplish.

All I can do is make the argument that the more free private enterprise is, the less burdens are placed on it, the greater it will grow. Sometimes it can take a long time, but eventually it will grow if you just free it up.

Would you also then suggest greater deregulation?

Yes and no. It depends. There is waste and excessive red tape out there, and I want to remove as much of that as possible. But we also have to be careful, and look at the ramifications of everything before we do it.

For instance, we have FDIC for the banks, which is a good thing overall. But so long as we have that, we can't deregulate the banks, because then they can give irresponsible loans all the time knowing the government won't let them fail. On the other hand, we shouldn't be pushing the banks to make loans for political reasons- that's doomed to fail as well, and it has.

We also have environmental concerns, and I am not in favor of simply lifting controls that are designed to protect us. Some maybe, that are excessive. But I'm frankly sick and tired of knee-jerk responses to these issues- conservatives in favor of every sort of deregulation, no matter how dangerous it might be, and liberals in favor of denying ANY deregulation, no matter how onerous to business the current laws may be. We have to be careful and smart, but there ARE regulations we should remove.

 

[NutterButter]

igbomb, I agree with much of what you've written. Personally, I don't hold out the 50s as an example- much of that prosperity was a result of World War II, plus cheap energy. I also won't claim here, as Sand did, that cutting corporate tax rates will produce more revenue. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. We live in a very complicated world, and it's extremely difficult to predict what's going to happen to the economy. So I can't promise you that cutting corporate tax rates will result in more jobs and more revenue. It very well might not, or it might take years to accomplish.

All I can do is make the argument that the more free private enterprise is, the less burdens are placed on it, the greater it will grow. Sometimes it can take a long time, but eventually it will grow if you just free it up.

Would you also then suggest greater deregulation?

Yes and no. It depends. There is waste and excessive red tape out there, and I want to remove as much of that as possible. But we also have to be careful, and look at the ramifications of everything before we do it.

For instance, we have FDIC for the banks, which is a good thing overall. But so long as we have that, we can't deregulate the banks, because then they can give irresponsible loans all the time knowing the government won't let them fail. On the other hand, we shouldn't be pushing the banks to make loans for political reasons- that's doomed to fail as well, and it has.

We also have environmental concerns, and I am not in favor of simply lifting controls that are designed to protect us. Some maybe, that are excessive. But I'm frankly sick and tired of knee-jerk responses to these issues- conservatives in favor of every sort of deregulation, no matter how dangerous it might be, and liberals in favor of denying ANY deregulation, no matter how onerous to business the current laws may be. We have to be careful and smart, but there ARE regulations we should remove.

How about having corporations pay no income tax? If a little tax decrease is a good thing, wouldn't a lot be even better? Or do you see diminishing returns in which case, what's the magical rate?

 

[Todd Andrews]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with corporate profitability. There's not even really anything wrong with our overall economic growth if you account for the drag created by gov't cutbacks. The problem is the increasing degree to which corporate and overall economic growth is disconnected from middle class growth and increased opportunity across all socioeconomic segments.
I'm on board with the idea of reworking the corporate tax code, which seems mainly to exist to keep lobbyists busy. I don't think it's currently a drain of any significant measure on our economic growth, however, and reforming it by itself won't help the distribution problems.

WWAoDD?

It's basically outlined in the things that would make me consider voting Republican. Expanding on that a little, I think the most important things for the next century would be:

Education reform, with an emphasis on developing critical thinking and life competency in primary education and making it less costly for individuals to pursue college and advanced degrees

Public investment in R&D, and next generation energy, transportation, and communication infrastructure

Tax and entitlement reform that I mentioned before and I think is critical

I'm on board with this as a start to a third party platform.

We have two parties that are stuck in the last century in terms of their economic approach...

I'm on board with this as a start to a third party platform.

We have two parties that are stuck in the last century in terms of their economic approach...

