What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (1 Viewer)

Todem said:
This is a product of Today's GOP party which does not represent moderate Republicans. This is the party right now. It is a super pac against Trump yet are runing slime ad's against a guy whop can actually win a monster state (Ohio)

The GOP is in complete disarray.
Click to expand...
I am with you on the GOP being a circus right now. Just odd that this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. 

The Rubio super pac is probably clinging to the last ditch notion that Rubio is the only palatable candidate in the race that can win the general and win a contested brokered nomination convention. If Kasich wins Ohio...and Rubio loses Florida...Rubio is done. 

So...as idiotic as I think it is...there is a method to the madness. But again...this is the work of a super pac for a specific candidate. 

Leave the GOP for all I care. That is fine. Like I said...I just think there are a million other reasons you can cite without "making one up" so to speak.

 
Todem said:
My sister in-law would be dead if not for Medicad. I am shocked at the attitudes of people in my social economic level on helping the sick and poor. Those are the ones who really need it.

What we should focus on is cleaning up the fraud in the system that puts a heavy burden on us the tax payers. Focus on the people who are obviously abusing the system and fix it. But taking away benefits helps no one. It defeats the purpose. Medicad is a life saver for those who truly need it.

I am so sick of the so-called conservatives who think we live in the 1950's still. They have destroyed the Republican party.

Being fiscally responsible and socially conscience is a lost art. WTF is going on in our country? 
Click to expand...
I have no problem with medicaid. And this is a big part of the appeal of Trump. The R had gone too far right with "treat everyone the same" which left some people to die in the streets. Trump takes the good R points but softens them with healthcare because as Trump said people are not going to die in the streets on his watch. Medicaid expansion is what should have been done instead of the boondoggle ponzi scheme that is obamacare. I think if Trump wins he will make a good faith effort to fix medicaid and get it took work as intended.

 
Loan Sharks said:
Yeah it was a real #### show when they got that criminal Gray out of there. That ballot was open to anyone and it was a circus. Mary Kary, Gary Coleman were running, The candidates were junk. Arnold made some tough calls and ticked off about everyone. No one likes it to be their school, hospital or fire department that gets closed because there is no money. 

My thoughts on Arnold was he like a interim coach. Yeah he was a below average coach, but his team was utter trash to start with. It was a no win situation. 
Click to expand...
Like I said before. I never voted for Arnold and I think he was a fraud. 

But, he legitimately tried to put forth a massive slate of reforms. He actually put forth furloughs and hiring freezes....what did the unions do...sue him. 

It is hilarious that someone wants to praise the current governor for favorable economic cycles/market cycles where the stock market tripled under the current governor and the IPO market returned while at the same time ignoring that everybody who supported this governor opposed Arnold at every turn. 

The interim coach analogy is pretty good one.

ETA: Fraud in the sense that he wasn't really a Republican and that he really wasn't a fiscal conservative.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SIDA! said:
I am with you on the GOP being a circus right now. Just odd that this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. 

The Rubio super pac is probably clinging to the last ditch notion that Rubio is the only palatable candidate in the race that can win the general and win a contested brokered nomination convention. If Kasich wins Ohio...and Rubio loses Florida...Rubio is done. 

So...as idiotic as I think it is...there is a method to the madness. But again...this is the work of a super pac for a specific candidate. 

Leave the GOP for all I care. That is fine. Like I said...I just think there are a million other reasons you can cite without "making one up" so to speak.
Click to expand...
I get what Rubio is doing. But he is in complete denial. And if he was so concerned with Trump winning the nominee, he would simply run the ad's against his number one opponent in Trump. Cruz and Kasich are not sniffing anything close to a win in Florida. But I can assure you.....that Rubio running these slime ad's on Kasich makes him look even more like the little ##### we all think he is already. He going to turn people off even more. It is going backfire badly.

 
SIDA! said:
P.S. I am going to let you in on a little secret. It is almost as awesome as your point. The rich...they pay sales taxes, too...a lot of it. 

 
Click to expand...
They do, but (as I'm sure you know) it's not a progressive tax. (As I'm also sure you know) non-progressive taxes like sales taxes hurt those with less wealth much more than they do those with appreciable wealth. So I don't really know what point you're trying to make by bringing up the notion that rich people pay sales taxes too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
They do, but (as I'm sure you know) it's not a progressive tax. So (as I'm also sure you know) non-progressive taxes like sales taxes hurt those with less wealth much more than they do those with appreciable wealth.
Click to expand...
:wall:

Of course...but what does this have to do with the California budget and where money comes from to fund state expenditures?

