Bernie leads Hildawg in NH

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 03:36 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Heritage Foundation might call themselves "non-partisan", but hell if it isn't notoriously far-right and dedicated to trickle-down BS. I'm glad Sanders didn't send his ideas to corporatist shills.

I'm not asking him to have his plans vetted by any specific place.  I said vetted by ANYBODY, preferably a nonpartisan economic expert or center.  

There's nothing to vet, and that's the real issue here.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 03:42 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm not asking him to have his plans vetted by any specific place.  I said vetted by ANYBODY, preferably a nonpartisan economic expert or center.  

There's nothing to vet, and that's the real issue here.  

It doesn't surprise me at all that you put a high value on appeals to authority, given your strong desire to grovel for the wealthy and powerful whenever and however you can. It just isn't all that important to me.

Plus, how does having them vetted by somebody make them more "specific", exactly?

[Benton]

(09-08-2015, 03:04 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'd say it would be prudent to formulate the most important one on their platform.
I also think it should be mandatory for candidates to list people they intend to request be in their cabinet.

I'd love to see that. What most people don't realize is a good chunk of Washington stays the same, depending on party, no matter who gets elected. Cheney, for example, has served on about a half dozen appointments over the years. He bounces back and forth from private sector to some position of advisement. And people wonder how the same things keep happening over and over.

(09-08-2015, 03:08 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, there's no specifics here, or maybe I have a largely different definition of specific.

"I'm going to do X" is not specific.

 

(09-08-2015, 03:16 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Without getting into any kind of pissing match over the details of this proposal, do you believe this is a more specific proposal than the ones I highlighted from Sanders' website?

My tax plan would blow up the tax code and start over. In consultation with some of the top tax experts in the country, including the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and Reagan economist Arthur Laffer, I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. For low-income working families, the plan would retain the earned-income tax credit.


I would also apply this uniform 14.5% business-activity tax on all companies—down from as high as nearly 40% for small businesses and 35% for corporations. This tax would be levied on revenues minus allowable expenses, such as the purchase of parts, computers and office equipment. All capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schedules.

The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? As a senator, I have proposed balanced budgets and I pledge to balance the budget as president.

Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs.

And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts.

The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected. Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%.

No, it's superfluous. The writer just uses more words to make it look like he's explaining it. And most of it is just adjectives to work people up into a froth. Such as:

"And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts." Making you frothy?

"The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected.Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%." Frothy overload here. Rich are bad, and even though this only benefits them, I'm making you think it's benefiting you. Why? Because NO ONE CAN TELL CONGRESS THEY CAN'T PUT IN LOOPHOLES.

"Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs." No numbers, no facts, just some comments made by a partisan pro-business group that normally supports conservative legislation.

"The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? As a senator, I have proposed balanced budgets and I pledge to balance the budget as president." More froth.


Really, the only thing that's meat in this hyperbole sandwich is: "I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. For low-income working families, the plan would retain the earned-income tax credit.

"I would also apply this uniform 14.5% business-activity tax on all companies—down from as high as nearly 40% for small businesses and 35% for corporations. This tax would be levied on revenues minus allowable expenses, such as the purchase of parts, computers and office equipment. All capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schedules."

[Belsnickel]

(09-08-2015, 03:16 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Without getting into any kind of pissing match over the details of this proposal, do you believe this is a more specific proposal than the ones I highlighted from Sanders' website?

My tax plan would blow up the tax code and start over. In consultation with some of the top tax experts in the country, including the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and Reagan economist Arthur Laffer, I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. For low-income working families, the plan would retain the earned-income tax credit.


I would also apply this uniform 14.5% business-activity tax on all companies—down from as high as nearly 40% for small businesses and 35% for corporations. This tax would be levied on revenues minus allowable expenses, such as the purchase of parts, computers and office equipment. All capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schedules.

The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? As a senator, I have proposed balanced budgets and I pledge to balance the budget as president.

Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs.

And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts.

The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected. Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%.

I'm curious who this is from. I think I know, but I'm just curious.