 

[timschochet]

igbomb, I agree with much of what you've written. Personally, I don't hold out the 50s as an example- much of that prosperity was a result of World War II, plus cheap energy. I also won't claim here, as Sand did, that cutting corporate tax rates will produce more revenue. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. We live in a very complicated world, and it's extremely difficult to predict what's going to happen to the economy. So I can't promise you that cutting corporate tax rates will result in more jobs and more revenue. It very well might not, or it might take years to accomplish.

All I can do is make the argument that the more free private enterprise is, the less burdens are placed on it, the greater it will grow. Sometimes it can take a long time, but eventually it will grow if you just free it up.

Would you also then suggest greater deregulation?

Yes and no. It depends. There is waste and excessive red tape out there, and I want to remove as much of that as possible. But we also have to be careful, and look at the ramifications of everything before we do it.

For instance, we have FDIC for the banks, which is a good thing overall. But so long as we have that, we can't deregulate the banks, because then they can give irresponsible loans all the time knowing the government won't let them fail. On the other hand, we shouldn't be pushing the banks to make loans for political reasons- that's doomed to fail as well, and it has.

We also have environmental concerns, and I am not in favor of simply lifting controls that are designed to protect us. Some maybe, that are excessive. But I'm frankly sick and tired of knee-jerk responses to these issues- conservatives in favor of every sort of deregulation, no matter how dangerous it might be, and liberals in favor of denying ANY deregulation, no matter how onerous to business the current laws may be. We have to be careful and smart, but there ARE regulations we should remove.

How about having corporations pay no income tax? If a little tax decrease is a good thing, wouldn't a lot be even better? Or do you see diminishing returns in which case, what's the magical rate?

I don't know. There are no simple answers here. I would start by reducing the corporate tax rate down to make it globally competitive.

 

[NutterButter]

igbomb, I agree with much of what you've written. Personally, I don't hold out the 50s as an example- much of that prosperity was a result of World War II, plus cheap energy. I also won't claim here, as Sand did, that cutting corporate tax rates will produce more revenue. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. We live in a very complicated world, and it's extremely difficult to predict what's going to happen to the economy. So I can't promise you that cutting corporate tax rates will result in more jobs and more revenue. It very well might not, or it might take years to accomplish.

All I can do is make the argument that the more free private enterprise is, the less burdens are placed on it, the greater it will grow. Sometimes it can take a long time, but eventually it will grow if you just free it up.

Would you also then suggest greater deregulation?

Yes and no. It depends. There is waste and excessive red tape out there, and I want to remove as much of that as possible. But we also have to be careful, and look at the ramifications of everything before we do it.

For instance, we have FDIC for the banks, which is a good thing overall. But so long as we have that, we can't deregulate the banks, because then they can give irresponsible loans all the time knowing the government won't let them fail. On the other hand, we shouldn't be pushing the banks to make loans for political reasons- that's doomed to fail as well, and it has.

We also have environmental concerns, and I am not in favor of simply lifting controls that are designed to protect us. Some maybe, that are excessive. But I'm frankly sick and tired of knee-jerk responses to these issues- conservatives in favor of every sort of deregulation, no matter how dangerous it might be, and liberals in favor of denying ANY deregulation, no matter how onerous to business the current laws may be. We have to be careful and smart, but there ARE regulations we should remove.

How about having corporations pay no income tax? If a little tax decrease is a good thing, wouldn't a lot be even better? Or do you see diminishing returns in which case, what's the magical rate?

I don't know. There are no simple answers here. I would start by reducing the corporate tax rate down to make it globally competitive.

The real tax rate seems pretty competitive. Let's say you lower the rate and get rid of all the loopholes so that the nominal rate is pretty much in line with the real rate. What's to prevent a lot of the loopholes from coming back into play and pushing that real rate even further down. Its a lot harder to change the nominal rate than it is to introduce loopholes. Politicians seem to use these loopholes like poker chips.