As but one example....in the third quarter of 2014...the City of Beverly Hills (pop of 35,000) collected slightly more sales tax revenues than the City of San Bernardino (pop of 215,000). San Bernardino is a very poor city...in bankruptcy right now.

The City of Beverly Hills attract high end shoppers...people with money. The City of San Bernardino is the county seat for the county of San Bernardino. In addition to those 215,000 residents that live there. Thousands of county employees work in the city and thousands of people every day come from outside the city to conduct official business there.

So...yeah...poor people pay a disproportionate share of their income in sales tax/gas tax because it is progressive. 

What percentage of the 22% the state collects from sales tax do you think the poor are paying versus the middle and upper classes?

Like I said before...the state is very top heavy with respect to where the income comes from. Thus, when the state goes through a recession it is compounded. Arnold was coming out of the tech bubble of 2000ish and had to go through the housing/market collapse of 2007-08. 

What do you expect the governor to do in that situation?

We haven't even discussed the fact that his Democrat predecessor opened the flood gates for 3% at 50 retirement pensions that were retroactive even though none of the employees paid into it. What do you think happens when tens of thousands of state employees can retire at 50 and still earn 90% plus of their salary in retirement (or more) and it is also cola adjusted?

 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SIDA! said:
:wall:

Of course...but what does this have to do with the California budget and where money comes from to fund state expenditures?

As but one example....in the third quarter of 2014...the City of Beverly Hills (pop of 35,000) collected slightly more sales tax revenues than the City of San Bernardino (pop of 215,000).

The City of Beverly Hills attract high end shoppers...people with money. The City of San Bernardino is the county seat for the county of San Bernardino. In addition to those 215,000 residents that live there. Thousands of county employees work in the city and thousands of people every day come from outside the city to conduct official business there.

So...yeah...poor people pay a disproportionate share of their income in sales tax/gas tax because it is progressive. 

What percentage of the 22% the state collects from sales tax do you think the poor are paying versus the middle and upper classes?

Like I said before...the state is very top heavy with respect to where the income comes from. Thus, when the state goes through a recession it is compounded. Arnold was coming out of the tech bubble of 2000ish and had to go through the housing/market collapse of 2007-08. 

What do you expect the governor to do in that situation?

We haven't even discussed the fact that his Democrat predecessor opened the flood gates for 3% at 50 retirement pensions that were retroactive even though none of the employees paid into it. What do you think happens when tens of thousands of state employees can retire at 50 and still earn 90% plus of their salary in retirement (or more) and it is also cola adjusted?

 
Click to expand...
I guess I don't really understand what point you're trying to make in regard to taxes and state revenue in general. You're not saying anything controversial (or insightful). That said, I would like to see you answer your own question - what proportion of sales taxes collected are paid for by the wealthy vs. the poor. I honestly don't know, so I'd be interested to find out.

Arnold became governor in 2003. The effects of the dot com bubble pop were pretty much dying down, and his entry into office was very close to the start of the huge run up in real estate prior to the housing collapse, the last year of his term was during the beginning of the recovery after the 2007 crash. It wasn't all bad times for him, and he really didn't do much to help, and I think some of the actions he took actually made things worse (like not increasing the vehicle license taxes when he could have) for the CA budget. I don't think Arnold had any business being Governor, frankly, and the state suffered for it. I'd be saying the same thing if he were a Democrat.

Also, I did mention the mess we're in (indeed thanks to Davis) in regard to the pensions we owe. That was a huge #### up. I'd like to see more progress made there by Brown (and he has made an effort), but as you already mentioned, dealing with the unions in this state is nearly impossible. A tough situation for anyone regardless of party at this point.

Regardless, you may debate the reasons, but to say California was better off under Arnold than it has been under Brown seems a pretty clearly erroneous statement. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
I guess I don't really understand what point you're trying to make in regard to taxes and state revenue in general.
Click to expand...
Maybe some day you will realize that the revenue sources the state uses to balance its budget, what percentage they comprise of the actual budget, and how those funds are procured will impact whether or not the state's budget will go through boom and bust cycles.

But, maybe before you figure that out...you can look at a chart of the NASDAQ and the DOW and tell me what you see and what years you see it when it comes to any semblance of a market recovery.

Here is a hint: 

The NASDAQ was down 50% from its highs when Arnold took office. It was still way down from its highs when Brown took office. In fact, it didn't make a new high until mid 2013...about 14 years later. Facebook didn't even do an IPO until March of 2012.

Also...you may not be aware of this...but revenues lag by a year or so.

I can't waste any more time on this. You can have the last word and the readers can decide who they believe knows what the heck they are talking about.