Also, I don't actually want to see this from a candidate. Any information they provide here is crap to me because of the bias in the numbers. For one, estimates are estimates. Looking at scenarios like this in a vacuum do little good. For instance, the estimates that showed a decrease in the budget deficit from the ACA. Estimates for proposals don't mean much. The other part of that, and the reason I don't like seeing stuff like that from candidates is the statistical bias of self-interest. Let an independent, non-partisan organization do their own talking about the numbers and point me to their report. Don't give me your interpretation of it.

When a candidate does what you have displayed here it isn't really any more specific because all you're getting is what the candidate is trying to sell to you. You don't have all of the information and you really don't have any more worthwhile information thank you would if they had just said "I am proposing a flat 14.5% income tax rate for businesses and individuals that will help balance the budget and increase out economic growth."

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 03:52 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: It doesn't surprise me at all that you put a high value on appeals to authority, given your strong desire to grovel for the wealthy and powerful whenever and however you can. It just isn't all that important to me.

Plus, how does having them vetted by somebody make them more "specific", exactly?

Because for starters, you have to have enough details to vet. 

Sanders is doing nothing more than throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks. 

I don't blame him, right or wrong, our political leaders are elected by people that love talking points.  We're basically voting for which one has the best "meme". 

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not going to be voting for anyone with an ® next to their name either. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 04:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm curious who this is from. I think I know, but I'm just curious.

Also, I don't actually want to see this from a candidate. Any information they provide here is crap to me because of the bias in the numbers. For one, estimates are estimates. Looking at scenarios like this in a vacuum do little good. For instance, the estimates that showed a decrease in the budget deficit from the ACA. Estimates for proposals don't mean much. The other part of that, and the reason I don't like seeing stuff like that from candidates is the statistical bias of self-interest. Let an independent, non-partisan organization do their own talking about the numbers and point me to their report. Don't give me your interpretation of it.

When a candidate does what you have displayed here it isn't really any more specific because all you're getting is what the candidate is trying to sell to you. You don't have all of the information and you really don't have any more worthwhile information thank you would if they had just said "I am proposing a flat 14.5% income tax rate for businesses and individuals that will help balance the budget and increase out economic growth."

It was Rand Paul, fwiw. 

I'll admit it's wordly, and it may not be completely specific.  Without arguing the merits of the proposal itself, I will stick to my belief that it's way more specific than anything Sanders has offered up.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 04:08 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: It was Rand Paul, fwiw. 

I'll admit it's wordly, and it may not be completely specific.  Without arguing the merits of the proposal itself, I will stick to my belief that it's way more specific than anything Sanders has offered up.  

But that's the beauty of the word "specific". You can play just the sort of shell game you've been playing with this for days. It's never 100% "specific" until you have a very long bill in which every particular mechanism of the policy is written out in technical legal jargon and voted on.

I stand by exactly what I said about Rand Paul's propsal. It is not more specific; just pumped up with appeals to authority and imaginary numbers.

[fredtoast]

(09-08-2015, 04:12 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: It is not more specific; just pumped up with appeals to authority and imaginary numbers.

Probably the most common political ploy.  Both sides have "foundations" that will say their proposals will grow the economy more than the other sides plan.

 

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 05:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Probably the most common political ploy.  Both sides have "foundations" that will say their proposals will grow the economy more than the other sides plan.

 

Yup. Happens every election. It's actually pretty hilarious, too; their projections on how much revenue some program is going to generate, or how much it will cut the deficit, or how many trillions of jobs it's going to create are absolutely always wrong 100% of the time. I respect Sanders for not puffing his proposals up with some estimates a foundation who likes him invented.

[jakefromstatefarm]

One thing I can't stand (both sides do it) is the 10 year thing. Why is everything suddenly measured in decades?

[Benton]

(09-08-2015, 08:06 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: One thing I can't stand (both sides do it) is the 10 year thing.  Why is everything suddenly measured in decades?

Example?

The census is, but I think that was originally to cut down on expense. Demographics typically didn't change that much back then on a year to year basis.

[Belsnickel]

(09-08-2015, 05:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Probably the most common political ploy.  Both sides have "foundations" that will say their proposals will grow the economy more than the other sides plan.