 

[Todd Andrews]

igbomb, I agree with much of what you've written. Personally, I don't hold out the 50s as an example- much of that prosperity was a result of World War II, plus cheap energy. I also won't claim here, as Sand did, that cutting corporate tax rates will produce more revenue. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. We live in a very complicated world, and it's extremely difficult to predict what's going to happen to the economy. So I can't promise you that cutting corporate tax rates will result in more jobs and more revenue. It very well might not, or it might take years to accomplish.

All I can do is make the argument that the more free private enterprise is, the less burdens are placed on it, the greater it will grow. Sometimes it can take a long time, but eventually it will grow if you just free it up.

Would you also then suggest greater deregulation?

Yes and no. It depends. There is waste and excessive red tape out there, and I want to remove as much of that as possible. But we also have to be careful, and look at the ramifications of everything before we do it.

For instance, we have FDIC for the banks, which is a good thing overall. But so long as we have that, we can't deregulate the banks, because then they can give irresponsible loans all the time knowing the government won't let them fail. On the other hand, we shouldn't be pushing the banks to make loans for political reasons- that's doomed to fail as well, and it has.

We also have environmental concerns, and I am not in favor of simply lifting controls that are designed to protect us. Some maybe, that are excessive. But I'm frankly sick and tired of knee-jerk responses to these issues- conservatives in favor of every sort of deregulation, no matter how dangerous it might be, and liberals in favor of denying ANY deregulation, no matter how onerous to business the current laws may be. We have to be careful and smart, but there ARE regulations we should remove.

How about having corporations pay no income tax? If a little tax decrease is a good thing, wouldn't a lot be even better? Or do you see diminishing returns in which case, what's the magical rate?

I don't know. There are no simple answers here. I would start by reducing the corporate tax rate down to make it globally competitive.

As usual, Timscrotch, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The US corporate tax rate is largely irrelevant.

 

[timschochet]

igbomb, I agree with much of what you've written. Personally, I don't hold out the 50s as an example- much of that prosperity was a result of World War II, plus cheap energy. I also won't claim here, as Sand did, that cutting corporate tax rates will produce more revenue. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. We live in a very complicated world, and it's extremely difficult to predict what's going to happen to the economy. So I can't promise you that cutting corporate tax rates will result in more jobs and more revenue. It very well might not, or it might take years to accomplish.

All I can do is make the argument that the more free private enterprise is, the less burdens are placed on it, the greater it will grow. Sometimes it can take a long time, but eventually it will grow if you just free it up.

Would you also then suggest greater deregulation?

Yes and no. It depends. There is waste and excessive red tape out there, and I want to remove as much of that as possible. But we also have to be careful, and look at the ramifications of everything before we do it.

For instance, we have FDIC for the banks, which is a good thing overall. But so long as we have that, we can't deregulate the banks, because then they can give irresponsible loans all the time knowing the government won't let them fail. On the other hand, we shouldn't be pushing the banks to make loans for political reasons- that's doomed to fail as well, and it has.

We also have environmental concerns, and I am not in favor of simply lifting controls that are designed to protect us. Some maybe, that are excessive. But I'm frankly sick and tired of knee-jerk responses to these issues- conservatives in favor of every sort of deregulation, no matter how dangerous it might be, and liberals in favor of denying ANY deregulation, no matter how onerous to business the current laws may be. We have to be careful and smart, but there ARE regulations we should remove.

How about having corporations pay no income tax? If a little tax decrease is a good thing, wouldn't a lot be even better? Or do you see diminishing returns in which case, what's the magical rate?

I don't know. There are no simple answers here. I would start by reducing the corporate tax rate down to make it globally competitive.

As usual, Timscrotch, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The US corporate tax rate is largely irrelevant.

No no no. It's not irrelevant, because it inhibits start up corporations, which is exactly what I want to encourage. The corporations that have been around a long time take advantage of all the neat loopholes that the government provides them because they're so established and well connected. But the newcomer on the block can't do that. That's why you get rid of all the loopholes and decrease the tax rate, and have a level playing field.