 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SIDA! said:
Maybe some day you will realize that the revenue sources the state uses to balance its budget, what percentage they comprise of the actual budget, and how those funds are procured will impact whether or not the state's budget will go through boom and bust cycles.

But, maybe before you figure that out...you can look at a chart of the NASDAQ and the DOW and tell me what you see and what years you see it when it comes to any semblance of a market recovery.

Here is a hint: 

The NASDAQ was down 50% from its highs when Arnold took office. It was still way down from its highs when Brown took office. In fact, it didn't make a new high until mid 2013...about 14 years later.

Also...you may not be aware of this...but revenues lag by a year or so.

I can't waste any more time on this. You can have the last word and the readers can decide who they believe knows what the heck they are talking about.

 
Click to expand...
NASDAQ was already recovering from the dot com bubble when Arnold took office. It increased 54% from when Arnold took office to when the crash hit. What did he do to help CA during that time? What did the real estate markets do during that time? What did Arnold do to generate and retain revenue during those 4 years? Why are you focusing on the stock market when it was the real estate market that hit new highs during his tenure? You realize the real estate industry was generating a ton of wealth during that period, right? Why no mention of that? It had an impact on the state budget. It wasn't all bad economic times for him. Yeah, sucks for him the market crashed, but he had 4 years of relative prosperity prior to that. What did he do to put CA on good financial footing then?

You seem to only want to tell half the story - his first 4 years in office weren't exactly the great depression. Why didn't we see budget surpluses then, the way we did with Brown after 2 years in office?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
proninja said:
This is a really weird response considering the last post you made in this conversation said that the lower classes pay nothing in taxes. Then this post says it's obvious that the lower class pays something in taxes. And you're up in arms about it. Strange. 
Click to expand...
Do you really think I literally meant the lower class pays nothing in taxes?

In the context of discussing the structural budget issues of the state...the lower class has next to no influence over the annual budget revenues thus the context for the statement.

 

 
proninja said:
One of the neat things about language is that you can use it to express exactly what you mean rather than something entirely different and expect your readers to understand that what you meant is not at all what you said.
Click to expand...
Context is very important as well. If you read what I wrote...it should be pretty plain to see what I was talking about. Maybe you missed it..so I will quote myself.

"But it would go a long ways in explaining why he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the California budget, the process in which a budget is enacted, and the structural factors that influence income revenue the state receives, as well as economic factors at play.

One of the reasons why the state has horrible cyclical budget situations is that we rely heavily on capital gains tax revenues/stock option cashing income revenue/financial market revenues from our wealthy residents (e.g. silicon valley millionaires, etc). When the markets do well, we do well. When they go south...we go south. We overtax our wealthy and our lower classes pay nothing in taxes. Therefore, we get boom and bust cycles."



Language is neat. I am pretty sure though...that we all know that anybody who buys a Big Gulp at the 7/11 or fills up their car at the gas station pays taxes. Did you really need me to make that clear to know what I was talking about?

Or did I really need to preface the obvious by inserting "next to" in that sentence so that it read: "We overtax our wealthy and our lower classes pay next to nothing in taxes"?
 

 
Pretty sure anyone that watches a movie and says to himself "I can't even" then tries to get the movie removed is not an adult nor a conservative.

 
bolzano said:
Rubio v. Kasich

For a few quiet hours  Wednesday, the fate of Gov. John Kasich's presidential campaign seemed to rest in a Harrisburg, Pa., courtroom. By  day's end, Kasich's state campaign might have been rescued by a simple question: Can you still knock someone off the ballot if you showed up too late to complain?

On Feb. 23, the chairman of Pennsylvania Students for Rubio, Nathaniel Rome, filed a challenge to Kasich's ballot petitions, arguing that he clearly had not earned a place for the April 26 primary. Kasich's campaign had filed  2,184 signatures when 2,000 were required -- a red flag for any candidate. Ten years ago, for example, a Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania turned in about 94,000 signatures when 67,070 were required. More than a third of them were found to be flawed, and the candidate was bounced.

Rome's challenge, in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, claimed to see a similar pattern in the Kasich signatures. Perhaps 802 of the Kasich signatures were flawed, argued Rome and his legal counsel -- whose brother chairs Rubio's campaign in Pennsylvania.

"The challenge isn't going to work," said Kasich spokesman Chris Schrimpf. "It is a waste of Rubio's time and effort. He should focus on trying to win his home state."

Yet the March 9 hearing over this challenge threatened to devastate the Kasich campaign. Kasich, who was born in a small western Pennsylvania town, has long seen the March and April swath of rust belt and Midwestern primaries as his ticket to the Republican National Convention. "I can't wait to go to Pennsylvania," he told reporters in Michigan on Tuesday.