Yup. It's funny when they call themselves nonpartisan, too. One look at their board says it all.

[Belsnickel]

(09-08-2015, 08:08 PM)Benton Wrote: Example?

The census is, but I think that was originally to cut down on expense. Demographics typically didn't change that much back then on a year to year basis.

The census. That's something I have considered a thread about. Whether we should look at an amendment to allow for sampling to allow for a possibly more accurate representation of the undercounted populations...

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 08:08 PM)Benton Wrote: Example?

The census is, but I think that was originally to cut down on expense. Demographics typically didn't change that much back then on a year to year basis.

"This plan will save taxpayers 300 billion over the next 10 years."

That stuff.  Our budget is done annually, and any cuts or additions should be stated clearly in an annual figure. 

The 10 year stuff is to make it sound like a bigger number, to imply that they're actually doing something worthwhile.  

[Benton]

(09-08-2015, 08:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The census. That's something I have considered a thread about. Whether we should look at an amendment to allow for sampling to allow for a possibly more accurate representation of the undercounted populations...

The problem for a long time has been that the information is only as good as those reporting it. Illegal aliens, criminals, those receiving government aid (whether they are eligible or not), distrustful legal immigrants. Lots of people have reasons not to be up front with information. Census data is good, but, in my opinion, is flawed.

How to fix that, I dunno.

(09-08-2015, 08:13 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: "This plan will save taxpayers 300 billion over the next 10 years."

That stuff.  Our budget is done annually, and any cuts or additions should be stated clearly in an annual figure. 

The 10 year stuff is to make it sound like a bigger number, to imply that they're actually doing something worthwhile.  

Ah, I'm following.

Mostly it's because the year-to-year isn't really a good judge of overall economic strength or weaknesses. That's the problem with stimulus checks and other ploys, they temporarily bump the economy, but long-term they don't provide much growth. For a business, you're looking at forecasts for several years down the road. You aren't adding more employees or buying new equipment, typically, because your profit grew by 5% for eight months. If you're expecting it to grow 5% for 3-4 years, then you might look at adding new workers to keep up.

Another way to look at it is go back to the 80s. Trickle down. It was good in the short term. Investors felt confident, businesses had more money to dump into the economy. The long-term effect has been disastrous, but looking at it in the first 3-5 years after the approach was taken, it looked good.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 11:09 PM)Benton Wrote: Mostly it's because the year-to-year isn't really a good judge of overall economic strength or weaknesses. That's the problem with stimulus checks and other ploys, they temporarily bump the economy, but long-term they don't provide much growth. For a business, you're looking at forecasts for several years down the road. You aren't adding more employees or buying new equipment, typically, because your profit grew by 5% for eight months. If you're expecting it to grow 5% for 3-4 years, then you might look at adding new workers to keep up.

Another way to look at it is go back to the 80s. Trickle down. It was good in the short term. Investors felt confident, businesses had more money to dump into the economy. The long-term effect has been disastrous, but looking at it in the first 3-5 years after the approach was taken, it looked good.

Fair enough. 

It just never made any sense to me, but I suppose that's as plausible explanation for it as any.  

[*bfine32*]

(09-07-2015, 12:26 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: He didn't make light of 9/11 at all, and you're either being obtuse or you're stupid to say so.

He absolutely did make light of the 911 tragedy. Pretty sure everybody but you can see that.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-09-2015, 12:49 AM)bfine32 Wrote: He absolutely did make light of the 911 tragedy. Pretty sure everybody but you can see that.

Pretty sure you're wrong because nobody else is bitching about it but you. :blush:

[*bfine32*]

(09-07-2015, 11:21 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: That was too stupid.

(09-09-2015, 08:06 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Pretty sure you're wrong because nobody else is bitching about it but you. :blush:

Are you still pretty sure?

How many have you seen saying it is deserving of Rep?

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-09-2015, 04:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are you still pretty sure?

How many have you seen saying it is deserving of Rep?

Sure as ever since calling it stupid isn't bitching.

So what? How did you receive the impression that nobody saying it deserves rep is equal to you moaning about how it somehow makes light of 9/11?