So as usual, YOU have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[drummer]

This forum has gone to ####

 

[Todd Andrews]

igbomb, I agree with much of what you've written. Personally, I don't hold out the 50s as an example- much of that prosperity was a result of World War II, plus cheap energy. I also won't claim here, as Sand did, that cutting corporate tax rates will produce more revenue. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. We live in a very complicated world, and it's extremely difficult to predict what's going to happen to the economy. So I can't promise you that cutting corporate tax rates will result in more jobs and more revenue. It very well might not, or it might take years to accomplish.

All I can do is make the argument that the more free private enterprise is, the less burdens are placed on it, the greater it will grow. Sometimes it can take a long time, but eventually it will grow if you just free it up.

Would you also then suggest greater deregulation?

Yes and no. It depends. There is waste and excessive red tape out there, and I want to remove as much of that as possible. But we also have to be careful, and look at the ramifications of everything before we do it.

For instance, we have FDIC for the banks, which is a good thing overall. But so long as we have that, we can't deregulate the banks, because then they can give irresponsible loans all the time knowing the government won't let them fail. On the other hand, we shouldn't be pushing the banks to make loans for political reasons- that's doomed to fail as well, and it has.

We also have environmental concerns, and I am not in favor of simply lifting controls that are designed to protect us. Some maybe, that are excessive. But I'm frankly sick and tired of knee-jerk responses to these issues- conservatives in favor of every sort of deregulation, no matter how dangerous it might be, and liberals in favor of denying ANY deregulation, no matter how onerous to business the current laws may be. We have to be careful and smart, but there ARE regulations we should remove.

How about having corporations pay no income tax? If a little tax decrease is a good thing, wouldn't a lot be even better? Or do you see diminishing returns in which case, what's the magical rate?

I don't know. There are no simple answers here. I would start by reducing the corporate tax rate down to make it globally competitive.

As usual, Timscrotch, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The US corporate tax rate is largely irrelevant.

No no no. It's not irrelevant, because it inhibits start up corporations, which is exactly what I want to encourage. The corporations that have been around a long time take advantage of all the neat loopholes that the government provides them because they're so established and well connected. But the newcomer on the block can't do that. That's why you get rid of all the loopholes and decrease the tax rate, and have a level playing field.

So as usual, YOU have no idea what you are talking about.

You really think a new company cant hire an accountant to help them avoid paying the full corporate tax rate? My god you are silly.

 

[17seconds]

Obama's approval ratings are what, 2%?

According to Gallup he dropped under 50% four years ago and has been in the low/mid 40s since, so you're a little off. Bush was in the 30s for his last 3 years.

 

[rct]

This forum has gone to ####

I would say that it has gone to Eminence.

 

[mr roboto]

igbomb, I agree with much of what you've written. Personally, I don't hold out the 50s as an example- much of that prosperity was a result of World War II, plus cheap energy. I also won't claim here, as Sand did, that cutting corporate tax rates will produce more revenue. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. We live in a very complicated world, and it's extremely difficult to predict what's going to happen to the economy. So I can't promise you that cutting corporate tax rates will result in more jobs and more revenue. It very well might not, or it might take years to accomplish.

All I can do is make the argument that the more free private enterprise is, the less burdens are placed on it, the greater it will grow. Sometimes it can take a long time, but eventually it will grow if you just free it up.

Would you also then suggest greater deregulation?

Yes and no. It depends. There is waste and excessive red tape out there, and I want to remove as much of that as possible. But we also have to be careful, and look at the ramifications of everything before we do it.For instance, we have FDIC for the banks, which is a good thing overall. But so long as we have that, we can't deregulate the banks, because then they can give irresponsible loans all the time knowing the government won't let them fail. On the other hand, we shouldn't be pushing the banks to make loans for political reasons- that's doomed to fail as well, and it has.