Kasich's relatively simple plan for the next week was to perform well in the final debate, hunker down in Ohio, and then win the state as Rubio -- Nathaniel Rome's candidate -- headed to a campaign-ending finish in Florida. A headline about Kasich being taken out of a delegate-rich primary in the state where he was born would have roiled all of that.

The headline never came. Kasich's legal team came to court with a very simple argument. Petitions for the Pennsylvania ballot were due by 5 p.m. on Feb. 16. Had they been turned in one minute later, they would have been invalid. The window for a challenge was seven days. And Rome had turned in his complaint seven days later -- at 5:13 p.m.

"A full seven days is 5 o’clock, seven days later," said Lawrence Otter, the attorney representing Kasich.

Phil Kerpen, a conservative activist who'd been watching the case with a critical eye, quickly tweeted that Rome bungled it.

Even a delay in the decision, past the Florida primary that Rubio is now expected to lose, might have ended the threat to Kasich. After two Wednesday stops in Illinois, where the candidate hopes to replicate the strength he showed in the Detroit suburbs, Kasich got no questions about Pennsylvania but several about where he could win next. He was "surging" in places like the Chicago suburbs, he said, and he would put away Ohio on March 5.

"What makes you think that you're going to do better in Ohio, especially with recent polls showing that you're stalled out?" asked a reporter.

"Yeah, but when did they take it?"  Kasich asked. "You don't want to have a debate about polls. Look: You think I'm stalled out? Come to Ohio and we'll see."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/10/challenge-to-kasichs-ballot-status-may-be-canceled-by-the-clock/
Click to expand...
The Ohio primary is the 15, not the 5th

 
Todem said:
It clearly shows how bad the field is man. The other 3 guys are total clowns and are clearly toxic.

He is the only adult in the room.

But if your all aboard the Trump train....have fun. It is certainly entertaining me in a comedic manner. I crack up at almost every press conference he gives. He really is a funny guy.....like a clown in the circus funny. Joe Pesci should endorse him. And his followers egging him to do this "raise your hand take a pledge of allegiance to Trump" crap? That really took the cake for me. I mean this is lunacy now. He should be pledging his allegiance to the country and the honor of holding the most prestigious office in the world. If (and that is a huge if) he becomes President....we have pissed all over the history of this office putting a clown like Trump into the White House. I am not saying we have not put in bad Presidents before....history is lined with bad Presidents. But this one is obvious and the most un-presidential candidate in our lifetime thus far. I would hope adults with any sense of common sense and just a smidgen of intelligence can see Trump is not fit for this most prestigious and highly honored office. He has zero form.

He comes across like a used car salesman much like Creepy Cruz and Robotic Marco. 

God LMFAO. I can't believe it has gone this far. But then you look at the other clowns in the circus clown car (Rubio and Cruz) and I can see why!!! And look at the state of this country in regards to social media, reality TV......I can see why this is happening. Hopefully the side show that has become the Republican party can be put down and the party can reform and rally 4 years from now. I think this is the final nail in the coffin for the tea party and extreme conservative right. And I can thank Donald Trump for at least showing how bad it has become. He accomplished that important goal. He is destroying this party (and I am fine with that). But this is far enough for me. I can't in good conscience vote in the general election this year.

Clinton? Trump? It's a farce. I hope the 4 years can go by and hopefully whomever wins won't do much damage and the the adults can reset and come forward in the next election cycle. Because I am mortified how bad it has gotten here. It's mind boggling.

But hey who knows.....if The Donald wins and does a good job we can rejoice!!!! But I doubt it. Hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm calling BS.  If Trump is this much of a disgrace, which he is, then you have an obligation to vote for the alternative.  You don't get a pass for sitting on the sidelines as the world burns.  

 
dparker713 said:
I'm calling BS.  If Trump is this much of a disgrace, which he is, then you have an obligation to vote for the alternative.  You don't get a pass for sitting on the sidelines as the world burns.  
Click to expand...
The world is not going burn. And I am not 100% certain I will sit it out. Just venting. 

 
dparker713 said:
I'm calling BS.  If Trump is this much of a disgrace, which he is, then you have an obligation to vote for the alternative.  You don't get a pass for sitting on the sidelines as the world burns.  
Click to expand...
Sorry bub, my vote is not obligated to you. Why are you such a fascist? 

 
SIDA! said:
Context is very important as well. If you read what I wrote...it should be pretty plain to see what I was talking about. Maybe you missed it..so I will quote myself.

"But it would go a long ways in explaining why he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the California budget, the process in which a budget is enacted, and the structural factors that influence income revenue the state receives, as well as economic factors at play.

One of the reasons why the state has horrible cyclical budget situations is that we rely heavily on capital gains tax revenues/stock option cashing income revenue/financial market revenues from our wealthy residents (e.g. silicon valley millionaires, etc). When the markets do well, we do well. When they go south...we go south. We overtax our wealthy and our lower classes pay nothing in taxes. Therefore, we get boom and bust cycles."



Language is neat. I am pretty sure though...that we all know that anybody who buys a Big Gulp at the 7/11 or fills up their car at the gas station pays taxes. Did you really need me to make that clear to know what I was talking about?

Or did I really need to preface the obvious by inserting "next to" in that sentence so that it read: "We overtax our wealthy and our lower classes pay next to nothing in taxes"?
 
Click to expand...
Leaving aside that you don't even realize the fix is to qualify taxes with "income", you do realize that you're suggesting that the means to a more stable budget is to tax the wealthy less and the poor more, right?

 
dparker713 said:
Leaving aside that you don't even realize the fix is to qualify taxes with "income", you do realize that you're suggesting that the means to a more stable budget is to tax the wealthy less and the poor more, right?
Click to expand...
You mean tax the wealthy less and the poor something? 

I suppose. 

How would you stabilize the budgeting? Would you raise taxes on the wealthy even more in an effort to stabilize budget revenues? 

 
The Christie endorsement of Trump was a big deal, because Christie is/was a part of the Republican "establishment", and so added a certain amount of legitimacy to the Trump campaign. Same with Jeff Sessions- Sessions is an extremist, but he's a powerful Senator. 

Carson does little IMO. I suppose it hurts Cruz somewhat. 

 
Righetti said:
That is the problem with Kasich.  Nobody ever pays attention to him.  His kids forget his birthday, his wife goes to dinner with another dude and still he comes home every night and brings home dinner
Click to expand...
And they all have flags on their lapels.  What would it mean if you had, say a smiley face, but no flag on your lapel?  That you hate America?  That you love smiley faces more than America?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And then they talk about climate change and I think about donating money to hillary ####### Clinton just to keep these dip####s out of office. 

 
I really don't understand clinging to the climate change denial stuff at this point. Why is that such an immovable part of the Republican platform? Accepting that it is happening isn't the same thing as agreeing to whatever solutions are forwarded to address it. Accept it and give us a conservative approach to dealing with the problem.

 
SIDA! said:
You mean tax the wealthy less and the poor something? 

I suppose. 

How would you stabilize the budgeting? Would you raise taxes on the wealthy even more in an effort to stabilize budget revenues? 
Click to expand...
That would either require the state to properly budget over multiple years (basically impossible), or for a change in economic policy at the national level that addressed income and wealth inequality.  Unfortunately, this is the price of continually concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer people over decades.

You do also realize that the more wealth a person has, the closer their tax rate approaches the cap gains rate, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
That would either require the state to properly budget over multiple years (basically impossible), or for a change in economic policy at the national level that addressed income and wealth inequality.  Unfortunately, this is the price of continually concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer people over decades.

You do also realize that the more wealth a person has, the closer their tax rate approaches the cap gains rate, right?
Click to expand...
Do you think other states have the same boom/bust cyclical swings like California? If you do, please cite them. If you don't, please articulate why that is so.

 
dparker713 said:
That would either require the state to properly budget over multiple years (basically impossible), or for a change in economic policy at the national level that addressed income and wealth inequality.  Unfortunately, this is the price of continually concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer people over decades.

You do also realize that the more wealth a person has, the closer their tax rate approaches the cap gains rate, right?
Click to expand...
Only if you are making your income by capital gains.  You're equating wealth and income, two different things.  Granted, some of the very well off do make the majority of their income this way.  But not all of the much discussed 1% fall into this criteria, in fact most of those people would not fall into that category.  The people who inherited tens or hundreds of millions, yes that may be the case.  They may make more than the rest of the 1%, but as a percentage of the whole, they are the minority.

All of that said, my main view on it is that if you truly want to tax who the public believes the politicians are speaking about, you have to adjust capital gains rates instead of nominal rates.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lombardi
The Next POTUS - Here are the odds, who is the best bet?
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
6K
Good Posting Judge
Good Posting Judge
cstu
How Donald Trump Exploited the Media's Greed to Win the Nomination
Replies
17
Views
1K
The General
The General
Chadstroma
Meet the atheist who quizzes presidential candidates about their faith
Replies
32
Views
2K
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top