We also have environmental concerns, and I am not in favor of simply lifting controls that are designed to protect us. Some maybe, that are excessive. But I'm frankly sick and tired of knee-jerk responses to these issues- conservatives in favor of every sort of deregulation, no matter how dangerous it might be, and liberals in favor of denying ANY deregulation, no matter how onerous to business the current laws may be. We have to be careful and smart, but there ARE regulations we should remove.

How about having corporations pay no income tax? If a little tax decrease is a good thing, wouldn't a lot be even better? Or do you see diminishing returns in which case, what's the magical rate?

I don't know. There are no simple answers here. I would start by reducing the corporate tax rate down to make it globally competitive.

As usual, Timscrotch, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The US corporate tax rate is largely irrelevant.

No no no. It's not irrelevant, because it inhibits start up corporations, which is exactly what I want to encourage. The corporations that have been around a long time take advantage of all the neat loopholes that the government provides them because they're so established and well connected. But the newcomer on the block can't do that. That's why you get rid of all the loopholes and decrease the tax rate, and have a level playing field.So as usual, YOU have no idea what you are talking about.

You really think a new company cant hire an accountant to help them avoid paying the full corporate tax rate? My god you are silly.

To an extent, sure. I'm not so sure a start-up can hide profits off shore like GE though. Isn't a big part of the tax breaks to big corporations based on counting revenue in other countries?

 

[NREC34]

Em could have the govt paying them.

 

[igbomb]

igbomb, I agree with much of what you've written. Personally, I don't hold out the 50s as an example- much of that prosperity was a result of World War II, plus cheap energy. I also won't claim here, as Sand did, that cutting corporate tax rates will produce more revenue. Sometimes that works, sometimes that doesn't. We live in a very complicated world, and it's extremely difficult to predict what's going to happen to the economy. So I can't promise you that cutting corporate tax rates will result in more jobs and more revenue. It very well might not, or it might take years to accomplish.

All I can do is make the argument that the more free private enterprise is, the less burdens are placed on it, the greater it will grow. Sometimes it can take a long time, but eventually it will grow if you just free it up.

In general, I think you could reasonably argue that the less regulation in place, the more growth you'll see.

But i think you would also agree that capitalism is not without it's flaws, and it's a government's role to address them.

For one, capitalism is really bad at dealing with externalities in a timely manner. Things like environmental devastation, natural resource depletion (tragedy of the commons) need to be addressed through regulation as corporations are notoriously bad at reacting.

Second, I think unfettered capitalism leads to high volatility. Some would argue that is ok, but I for one am perfectly fine with sacrificing a level of growth for efficient regulation that mitigates crises. That's a big expectation that isn't always delivered, but it's certainly within a government's purview to try to smooth peaks and valleys.

But third, and to me this is the big one we are stepping in right now, capitalism on its own may generate the highest returns, but it has a nasty habit of putting them all in the hands of the biggest players. I've heard some pundits aghast at the notion of redistributing wealth and I have to laugh, as our tax code has explicitly tried to do just this rather explicitly. One indicator of income distribution is the Gini coefficient. I have a great article bookmarked on another computer that shows that among developed countries, our pre-tax Gini value is right around the median. But, our post-tax Gini is the very worst amongst the sample. So our tax system is the least progressive of developed nations.

So yeah, less regulation means more growth. But that growth tends to be quite concentrated and I think that is a really bad thing. Especially in light of where we stand today.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with your first two points to a certain extent, but I disagree strongly with your third one. In fact it is government interference with the marketplace, and not the marketplace itself, which ends up putting the wealth in the hands of the few. Simply put, every new regulation makes competition harder, and the larger companies which are already established are able to sustain the additional costs, while newer ones and smaller ones are not. Our system of regulation, high corporate tax, and loophole is in essence a form of protection for the big boys and allows them to centralize their wealth and power. If you truly want to redistribute wealth, the ultimate way to do so is by really freeing up the marketplace and allowing the young and hungry to compete against the establishment.